Month: January 2023

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 64

Psalm 64

Dead Sea MSS: No surviving manuscripts.

It is appropriate that Psalm 64 follows 63 in the canonical collection, since it effectively serves as an exposition of the final line (v. 12 [11]) of Ps 63 (cf. the previous study). The characteristic tone of lament, with an emphasis on a prayer for deliverance from the Psalmist’s enemies, is common to many of the Psalms we have studied. The imprecatory elements, calling for a curse/judgment upon the wicked, are also familiar, however uncomfortable they may make us, as Christian readers, today.

Thematically, this Psalm can be divided into two portions, in a manner that is typical of the Psalms we have been studying. The first portion (vv. 2-7a [1-6a]) begins with the lamenting plea, and includes a description of the behavior of the Psalmist’s adversaries (i.e., the wicked). In the second portion (vv. 7b-11 [6b-10]), the emphasis shifts to a call for judgment upon the wicked, with an expectation that YHWH will answer the Psalmist’s prayer.

 The superscription simply marks this as another musical composition (romz+m!) “belonging to David”.

VERSES 2-7a [1-6a]

Verse 2 [1]

“Hear, O Mightiest,
my voice in my complaint:
from dread of (the) hostile (ones),
may you guard my life.”

As noted above, this opening verse establishes the tone of lament for the Psalm, at least in its first portion. It can be read either as a 4-beat (4+4) couplet or a 2-beat (2+2+2+2) quatrain; for a cleaner poetic presentation, and because it seems to fit the syntax somewhat better, I have opted for the latter. The noun j^yc! is a bit difficult to translate with precision; the basic denotation is of a speech (or set of words/thoughts) that a person goes over (repeating/rehearsing). In the context of a prayer-setting, such as this, we should probably understand j^yc! in the sense of a petition, which would also fit the quasi-legal aspect of calling on YHWH (as Judge) to render judgment. For poetic concision, and to add to the dramatic moment, I have translated the word above as “complaint”.

The expression “dread [dj^P^] of (the one) being hostile”, presumably should be understood in terms of the enemy’s fearfulness, and of the danger that the wicked one presents. However, Dahood (I, p. 81f; II, p. 104), both here and in 14:5, would render dj^P^ instead as “pack” (e.g., of wolves), in light of cognate p—d in Ugaritic and Palmyrene paµda. It is an intriguing suggestion, mainly because it provides a far more vivid and specific image of the danger posed by the wicked, requiring protection (vb rx^n`, “guard”) from God.

Verse 3 [2]

“Hide me from (the) council of (those) causing evil,
from (the) conspiring of (those) making trouble”

This couplet establishes the theme of the protection that YHWH provides, and for which the Psalmist prays. The idea of protection is expressed here in terms being “hidden” (vb rt^s*), either in the sense of God covering him (like a shield), or of his being taken away to a safe and secluded location.

There is synonymous parallelism in this couplet, particularly in the two expressions:

    • “council of | (those) causing evil”
    • “conspiring of | (those) making | trouble”.

The nouns dos and hv*g+r! are roughly synonymous, both referring to a gathering of the wicked for an evil purpose. With dos, the emphasis is on plotting in secret, while the root vgr suggests a large or prominent (perhaps even violent) throng of conspirators.

Verse 4 [3]

“they who sharpen as a sword their tongue,
(and) tread (for) their arrows (of) bitter word(s)”

This couplet continues the thought of v. 3, and could have been included with it above.

Here the Psalmist cleverly blends together two aspects of the wicked that are found throughout the Psalms: (1) the threat of physical violence, utilizing military imagery, and (2) harsh and slanderous attacks by speech (with the “tongue”). The tongue, both in its physical shape and the pointedness of one’s speech, rather naturally resembles a sword which the wicked “sharpens” (/n~v*), giving it a pointed edge like a sharp tooth. The second image is a bit more complex, as it involves preparing the bow (by stepping/treading on it, vb Er^D*) for the arrows that one shoots—the ‘arrows’ obviously referring to harsh and wicked words. I have translated the adjective rm* literally as “bitter,” but there is no doubt that the allusion is the bitterness of poison (cf. Gen 49:23; Job 20:14; cp. Job 6:4)—i.e., the words of the wicked are poisoned arrows.

Metrically, after the 3-beat (3+3) couplet of v. 3, here there is essentially a return to the 4-beat meter of v. 2 (cf. above).

Verse 5 [4]

“to shoot in their secret (place) at (the) pure,
suddenly they shoot at him, and do not fear.”

The thought from vv. 3-4 continues here, with this slightly irregular couplet (loosely 3+4). Having prepared their poisoned arrows, the wicked shoot (vb hr*y`) them at the righteous; the adjective <T* literally means “complete” (as a characteristic of the righteous), but for poetic concision I have translated it above as “pure”, which also suggests the idea of “innocence”. There is likely a bit of word play assonance here, between <T* (t¹m) and <a)t=P! (pi¾°œm) in the next line. There is also some conceptual word play involving the root rts (“hide, be hidden”), which was also used in v. 2 (cf. above); in the earlier reference, God is asked to hide the Psalmist (meaning to protect him), but here the wicked are attacking the righteous from their hidden place (rT*s=m!) of ambush.

Verse 6-7a [5-6a]

“They seized for themselves an evil word,
and gave account to hide (deadly) snares,
(and) they say: ‘Who shall see them?’
They search out crooked (thing)s (to) complete.”

These lines are somewhat problematic, and it would be nice if there were surviving portions among the Dead Sea manuscripts to compare with the MT. I treat vv. 6-7a as a unit, a pair of 3-beat couplets. They complete the description of the wicked in the first half of the Psalms.

After the motif of shooting poisoned arrows at the righteous, the wicked here are depicted as laying deadly traps and snares (<yv!q=om). Again there is a play on the idea of something being hidden, only here a different verb (/m^f*) is used. In this instance, the words of the wicked do not represent the weapons they use, but rather it seems to reflect the process by which they work together to lay the traps. They grab firm hold (vb qz~j*) of an “evil word” (the expression ur* rb*D* being parallel with rm* rb*D*, “bitter [i.e. poisonous] word” in v. 4). Then they “count” (i.e., give an account of, or recount) how they have (or intend to) secretly lay these traps, so that no one, least of all the unsuspecting righteous victims, will see them.

In the final line, I read a pair of third person plural verb forms, indicating how the wicked complete (vb <m^T*) what they have planned. The verb <m^T* is related to the adjective <T* (“complete”) used as a characteristic of the righteous in v. 5, the same sort of antithetical (ironic) wordplay the Psalmist employed with the root rts (cf. above).

Verses 7b-11 [6b-10]

Verse 7bc [6bc]

“(The One) searching (all) searches
(the) inner(most part) of man,
and (the) heart (in its) depth.”

I generally follow Dahood (II, pp. 103, 105-6) in treating the remainder of verse 7 as a distinct unit, marking the beginning of the second half of the Psalm. It seems to me fitting, and typical of the conceptual wordplay and irony employed throughout by the Psalmist, that the “searching out” (vb vp^j*) by the wicked would be contrasted by the searching (same verb) of all humankind by YHWH. In this light, I am also inclined to follow Dahood in reading an active (piel) participle (referring to YHWH as the one who searches all things), rather than the passive (pual) participle of the Masoretic pointing.

Metrically, I treat this verse as a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon, which generally matches the 2-beat quatrain that opens the first half (v. 2).

Verse 8 [7]

“And (the) Mightiest shall shoot at them (His) arrow,
(and) suddenly they will be struck!”

The irony continues in this next couplet, as YHWH parallels the action of the wicked, shooting His deadly arrow at them, just as they sought to shoot the righteous with poisoned arrows. The parallelism extends to the use of the adverb <oat=P! (“suddenly”), as in v. 5.

It is possible to read the perfect form of the verb in the second line as a precative perfect, expressing the Psalmist’s wish: “may they be struck suddenly!” This certainly would fit the imprecatory character of vv. 7-11 (cf. below), and I have found numerous instances in previous Psalms where I have read a precative perfect.

Verse 9 [8]

“May He cause them to fall over their own tongue!
Every one seeing them shall fly away”

The MT of the first line would seem to be corrupt, or at least the text was misunderstood, particularly with regard to the initial verb form. One possible solution is offered by Dahood (II, p. 106), reading Wlyv!k=y~ as a third person singular form, with an archaic W– suffix retained, the following Wh– suffix being an example of dativus commodi. Also attractive is the proposal by Michael J. Barré (1996, cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 130), that an instance of the Divine name (hwhy, YHWH), originally present, was partially lost, resulting in a corrupted text. The beginning of the line would have read hwhy lyvkyw, (“YHWH caused [them] to fall”). This is almost certainly the proper meaning.

Again, there is a parallelistic irony, as the wicked trip over their tongues, just as (with their speech) they sought to lay traps for the righteous. Their downfall will be so damaging and ignoble that every one seeing it will “fly (away)” (vb dd^n`). This should probably be understood in relation to the boast of the wicked that “no one shall see” the traps they lay.

Verse 10 [9]

“And all men shall be afraid,
and shall set forth (the) deed(s) of (the) Mightiest
and His work(s) they shall consider.”

As it stands, this is a metrically irregular 2+3+2 tricolon. The first line continues the thought from the last line of v. 9. In their fear (and reverence), they will make known the great things YHWH has done; the verb dg~n` properly denotes putting something “in front” (of someone). They will proceed then to consider the deeds/works of YHWH, paying attention to them (vb lk^c*), implying that human beings, for the most part, had not done this previously.

Verse 11 [10]

“And (the) righteous will be glad in YHWH,
and shall find protection in Him—
let all (the) straight of heart give a shout!”

The Psalm ends with a traditional wisdom-contrast between the (contrasting) fates of the wicked and the righteous. While the wicked will come to an ignoble end, falling to their death/destruction, the righteous will find blessing and security under the protection of YHWH. The verb hs*j*, which occurs frequently in the Psalms (26 times, out of 37 OT occurrences), carries the basic idea of taking refuge, of seeking (and finding) protection. Here, the Psalmist’s expectation is that YHWH will answer his prayer, and so the emphasis should be on the righteous finding protection.

In this light, we should take the prepositional expression hw`hyB^ (“in YHWH”) more or less at face value—that is, the righteous find their safety and protection in God Himself, He is their/our protective shelter and shield. Under God’s protection, the righteous are able to rejoice and give up a shout of praise.

The irregular meter of this verse—loosely, a 3+2+3 tricolon, provides a balance to the 2+3+2 rhythm of verse 10. In this case, however, we may also find a certain theological significance to the chiasm of the verse:

    • the righteous are able to rejoice (line 1)
      • having found protection in YHWH (line 2)
    • the upright of are can give a shout (line 3)

The centrality of the Divine protection, and the importance of placing our trust in God Himself, is clear enough.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

Saturday Series: 2 Corinthians 2:14ff

A key principle of Biblical Criticism, and of a critical approach to Scripture, is that every verse and passage must be examined within the literary and historical context of the book as a whole. This relates specifically to the fields of literary criticism and historical criticism, but to other critical approaches as well. The principle is particularly important when dealing with well-known and popular passages. Some of the grandest and most memorable Scripture verses are precisely those which are most apt to being taken out of context.

In the Saturday Series studies for the first half of 2023, we will be looking at some of these famous passages, which are often cited and referenced altogether out of their literary and historical context. One such verse is 2 Corinthians 3:18, which actually serves as the climax, coming at the very end, of a discourse by Paul, essentially covering most of chapter 3. As grand as the declaration in verse 18 is, to ignore or neglect its place in the chapter 3 discourse, is to miss out on much of its significance.

The discourse that closes with the v. 18 declaration properly spans vv. 6b-18. It has its position within the broader section of 2:14-4:6, which, in turn, comprises a major portion of the literary work covering chapters 1-7. It is best to limit our study here to the first seven chapters, when defining the extent of the literary work (the letter by Paul) that is involved. According to the view of many commentators, 2 Corinthians is, or may be, composed of more than one letter by Paul. Most commonly, the bulk of chapters 1-7 and 10-13, respectively, are regarded as originally distinct and separate letters, written by Paul to the Corinthian churches, which were subsequently combined and edited together. Chapters 8-9 are also considered, by some, to comprise a third letter, and there are even more complicated theories regarding the composition of 2 Corinthians, involving more than three letters.

Following the epistolary prescript (letter opening) in 1:1-2, and exordium (introduction, with blessing/thanksgiving section) in 1:3-11, the body of the letter begins at 1:12. Indeed, verses 12-14 serve as the propositio—that is, the central proposition that Paul will be expounding in his letter, and an expression of his primary purpose (causa) in writing. In verse 12, Paul essentially declares that he (and his fellow ministers, “we”) have conducted themselves in a worthy manner, with an honest and genuine concern for the welfare of the Corinthian congregations. In verses 13-14, he further expresses the wish (and hope) that the Corinthians will fully understand and acknowledge his relationship to them (as an apostle).

The implication, as will become clear throughout the letter, is that there has been a disruption in the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, which Paul seeks to restore. The breach in the relationship has come from the Corinthians’ side, and he writes in order to persuade them to restore things from their side.

What follows in 1:15-2:13 is the narratio, a narration and presentation of the facts of the case. Often in Paul’s letters, this takes the form of an autobiographical narration, related to the events of Paul’s own missionary work. Here, his narration spans certain events, only alluded to, which have contributed to the strained relationship. The summary of the changes to his itinerary (1:15-22), by which Paul put off his planned visit to Corinth, are related to an earlier conflict that took place among the churches. He mentions both a ‘sorrowful visit’ (2:1), as well as a ‘tearful letter’ (2:3-4), and these seem to have been in connection with a specific episode, involving the discipline of a particular believer (vv. 5-11).

Many commentators have identified this episode with the one described in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. While this is possible, it is unlikely that 1 Corinthians itself is the ‘tearful letter’ mentioned by Paul. Moreover, the place of this event within the overall context of Paul’s writing in chapters 1-7 makes more sense if the offense involved a personal attack or insult against Paul himself. This, indeed, is suggested by the careful wording in 2:5, in which Paul makes clear that any sorrow (vb lypéœ) brought to him was really brought to the Community as a whole. That is, by offending against a leading minister, one is actually committing an offense against all of the congregation.

The line of argument used by Paul throughout chapters 1-7 does, in fact, focus upon his status as an apostle (apóstolos), and the special relationship that he has—and should have—as an apostle, with the Corinthian churches.

Another source of conflict appears to be the presence/activity of certain apostolic rivals to Paul at Corinth. He only alludes to these in chapters 1-7, but the nature of the references to them, in context, allows us gain a sense of certain features, and the sort of conflict there may have been between they and Paul—see especially, 2:17; 3:1; 5:12-13a. Probably the same people are the target of Paul’s more pointed polemic in chapters 10-13; if chaps. 1-7 and 10-13 are originally part of the same letter, then we can be certain of the identification.

2 Corinthians 2:14ff

This brings us to Paul’s exposition, the probatio (“proving”) of the proposition, which contains the arguments by which he hopes to persuade the Corinthians. He begins this in 2:14-16, with a statement in the form of a thanksgiving, such as we find in the introductions of a number of Paul’s letters:

“Now to God (be thanks for His) favor, the (One) always leading us in a triumph in the Anointed, and the smell of the knowledge of Him shewing (forth) through us in every place, for a good scent of (the) Anointed we are to God among the (one)s being saved and (also) among the (one)s being destroyed—to the (one), a smell out of death into death, and to the (other), a smell out of life into life.”

Paul makes use of two images here to describe his apostolic ministry. The first, using the verb thriambeúœ, is that of people being led (and shown off) as part of a triumphal procession; while the second involves the spread of a distinctive smell/scent (osm¢¡) through the air. The latter is certainly the dominant image in vv. 14-16, and, for this reason, one should be cautious about reading too much into the first image.

The main question regarding the image of the triumphal procession is: are the people being shown off the victors (i.e. the general’s troops, etc) or the vanquished (captured prisoners, etc)? Commentators have been divided on this point—viz., whether Paul is emphasizing strength and victory or weakness and suffering. Overall, the latter seems more likely, in keeping with Paul’s specific emphases, both here in chapters 1-7, but also in chaps. 10-13. Probably the central idea being stressed is that the apostolic missionaries are led about (by God) from place to place, as people through whom God makes His presence manifest, showing it to all people.

The scent exuded by Christian missionaries is specifically that of Christ, “of the Anointed,” and doubtless there is a play on the idea of fragrant oil or perfume used for anointing (compare the imagery in John 12:3). An apostle—one who is “sent forth” by Christ, as his representative—gives out the aroma of Christ. Clearly, the proclamation of the Gospel is what Paul principally has in mind—the “good message” of Christ, given to us by God.

The Divine aspect of the apostolic ministry is certainly being emphasized in the question Paul poses at the close of verse 16: “And toward [i.e. for] these (thing)s, who (is) fit (to serve)?”. The adjective hikanós is related to the verb hiknéomai, which denotes coming to (and reaching) a certain point. Thus the adjective can refer to someone having a certain level of ability or competence to carry out a task. But who is fit for a ministry that involves life and death, of proclaiming a message (the Gospel) so powerful that it will confirm whether a person lives or dies?

The idea of a person’s fitness for the apostolic ministry leads to the apologetic testimony that follows in verse 17. Paul categorically denies being like those who use the word of God as a way to gain personal profit—the basic sense of the verb kap¢leúœ—and, in this regard, he probably has certain apostolic rivals in mind (see the discussion above). Instead, Paul affirms that he conducts himself with sincerity and integrity, as a true servant and minister of God. All throughout 2 Corinthians, there is an apologetic thrust to his discourse, as he defends his status as a true apostle.

In next week’s study, we will turn to 3:1-6, where Paul makes use of a different image to illustrate his fitness as an apostle.

 

January 27: 2 Corinthians 3:9-11

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note discussed verses 7-8; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 3:9-11

As discussed in the previous note, in 2 Cor 3:7-11, Paul makes use of a series of qal wa-homer arguments—a traditional (Jewish) principle of interpretation, which argues from the lesser to the greater: if something is true in this (lesser) case, then how much more is it to be so regarded in the (greater) case. According to this mode of argument (a fortiori), Paul is working from the basic assumption that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant which God established with Israel at Sinai. The first two arguments (in vv. 7-9) involve the diakoni/a (“service, ministry”), that is, the administration of the covenant—in the case of the old covenant this began with Moses (and Aaron) and continued through the established priesthood and ritual apparatus (Temple, sacrificial offerings, purity regulations, etc), as well as through teaching and tradition. Note the contrast:

    • Vv. 7-8: service/ministry of death [h( diakoni/a tou= qana/tou]
      • service/ministry of the Spirit [h( diakoni/a tou= pneu/mato$]
    • Vers. 9: service/ministry of judgment against [h( diakoni/a th=$ katakri/sew$]
      • service/ministry of justice/righteousness [h( diakoni/a th=$ dikaiosu/nh$]

The characterization of the old covenant as “the ministry of death” is striking; for the uniquely Pauline view on the relationship between the Law, sin and death, read carefully Romans 5-7 (cf. the articles on 5:12-21 and 7:7-25 in the series “Paul’s View of the Law”), and note also in Gal 3:10-14, 19-22; 1 Cor 15:56.

In vv. 7-8 (cf. the previous note), the qal wa-homer argument is:

“If the ministry of death came to be in (such) esteem [do/ca]… how will the ministry of the Spirit not (even) more be in esteem?”

Similarly, in verse 9:

“If (there was) esteem in the ministry of judgment against (us), how (much) more is the ministry of justice/righteousness over (and above this) in esteem?”

I have translated do/ca here as “esteem” (i.e. honor, dignity, grandeur, etc); more commonly it is rendered “glory”. Given the use of the traditional motif of the appearance of Moses’ face, it may be that an emphasis on the visual aspect of do/ca (i.e., “splendor”) would be at least as appropriate.

The noun kata/krisi$ (“judgment against”) is related to the realm of the old covenant which embodies, according to Paul, death. The Law (Torah) brings judgment, and confirms to human beings that they are in bondage to sin (and death). This noun (kata/krisi$) occurs only twice in the New Testament, nor is it used at all in the LXX; apart from this verse, Paul uses it later at 7:3. If this “judgment against” us is a product of the old covenant, the contrasting noun dikaiosu/nh (“right[eous]ness, justice”) is related to the new covenant of the Spirit. The noun dikaiosu/nh is, of course, especially prominent in Paul’s writings, with more than half of the NT occurrences found in the undisputed Pauline letters. This righteousness is “of God” (Rom 1:17; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21, etc), but Paul specifically connects it with the person of Jesus Christ, to whom believers are united through the Spirit. Especially noteworthy is the similar contrast between the Law and the ‘new covenant’ in Christ, expressed by Paul in Rom 10:3-4. In 2 Cor 5:21, the flip side of this relationship is emphasized, by which Paul declares that believers themselves come to be the “righteousness of God” in Christ.

As indicated above, the “glory” of the old covenant was marked by the shining of Moses’ face (in Exod 34:29-35), as Paul describes in v. 7, mentioning both: (a) the stone tablets on which the commands of the Law had been written, and (b) that the Israelites were not able to gaze directly at the glory in Moses’ face. This last detail is implied as the reason that the veil (ka/lumma) was introduced. The superiority of the new covenant is marked by use of the comparative/superlative adverb ma=llon (“more, greater”) and the verb perisseu/w (“to have [in excess] over [and above]”). This is specified even more precisely in verse 10:

“For (indeed) the (thing) having come to be esteemed (now) has been made of no esteem, in this part [i.e. in this respect]—because of the overcasting glory/esteem”

The old covenant came to have glory/esteem (perf. of the verb doca/zw), but now it has come to have no glory/esteem (again, with the perfect of doca/zw). It is hard to imagine a more antinomian statement by Paul—the old covenant, with its written Law, now has no glory. However, he makes clear that this is true only in one respect: because the glory of the new covenant goes so far beyond it (the verb u(perba/llw means to throw or cast something over/beyond, i.e. past a particular distance or measure). This is an important principle for understanding Paul’s apparently negative statements regarding the Law—its binding force has come to an end because of Christ (cf. Rom 10:4). He says much the same thing, in a more personalized context, in Philippians 3:7-11: all that was of value in his prior religious life (under the Law and the old covenant) he now regards as mere rubbish in comparison with Christ. To neglect or ignore this overwhelming Christocentric emphasis leaves the commentator with no hope of properly understanding Paul’s thought.

If there was any doubt that, in his mind, the old covenant has come to an end, he makes this clear in verse 11:

“For if the (thing) being made inactive/ineffective (was) through glory, how (much) more (is) the (thing) remaining in glory?”

As in verse 7 (cf. again the discussion in the previous note),  the key verb here is katarge/w, literally to “make (something) cease working”, i.e. render inactive, ineffective, often in the technical (legal) sense of “nullify, invalidate, make void”, etc. It will be used again in vv. 13-14; for its use by Paul elsewhere (with regard to the Law), see Rom 3:31; 4:14; 7:2, 6; Gal 3:17; 5:4, 11; and also Eph 2:15. The second verb is me/nw, “remain (in place), abide”. The contrast is clear enough: the old covenant ceases to be in effect, the new covenant remains and lasts; one is temporary, the other permanent. There is also an interesting distinction in the use of prepositions:

    • the old covenant was (or came) through glory [dia\ do/ch$]
    • the new covenant is (and remains) in glory [e)n do/ch|]

The precise meaning of dia/ is uncertain; it could be instrumental (“by means of glory, accompanied by glory”), or could indicate purpose (“because of glory”). Both are possible, but the context of verse 10 suggests the latter—if so, then the idea might be that the glory of the old covenant is ultimately fulfilled in the glory of the new. This will be discussed further when we turn to examine verses 12-18, beginning in the next note.

It is important to keep in mind the primary and contextual basis of this contrast between the old and new covenants—it is based upon the reality that the new covenant is manifest through the presence and power of the Spirit. Paul established this contrast in verse 3 (and again in verse 6), and it is reflective of a spiritualistic dualism that runs through his thought, and is certainly expressed, as such, in this passage. In what remains of the discourse, in verses 12-18, Paul expresses this spiritual principle through the interpretation (and application) of the Scriptural tradition in Exodus 34:29-35. It is to this interpretation that we turn in our next note.

January 26: 2 Corinthians 3:7-8

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note discussed verse 6; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 3:7-11

The declaration in verse 6b (discussed in the previous note) provides the springboard for the discourse that follows in verses 7-18. Paul embarks on an exposition, much in the Rabbinic style, drawing upon traditions associated with a specific Scripture passage (Exodus 34:29-35). This is typical of the early Christian use of Scripture, in a homiletic and expository setting, to support and confirm the truth of the Gospel. In this instance, Paul adopts this approach to expound upon his view of the apostolic ministry.

However, it is not at all clear just why Paul embarks on this expository discourse at this point. He could have made his point by following verse 6a with what he says in 4:1ff, without suffering any loss to his basic line of argument. What, then, prompted him to branch off onto the discourse of vv. 7-18? This will be considered further as we proceed with our exegesis.

Verses 7-8

“Now if the ministry of death in letters engraved on stones came to be in (such) esteem [do/ca], so as (for) the sons of Yisrael not to be able to (look) straining at the face of Moshe, through the splendor of his face th(at is) being made inactive [katargoume/nhn], how shall not (all the) more the ministry of the Spirit be in esteem [do/ca]?”

Verses 7-8 clearly develop the contrastive juxtaposition of old vs new covenant from v. 6—represented by the contrast of “letter” vs Spirit—including the additional contrast from v. 6b, of the “letter” that kills, and the Spirit that makes alive. Both points of contrast are combined here, with the complex expression “the service of death in letters having been engraved on stones. ” The idea of letters written on stone comes from the initial contrast in verse 3, establishing a contrastive dualism that runs through the entire discourse.

These verses also introduce two key elements of the discourse: (1) the verb katarge/w, and (2) the tradition of Moses’ face from Exod 34:29-35.

The verb katarge/w literally means “make (something) cease working”, i.e. render inactive, ineffective, often in the technical (legal) sense of “nullify, invalidate, make void”, etc. I have translated it above as “make inactive,” but “make ineffective” might be more appropriate. This word is something of a special Pauline term; of the 27 NT occurrences, all but two are in the Pauline letters, being concentrated in the letters of 1 Corinthians (9), 2 Corinthians (4), Galatians (3) and Romans (6). All 4 occurrences in 2 Corinthians are in the passage we are considering (here in v. 7 and again in vv. 11, 13-14). Paul uses it here in reference to the idea of the annulment (and/or replacement) of the old covenant (and the Torah). For its use by Paul elsewhere with regard to the Law, see Rom 3:31; 4:14; 7:2, 6; Gal 3:17; 5:4, 11; and also Eph 2:15.

In this section, Paul also takes a midrashic interpretive approach to Exodus 34:29-35, which describes Moses’ return from Mount Sinai carrying the two tablets of the Covenant. In v. 29-30 it is narrated that the skin of Moses’ face shone with an aura, indicating that he had been in the presence of God and that YHWH had spoken with him. Once Moses communicated to the people what had been revealed to him, he put a veil or curtain/covering (hw#s=m^, LXX ka/lumma) over his face (v. 33); this was repeated each time Moses received communication in the presence of YHWH (vv. 34-35). I will be discussing Paul’s use of this tradition in more detail in my Saturday Series studies on 2 Corinthians 3.

Paul draws upon this narrative and uses it as a way to compare and contrast the old and new covenants, centered on the idea of “glory” (do/ca). In Greek, the word do/ca has the basic meaning of “what one thinks” about something, how it is considered or regarded, often in the (positive) sense of “reputation, renown, honor, esteem, dignity”, etc. It can also carry the more objective meaning “appearance”, including various visual phenomena, especially involving light, brightness, and so forth. It can be applied to God in both primary senses—(1) as the esteem and honor which is (to be) accorded to him, and (2) the brightness and visual phenomena which is manifested by his presence. Do/ca is frequently used to render dobK* (lit. “weight,” i.e., worth, value, and figuratively as “honor, esteem,” etc) in Hebrew, a word which has a similar semantic range, especially when associated with YHWH. I have translated it above as “esteem,” though the visual aspect of “splendor” would be just as appropriate, especially in the Scriptural context of the appearance of Moses’ face; typically the translation “glory” is used.

In 2 Cor 3:7-11, Paul makes use of a series of qal wa-homer arguments—a traditional (Jewish) principle of interpretation, which argues from the lesser to the greater: if something is true in this (lesser) case, then how much more is it to be so regarded in the (greater) case. According to this mode of argument (a fortiori), Paul is working from the basic assumption that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant which God established with Israel at Sinai.  This will be discussed further in the next daily note.

Of special significance is the the way that Paul summarizes the entirety of the Sinaitic covenant—the old covenant—by the term “death” (qa/nato$). This stems from the wording in v. 6b, with his statement that the “letter” kills, but it also functions as a shorthand for Paul’s distinctive, complex (and controversial) view regarding the nature and purpose of the Torah. This was discussed briefly in the previous note, and will be mentioned again as we continue through the passage; for a detailed study on the subject, consult my series on “Paul’s View of the Law”. On the relationship between the Law, sin, and death in Paul’s thought, read carefully Romans 5-7 (cf. the articles on 5:12-21 and 7:7-25), and note also in Gal 3:10-14, 19-22; 1 Cor 15:56.

Death, of course, being antithetical and opposed to life, means that, by implication, the old covenant (and the Torah) are essentially opposed to the Spirit. The consequences of this line of logic are startling, especially when we consider Paul’s statement in Romans 7:14 that the Law (that is, the Torah of the old covenant) is spiritual (pneumatiko/$). We will have occasion to give further consideration to this antithetical juxtaposition of the new covenant (of the Spirit) and the old covenant as we continue through this series of notes.

January 25: 2 Corinthians 3:6

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note discussed verses 4-6a; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 3:6

 Verse 6a was considered briefly in the previous note, as part of the discussion on vv. 4-5; indeed, v. 6a represents the second part of a statement that begins with verse 5, and should be presented as a single sentence:

“Not that from ourselves are we fit to count anything as (coming) out of ourselves, but (rather) our fitness (to serve comes) out of God, who indeed (has) made us fit (to be) servants of a new diaqh/kh, not of (the) letter, but of (the) Spirit”

Paul describes the (true) apostle as a servant (dia/kono$) of a “new covenant” (kainh/ diaqh/kh). The noun diaqh/kh literally means something “set/put through,” the action being expressed in English idiom as “putting (things) in order”, and can refer to a (last) will or testament, but also to any number of other kinds of agreements or arrangements made between parties. The word is used to translate Hebrew tyr!B=, which denotes a binding agreement, and is typically translated in English as “covenant”.

The idea of a “new covenant” between God and His people is part of a line of Prophetic tradition, from the exilic and post-exilic periods, expressed most clearly in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The concept developed in Jewish tradition, so that, by the 1st century B.C./A.D., the Qumran Community could use it as a self-designation, referring to themselves as the faithful ones of the end-time (cf. CD 6:19; 18:21; 19:33f; 20:12). Early Christians more or less adopted the concept in the same way, though with the distinctive and special connection to the person of Jesus. The Gospel tradition of Jesus’ words at the ‘Last Supper’ (Mark 14:24 par) certainly were highly influential on early Christian thought; Paul cites this tradition in 1 Cor 11:25, but never uses the actual expression “new covenant” elsewhere in his letters, apart from the passage here. Indeed, the expression only rarely occurs elsewhere in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:8; 9:15; cf. 12:24).

Paul is beginning to develop the dualistic contrast established in verse 3 (cf. the discussion in the prior note), now contrasting the old and new covenants, in terms of “the written (word/letter) [to\ gra/mma]” and “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma]”. See how this contrast in made, twice, in vv. 1-3 and 4-6:

    • Commendatory letters for apostles—believers under their ministry
      • written in the heart
        • contrast with being written in tablets of stone (v. 3)
    • Confidence for apostles before God—ministers of a new covenant
      • of the Spirit
        • contrast with the written word (v. 6)

When examining verses 7-11, it will be necessary to consider just why Paul makes this connection here between his apostolic ministry and the old covenant established with Israel. For the time being, we should focus upon the formulation in verse 6, where, after identifying himself (and his colleagues) as “servants/ministers of a new covenant“, Paul adds:

“…not of (the) written (word), but of (the) Spirit; for the written (word) kills off, but the Spirit makes alive“

The portion in bold represents verse 6b, a striking (and somewhat unexpected) addition to the statement made in vv. 5-6a. It is unexpected because nothing up to this point in the letter prepares us for it, but also because the main point Paul is making would come through just fine if he had followed v. 6a with 4:1ff. At first glance, not only v. 6b, but the entire discourse in vv. 7-18, seems unnecessary to his line of argument. In the next note, we will consider what may have prompted Paul to branch off onto this discourse.

To someone unfamiliar with Galatians and Romans, verse 6 would be a most surprising declaration, especially his statement that the “written (word) kills” —that is, the Law, specifically in its written form, brings death. Paul explains and expounds this idea in Romans 5-7 (note, in particular, Rom 7:7ff); even so, it must have been rather shocking to believers at the time—as it still is for many today. For the particular identification of the Law with the written word (gra/mma), see Rom 2:27, 29; 7:6, and note also Col 2:14. In Rom 2:27-29 and 7:6 there is the same contrast between the Spirit and the written word.

How are we to understand this stark distinction between the written word and the Spirit? On the surface, it would seem to raise question as to the authority and role of Scripture itself. But one must be cautious about proceeding in this direction; Paul is referring primarily to the written record of the Law (in the Pentateuch), which is also, secondarily, expounded and declared in the Prophets (and Psalms)—this accords squarely with Jewish and early Christian tradition. It is noteworthy how rarely Paul cites the Old Testament Scriptures for the purpose of instruction; his usage is limited mainly to (prophetic) support of the Gospel—and his particular exposition and application of the Gospel.I have discussed the subject in recent studies on the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura in the “Reformation Fridays” feature on this site.

To this must be added Paul’s remarkable teaching regarding the fundamental purpose of the Law—which is to bring knowledge and awareness of sin (Rom 3:20); that is to say, it makes fully manifest the reality that human beings are enslaved under the power of sin (Gal 3:19ff, also Rom 7:7ff). Without a recognition of God’s saving work in Christ, even those scrupulously observing the commands of the Law (and studying Scripture) remain fully in bondage under sin. In this sense, the Law leads to death, not life (Rom 7:9-11ff). This Paul will explain again in more detail, continuing with verses 7-11, which I will discuss in the next daily note.

January 24: 2 Corinthians 3:4-6a

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note discussed verses 2-3; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 3:4-6a

“And such (is the) assurance we hold through the Anointed toward God.” (v. 4)

The conjunction de/ relates verse 4 to vv. 1-3 (see the discussion in the previous note). Thus, when he speaks of “such assurance” (pepoi/qhsi$ toiau/th$), Paul is referring to the commendatory ‘letters’ he and his fellow missionaries possess, written upon their hearts by the Spirit of God. Indeed, it is a letter sent out (e)pistolh/) that belongs to Jesus Christ himself. Paul carries this ‘letter’ wherever he goes, as an apostolic missionary, a servant of Christ.

The noun pepoi/qhsi$, derived from the perfect form of the verb pei/qw (“persuade”), occurs only in Paul’s letters in the New Testament, including three more times in 2 Corinthians—1:15; 8:22; 10:2; also Phil 3:4 and Eph 3:12. The verb can carry the more general sense of “trust, rely (upon),” and the noun essentially denotes “assurance, confidence”. The polemic (and apologetic) use of the noun in 10:2 is significant, since it relates to Paul’s status as an apostle, in which he defends himself against claims that he has been “walking according to the flesh”. Instead, Paul has confidence that he has conducted himself in a manner worthy of a true apostle. A similar association with the “flesh” (sa/rc) in Philippians 3:4 would seem to confirm that Paul’s apostolic rivals at Corinth (or those who were influencing the Corinthian believers) were Jewish Christians (cf. 11:22). The polemic in chapters 10-13 is in many ways similar to that of Galatians, and this may help to explain why Paul suddenly embarks on the discourse in 3:6b-18.

As a true apostle, Paul’s assurance/confidence is “toward God” (pro\$ to\n qeo/n); he holds this assurance, not through his own merit, but “through the Anointed” (dia\ xristou=). It was Christ who commissioned and “sent forth” (root meaning of the verb a)poste/llw) Paul as an apostle, equipping him to communicate the Gospel by the presence and power of the Spirit. Believers who responded to the Gospel came to possess the same Spirit, uniting them with Paul; indeed, Paul’s status as a founding apostolic missionary gives a special aspect to that spiritual bond. This is the point he makes in vv. 2-3, and underlies the entire argument of chapters 1-7.

“Not that from ourselves are we fit to count anything as (coming) out of ourselves, but (rather) our fitness (to serve comes) out of God…” (v. 5)

Paul makes clear a point elucidated above—namely, that the assurance he holds as a true apostle (before God) come through Christ, which means that ultimately God Himself is the source. The key term here in verse 5 is the adjective i(kano/$, from the verb i(kne/omai, which essentially means “come to a (particular) place (or point).” It can be used in the general sense of “reaching the proper point,” e.g., in one’s ability, or when something should be done, etc.

The adjective i(kano/$ is common in the Gospels and Acts, but rare in the rest of the New Testament—occurring just six times, but all in the Pauline letters, five of which are in 1 and 2 Corinthians (1 Cor 11:30; 15:9; 2 Cor 2:6, 16). The earlier occurrence in 2:16 is most relevant, since it relates specifically to the question of who is “fit” (or “competent,” “worthy”) to be an apostle, communicating the Gospel message that leads to life (for those who accept it) and death (for those who do not). Here, Paul essentially answers his earlier question: the true apostle is not fit/worthy of the position through his/her own abilities, etc, but through the power of God’s Spirit.

The related noun i(kano/th$ (“fitness, worthiness, ability”) occurs nowhere else in either the New Testament or LXX. It represents an abstraction of the fundamental idea conveyed by the adjective, the noun being more appropriate to indicate something that is given to the believer from God.

Paul’s statement continues in verse 6:

“…who indeed (has) made us fit (to be) servants of a new diaqh/kh, not of (the) letter, but of (the) Spirit”

The verb translated “made fit” is i(kano/w, related of course to the adjective i(kano/$ and noun i(kano/th$ in v. 4. How was Paul “made fit” by God? It can only be through the Spirit given to him, from which he was specially gifted to proclaim the Gospel and function as an apostolic missionary. Only a Spirit-gifted minister could serve to administer a “new covenant,” based on the Spirit.

Here, then, Paul is beginning to develop the dualism introduced in verse 3, contrasting the “letter” with the Spirit. As I noted, this is fundamental to the spiritualism of Paul. For this reason, it is necessary to discuss verse 6 in a bit more detail, which we will do in the next daily note.

January 23: 2 Corinthians 3:2-3

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 3:1-6

Verses 2-3

“You are our (letter) sent out, having been written on our hearts—being known, and being known again (through reading), by all men, being made to shine (forth) that you are (the letter) of (the) Anointed sent out, (hav)ing been served under [i.e. by] us—having been written, not with black (ink), but with (the) Spirit of (the) living God, (and) not on (the) flat surfaces of stones, but on (the) flat surfaces of fleshy hearts.”

Paul prepares the way for his 2 Corinthinans 3 discourse with this statement in verses 2-3. It is a relatively complex sentence, as the translation above indicates, and the syntax of which I outline below.

The theme in verse 1-6 involves “letters of commendation”; the word sustatiko/$ is derived from suni/sthmi/sunista/w (“stand [together] with”), in the sense of placing things together (and presenting them) in front of someone. As a technical term, it came to be applied to letters a person carried, introducing him/her to another group or in a place where he/she was not known. In the ancient world, which lacked modern-day high-speed communication, such practice was necessary to establish a person’s identity and credentials; it also could serve as a source of authority and legitimacy.

Naturally enough, the more impressive or prestigious the letter of recommendation, the more influence it provided; even today, the right letter of recommendation still carries tremendous weight for prospective employers, and so forth. It is possible that Paul’s opponents included visiting “apostles” who possessed such letters and credentials.

In vv. 1-6, he argues that neither he nor his colleagues require written letters recommending them to the believers of Corinth (v. 1), since they are already well known—that is to say, this written authentication is already there in the hearts of the believers, having been written by the very Spirit of God (v. 3). He is referring primarily to the work of preaching the Gospel, which the Corinthian believers accepted; as a result they themselves become “the epistle of Christ”, under the service/ministry of Paul and his fellow missionaries.

It is important to understand the reference to the Spirit in verse 3 within the context of vv. 1-6 as a whole. Let us begin, in particular, with the immediate context of the sentence in vv. 2-3. I would outline the syntax of this sentence as follows:

    • “You are our e)pistolh/
      • having been written [e)ggegramme/nh] on our hearts
        • being known [ginwskome/nh]
          and being known again [a)naginwsokme/nh]
          by all men
        • being made to shine forth [fanerou/menoi]
          • that you are the e)pistolh/ of Christ
            having been administered by us
      • having been written [e)ggegramme/nh]
        • not with black ink,
          but with the Spirit of the living God
        • not on tablets of stone,
          but on tablets of fleshy hearts.”

The structure is governed by repeated use of passive participles, modifying the subject u(mei$ (“you” [plural]) and the corresponding predicate noun of the main declaration, e)pistolh/ (singular). The passive participles here (for the most part) agree with the noun e)pistolh/ (feminine singular), which designates a letter “sent upon [i.e. to]” (vb e)piste/llw) someone. Often, this noun is simply transliterated in English as “epistle” (epistol¢¡).

At the first level, the two main modifying participles are the two occurrences of e)ggegramme/nh (perfect passive particple of the verb gra/fw, “write”), which characterizes the letter (e)pistolh/), naturally enough, as “having been written”. The first participial clause is: “having been written on our hearts” (e)ggegramme/nh e)n tai=$ kardi/ai$ h(mw=n). The parallel in the second participial clause is: “having been written…on tablets of hearts of flesh” (e)ggegramme/nh…e)n pla/cin kardi/ai$ sarki/nai$).

In between these two clauses, at a secondary (subordinate) level, the subject is further modified by the passive participles:

    • ginwskome/nh (“being known”)
      / a)naginwskome/nh (“being known again”)
    • fanerou/menoi (“being made to shine forth”)

What has been written is “made known” (ginw/skw); the compound verb a)naginw/skw (“made known again”) is added by Paul to convey the idea of something being made known by reading. The verb a)naginw/skw essentially means “read” —that is, to know something again, by reading it (and re-reading it) in written form. People everywhere are able to ‘read’ the letter, as Paul and his fellow missionaries travel about, since the ‘letter’ is written in their hearts.

What has been written is further made to “shine forth” (fanero/w)—that is, its meaning and significance is made known. It becomes apparent to everyone who ‘reads’ this ‘letter’ that Paul and his fellow missionaries are simply servants administering (i.e., carrying/transmitting) the letter. In fact, the letter belongs to their master, Jesus Christ—it is an e)pistolh\ Xristou=, a letter “of (the) Anointed (One)”.

This brings us to the second (and final) participial clause, involving the main participle e)ggegramme/nh (“having been written”). Here, Paul expounds the relatively simple idea of a letter “written on the heart” by way of a dualistic contrast:

    • “not with black (ink)” (ou) mela/ni)
    • “but with (the) Spirit…” (a)lla\ pneu=mati…)

A normal physical/material letter (written with ink on paper, etc) is contrasted with a spiritual letter. This basic contrast reflects the essential spiritualism of Paul, and we gain a rather clear sense of its power and place in his thought by the way that he so quickly leaps to the profound and inspired (in every sense) discourse that follows in the remainder of chapter 3.

The full expression “…(the) Spirit of (the) living God” requires comment. The language is rooted in Old Testament tradition (e.g., Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kings 19:4, 6; Psalm 42:3; 84:3; Isa 37:4, 17; Hos 2:1 [1:10]), as rendered in the Greek of the LXX, and occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, either with the definite articles (Matt 16:16; 26:63; Rev 15:7) or without (Acts 14:15; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; Rev 7:2). For other occurrences in the Pauline letters, see 1 Thess 1:9; 2 Cor 6:16; Rom 9:26; and also 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10. Cf. Furnish, p. 182.

Paul’s use of the expression has particular significance here, as he is emphasizing two important aspects of the Spirit: (1) it is the Spirit of God, and (2) it is living (and life-giving). The first point may be obvious, but it reflects a fundamental premise of Christian spiritualism that is often overlooked: by possessing the Holy Spirit, believers in Christ have direct access to the abiding presence of God’s very Spirit. The second point is more immediately relevant to Paul’s discussion, since it anticipates his contrast in verse 6 between the letter that kills (i.e., brings death) and the Spirit that gives life (lit. makes [a]live, vb zwopoie/w).

The parallel contrast that Paul makes, at the close of verse 3, is just as important as the first contrast (between ordinary ink and the Spirit):

    • “not on tablets of stone” (ou)k e)n placi\n liqi/nai$)
    • “but on tablets of fleshy hearts” (ou)k e)n placi\n kardi/ai$ sarki/nai$)

The use of the adjective sa/rkino$ (“of flesh, fleshy”) is somewhat surprising, given Paul’s dualistic contrast elsewhere in his letters between the Spirit and the flesh (sa/rc). This can be explained, in part, from that fact that, once again here, he is drawing upon Old Testament tradition—cf. Ezek 11:19 and 36:26 (see also Jer 31:33), contrasting a “heart of stone” with the “heart of flesh” that Israel will possess in the New Age (of the ‘new covenant’). In that line of Prophetic tradition, the New Age of Israel’s restoration is characterized by the special presence of God’s Spirit on His people.

Even so, we might expect that an immaterial, spiritual aspect of the human “heart” (kardi/a) would be emphasized here. Instead, God writes with His Spirit upon a heart of flesh. This is distinctive of the early Christian understanding of the relationship of the Spirit to the believer. As a human being, the believer possesses the Spirit within a body of flesh. Paul took a special interest in this seeming paradox, and develops the idea, expounding it at a number of points in his letters. Some of these passages will be discussed in upcoming articles and notes in this series.

Our exegesis will continue, in the next daily note on verses 4-5.

References above marked “Furnish” are to Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 32A (1984).

Spiritualism and the New Testament: Paul: 2 Corinthians 3

The first Pauline passage we examined was 1 Corinthians 2:10-15, within the wider context of 1:18-2:16 (extending into 3:1-3)—cf. the article and the supplemental series of exegetical notes. Paul emphasizes the role of the Spirit instructing believers in the wisdom of God; indeed, this wisdom is fundamentally spiritual in character. A key statement is the climactic declaration in verse 16: “but we hold (the) mind of (the) Anointed”. To this may be added the statement in v. 15: “the (one) with the Spirit judges all ([th]ese) things, and (yet) he is judged under no one” — “these things” referring to “the (thing)s of the Spirit” (ta\ tou= pneu/mato$).

Given the spiritualistic tenor and emphasis to Paul’s discussion, one might readily ask what is the place of the human teacher, as well as the role of external sources of religious (and moral) authority. The reason why Paul writes to the Corinthians as he does, is because, on the whole, they are not yet spiritually mature (“complete”), often thinking and behaving like one who does not possess the Spirit (3:1-3). But how would he write to them if they were mature? Would there be any need for him to write to them at all? Presumably, there would be more opportunity for exploring and expounding the “deep things of God” (2:10), but what would his role be, in this regard, if the people to whom he was writing were themselves being fully guided and instructed by the Spirit?

It is an interesting question to ponder. In general, it is fair to say that Paul’s spiritualism, to judge by the evidence from 1 Corinthians, was tempered by two main considerations:

    1. the manifestation of the Spirit within the confines of the Community, through specific ‘spiritual gifts‘ given to specific individuals.
    2. the unique role (and authority) of the apostle—that is, the missionary, sent and commissioned by Christ himself, who (first) proclaimed the Gospel in a region and helped to found the first congregations.

According to the first principle, expounded and applied in some detail by Paul in chapters 12-14, an individual believer would not rely wholly on the inner guidance and instruction of the Spirit; rather, one must also experience the Spirit as manifest within the Community, through the distinct spiritual gifts given to the various members.

The second principle—the role and place of the founding apostle—is given special attention by Paul in 2 Corinthians. One passage, in particular, relates the apostolic ministry to the wider experience of the Spirit’s presence and work among believers. As such, a careful examination of it should allow us to gain a better sense of Paul’s spiritualism, especially in relation to other (external) aspects of Christian ministry.

2 Corinthians 3

The passage under examination is the “new covenant” section in 2 Corinthians—3:1-18, the central portion of the wider section of 2:14-4:6. It is rather typical of Paul’s unique (and inspired) manner of expression, that the powerful theological component to his line of argument in this passage is not even central to the main point he is making. Indeed, here in 2:14-4:6 the focus is on Paul’s role and position as an apostle, in relation to the Corinthian congregations (i.e., the second of the two themes outlined above). The theological and expository excursus in 3:1-18 is simply a natural byproduct of Paul’s understanding of the Gospel and the nature of the Christian ministry. I will be exploring the passage, from a critical and rhetorical standpoint, in the Saturday Series studies during the remainder of January and February.

I will also be devoting detailed notes (a series of daily notes) to an exposition of the passage. But let us begin here with a focus on Paul’s references to the Spirit, and how they relate to the “new covenant” theme of the section. Let us begin with his statement in verse 3 (picking up from v. 2, in italics):

“you are our e)pistolh/…being made to shine forth [fanerou/menoi] that you are (the) e)pistolh/ of (the) Anointed, being served under [i.e. by] us, (and) having been written not with black (ink), but with (the) Spirit of (the) living God, not on (the) flat surfaces of stones, but on (the) flat surfaces of hearts (of) flesh.”

Paul here makes a stark contrast between ordinary (physical/material) written letters and spiritual ones (for more, see the note on verses 2-3). This sort of dualistic language (and imagery) is typical of Paul’s spiritualism. But it is interesting to consider the way that this is introduced here.

The theme in verse 1-6 involves “letters of commendation”, the word sustatiko/$ being derived from suni/sthmi/sunista/w (“stand [together] with”), in the sense of placing things together (and presenting them) in front of someone. As a technical term, it came to be applied to letters a person carried, introducing him/her to another group or in a place where he/she was not known. The noun e)pistolh/ (epistol¢¡, i.e. ‘epistle’), which I left untranslated above, is derived from e)piste/llw (“set [forth] upon” a person, i.e. send to someone), related to a)poste/llw (i.e., send from someone). Here the e)pistolh/ refers ostensibly to a letter of introduction/recommendation. The point is that Paul and his fellow-missionaries, who preached the Gospel to the Corinthians, do not require any customary letter of introduction—the effect of the Gospel in their hearts is proof enough of his place as an apostle with them! It is a letter of Christ himself, whom Paul serves as a minister, written with the Spirit of the living God.

The expression “living God” (in Greek, qeo$ zw=n) derives from Old Testament usage (e.g. Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Samuel 17:26, 36, etc). The inclusion of the modifying verbal adjective is primarily emphatic (cf. Matt 16:16; 26:63, etc), however it also refers to the life-giving power of God’s Spirit (cf. Gal 5:25; 6:8; Rom 8:1-11), and thus is central to the spiritualistic emphasis in Paul’s thought—the living Spirit being contrasted with the dead material thing. There is also implicit the traditional sense of the Spirit as the active manifestation of God among His people. In particular, we should draw attention to the metaphor of the “finger of God”, and the idea that the tablets of the Law (Torah) were written with the finger of God (Exod 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; Deut 9:10f). One is immediately reminded of the saying of Jesus in Luke 11:20 (discussed previously):

“But if (it is) in [i.e. with] the finger of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then the kingdom of God (has already) arrived upon you!”

The Matthean version (12:28) reads “Spirit of God”, instead of “finger of God”, evidence that the two expressions were essentially seen as synonymous. Almost certainly, Paul has this same correspondence in mind—i.e., the Spirit of God writes on the hearts of believers just as the finger of God wrote on the stone tablets. This establishes the thematic contrast of “letter vs. Spirit”, old/new covenant, that runs through the remainder of chapter 3.

It is interesting the way that the initial metaphor in v. 3 leads Paul so readily to the dualistic juxtaposition contrasting the old and new covenants, in terms of “the written (word/letter) [to\ gra/mma]” and “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma]”. See how this contrast in made, twice, in vv. 1-3 and 4-6:

    • Commendatory letters for apostles—believers under their ministry
      • written in the heart
        • contrast with being written in tablets of stone (v. 3)
    • Confidence for apostles before God—ministers of a new covenant
      • of the Spirit
        • contrast with the written word (v. 6)

Paul specifically refers to himself (and others) as “servants of (the) new diaqh/kh” (v. 6). The noun diaqh/kh literally signifies the “setting through” of things (into an arranged order); in English idiom we would say “putting things in order”, i.e., in terms of a legal will/testament or other contractual agreement. In the LXX and New Testament, it typically is used in place of the Hebrew tyr!B=, which means a binding agreement; both Hebrew and Greek terms tend to be translated as “covenant”. The word diaqh/kh is relative rare in the Pauline letters, occurring 8 times, in Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (+ once in Ephesians). Paul’s use of it is entirely traditional; apart from references to the Old Testament and Israelite history (Rom 9:4; 11:27; Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24), we have his citation of the Lord’s Supper tradition (1 Cor 11:25; cf. Luke 22:20 and Mk 14:24 v.l.).

As in the Lord’s Supper tradition, Paul here uses the expression kainh\ diaqh/kh (i.e. “new covenant”), terminology which goes back to Prophetic tradition (in the 6th/5th centuries B.C.) regarding the restoration of Israel in the New Age (Jer 31:31-34; cf. also 32:40; Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 34:25ff; 36:26; 37:26). Jesus, in his own way, was alluding to this in the Last Supper tradition, but it received much more precise exposition among early Christians in the period c. 30-60 A.D. The specific motif of the “pouring out” of the Spirit upon God’s people was part of the traditional restoration-theme. In previous notes, on the “Spirit of God in the Old Testament”, I discussed at length the role of the Spirit in the key restoration-prophecies of the exilic and post-exilic periods (in Joel, Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah).

In the remainder of chapters 3 (vv. 7-18) Paul embarks on an exposition of the difference between the old and new covenants. He draws upon the Moses narratives and traditions in the book of Exodus; in particular, Paul takes a midrashic interpretive approach to Exodus 34:29-35, which describes Moses’ return from Mount Sinai carrying the two tablets of the Covenant.

This contrast between the old and new covenants is centered on the idea of “glory” (do/ca). Paul makes use of a series of qal wa-homer arguments—a traditional (Jewish) principle of interpretation, which argues from the lesser to the greater: if something is true in this (lesser) case, then how much more is it to be so regarded in the (greater) case. According to this mode of argument (a fortiori), Paul is working from the basic assumption that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant which God established with Israel at Sinai. The first two arguments (in vv. 7-9) involve the diakoni/a (“service, ministry”), that is, the administration of the covenant—in the case of the old covenant this began with Moses (and Aaron) and continued through the established priesthood and ritual apparatus (Temple, sacrificial offerings, purity regulations, etc), as well as through teaching and tradition. Note the contrast:

    • Vv. 7-8: service/ministry of death [h( diakoni/a tou= qana/tou]
      • service/ministry of the Spirit [h( diakoni/a tou= pneu/mato$]
    • Vers. 9: service/ministry of judgment against [h( diakoni/a th=$ katakri/sew$]
      • service/ministry of justice/righteousness [h( diakoni/a th=$ dikaiosu/nh$]

The characterization of the old covenant as “the ministry of death” is striking; for the uniquely Pauline view on the relationship between the Law, sin and death, read carefully Romans 5-7 (cf. the articles on 5:12-21 and 7:7-25 in the series “Paul’s View of the Law”), and note also in Gal 3:10-14, 19-22; 1 Cor 15:56. In vv. 7-8 here, the qal wa-homer argument is:

“If the ministry of death came to be in (such) esteem [do/ca]… how will the ministry of the Spirit not (even) more be in esteem?”

The old covenant came to have glory/esteem (perfect of the verb doca/zw), but now it has come to have no glory/esteem (again, with the perfect of doca/zw). It is hard to imagine a more antinomian statement by Paul—the old covenant, with its written Law, now has no glory. However, he makes clear that this is true only in one respect: because the glory of the new covenant goes so far beyond it (the verb u(perba/llw means to throw or cast something over/beyond, i.e. past a particular distance or measure). This is an important principle for understanding Paul’s apparently negative statements regarding the Law—its binding force has come to an end because of Christ. Indeed, the old covenant has come to an end, he makes this clear in verse 11, using the verb katarge/w—literally to “make (something) cease working”, i.e. render inactive, ineffective, often in the technical (legal) sense of “nullify, invalidate, make void”, etc. The second verb is me/nw, “remain (in place), abide”. The contrast is clear enough: the old covenant ceases to be in effect, the new covenant remains and lasts; one is temporary, the other permanent.

The new covenant (kainh\ diaqh/kh) is governed by the Spirit (vv. 6-8), and not by the Torah; indeed, the Spirit takes the place of the Torah. This reflects, in my view, a clear spiritualistic tendency in Paul’s thought. However, the emphasis in 2 Cor 3:1-18 is on Paul and his fellow missionaries as ministers of this new covenant. In this light, in verses 12-18, he continues his contrast of old vs. new covenant, utilizing the motif of the covering (ka/lumma) that Moses kept over his face (cf. Exod 34:29-35) when he met with the people after speaking to God.

In the initial period of the old covenant, the people were wholly dependent on Moses as the prophet or spokesperson (ayb!n`) who communicated the word and will of God to them. Apostles and missionaries such as Paul served a similar role in the new covenant, but with a major difference: the communication of the Gospel of Christ took place without any covering, the ‘veil’ having been removed. The implication of this is that the people (i.e. believers) now are able to experience the presence and glory of God directly, without any intermediary. This is due to the fact that, with the communication (and acceptance) of the Gospel, believers receive the very Spirit of God. Paul’s wording in verse 16 is striking (and rather controversial) in this regard:

“But whenever (one) would turn about toward the Lord, the covering is taken (up from) around (him).”

This removal of the covering (symbolized by the veil of Moses) has two aspects in its meaning:

    • people are able to experience the full revelation of God, and
    • it signifies that the old covenant (of Moses and the Torah) has come to an end (cf. Rom 10:4)

The latter aspect means that believers in Christ are freed from the old covenant and its Torah, and this freedom (e)leuqeri/a) is due to our contact with the Spirit of God:

“And the Lord is the Spirit, and that which (is) of the Spirit of (the) Lord, (is) freedom [e)leuqeri/a].” (v. 17)

Insofar as we turn to God’s Spirit, we have complete freedom—meaning, in this context, primarily, freedom from the Law (Torah). Here the expression “Spirit of the Lord” presumably means the Spirit of God, though Paul does, on occasion, also use the expression “Spirit of Christ” (see the discussion at the beginning of the previous article). There can be no doubt, however, that the idea of turning to the Spirit of the Lord entails acceptance of the Gospel, and of conforming our lives to the presence of Christ dwelling in us.

This latter point is emphasized especially in the famous concluding words to this section (v. 18). Given the overall focus of the passage, one might expect Paul to end with another reference to the role of apostles—persons called to represent Christ and preach the Gospel—and yet, following the association of the Spirit and freedom in verse 17, he moves in an entirely different (and rather spiritualistic) direction: “but we all…” The glory of the old covenant was associated with a special person—Moses—who was set apart to represent God for the people; only he spoke directly with God, and the glory shone only from his face. How different is the new covenant, where every believer in Christ beholds the glory of the Lord, and is transformed, in a permanent manner, far greater than the transfiguration that Moses experienced. The true apostle and missionary does not emphasize his (or her) own abilities and accomplishments—ultimately the new covenant is administered and shared by all believers together.

This may be related to what I have referred to as the “democratization” of the Spirit in the New Age of Israel’s restoration—the idea that God’s Spirit (and the prophetic spirit) would come upon all people, the nation as a whole, rather than upon specific chosen/gifted individuals. This was reflected most notably, for early Christians, by the citation of Joel 2:28-29 in Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17-18). The reference to Moses, here in our passage, brings to mind the tradition in Numbers 11:16-30 (discussed in an earlier note), in which seventy elders were allowed to share in the prophetic spirit—the Spirit of YHWH—that had been upon Moses exclusively. For believers in Christ, the inclusivity extends even further—to all of God’s people, essentially fulfilling the very wish, expressed by Moses himself:

“…who would (not) give (that) all (the) people of YHWH (would be) <ya!yb!n+ [i.e. prophets], (and) that YHWH would give His spirit [j^Wr] upon them!” (Num 11:29)

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 63 (Part 2)

Psalm 63, continued

I am following a three-part division of this Psalm, working from the repeated mention of “my soul” (yv!p=n~) in vv. 2, 6, and 9. Based on this dividing principle, there would be three stanzas of unequal length (vv. 2-5, 6-8, 9-12), each of which begins with a reference to the Psalmist’s soul desiring/longing for YHWH. There are two main stanzas, juxtaposing the emphasis on prayer for blessing (vv. 2-5, discussed in the previous study) and the call for a curse on the wicked (vv. 9-12). The shorter central stanza (vv. 6-8) is transitional, developing the main theme of the Psalmist’s devotion to YHWH.

Stanza 2: VV. 6-8 [5-7]

Verse 6 [5]

“As with fat and richness (of the land)
may my soul be satisfied,
(and with) my lips ringing out
my mouth shall praise you.”

The meter and syntax of this verse is a bit difficult; taking the MT at face value, I render it as a 3+2+2+2 quatrain, with each building on the one prior. The “fat and richness” of the land is in stark contrast to the dry and waterless land of verse 2 [1] (cf. the previous study). The Psalmist hopes for (and expects) that YHWH will fulfill his longing and satisfy (ub^c*) his soul. The nouns bl#j# and /v#D# each fundamentally denote “fat(ness),” specifically the rich and fatty portion of an animal (covering the meat and intestines, etc). However, the latter, in particular, can be used more figuratively to indicate “richness, prosperity,” etc. Dahood (II, p. 99) would vocalize blj as bl*j* (“milk”); this is possible, but unnecessary for the sense of the verse.

Once the Psalmist’s prayer is answered, and he receives the richness of God’s blessing (and His presence), so as to satisfy his soul, then he announces that he will worship YHWH with a ringing cry (/nr) of praise (vb ll^h* II). The plural of the noun hn`n`r= is rare, occurring only here in the Old Testament; Dahood (II, p. 99) would vocalize it as a verbal noun (feminine plural participle, tn)n+r)) of the root /nr.

Verse 7 [6]

“When I remember you (while laying) on my bed,
in (my night) watches I shall murmur to you.”

The idea here is that even on his bed (lit. the place where he “spreads/lays out”, u^Wxy`) at night, the Psalmist will give praise to YHWH, murmuring (vb hg`h*) to Him. The concluding phrase could also be translated “I shall meditate on you,” (cf. Psalm 1:2; 143:5) but “murmur” is closer to the fundamental meaning of the verb, entailing the uttering of a sound with the mouth (cp. 35:28; 37:30; 71:24; 77:13[12]; 115:7).

Verse 8 [7]

“(Oh,) that you might be (the) help for me,
and in (the) shade of your wings I shall cry out!”

It is not entirely clear whether the perfect tense of the verb rz`u* (“[give] help”) should be understood as a normal past tense form (anticipating an action as something that will have occurred), as a gnomic perfect (reflecting what YHWH regularly/always does), or as a precative perfect (expressing the Psalmist’s wish/hope as something that has already occurred). I have opted for the latter. This gives to the entire stanza a poignant tension that is well expressed by the Psalmist’s fervent night-time praying in v. 7. On the one hand, he fully expects that YHWH will answer his prayer and will bless him (v. 6); but, at the same time, he still is in desperate need of God’s protection. He hopes for this Divine protection—a frequent motif in the Psalms—utilizing the popular image of the “shade/shadow” (lx@) of a bird’s protective wings (cf. Psalm 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; and on the protective shade of God more generally, 91:1; 121:5).

Stanza 3: vv. 9-12 [8-11]

Verse 9 [8]

“My soul sticks close (following) after you,
(while) on me your right hand grabs hold.”

After the fervent scene of prayer in vv. 6-8, the Psalmist responds with confidence in the final stanza, fully expecting the YHWH will answer his prayer. Here in the initial couplet, he expresses his devotion to God, in terms of following after (rja) Him, his soul “sticking (close)” (vb qb^D*). The Psalmist’s faithfulness to the covenant bond with YHWH means that God will respond to that loyalty, with help and blessing. The image of God “grabbing hold” (vb Em^T*) of the Psalmist with His strong right hand, expresses both the promise of protection and an affirmation of the covenant bond that is upheld.

Verse 10 [9]

“But those (who) for destruction seek my soul,
may they go (down) in(to the) depths of the earth!”

Verses 9 and 10, taken together, represent the traditional wisdom theme (so common in the Psalms) of the contrast between the righteous and wicked. The righteous will be protected and blessed by YHWH, but the wicked will be condemned to death. Here the Psalmist calls down a curse upon the wicked, those who are his hostile adversaries. Such imprecatory verses are relatively common in the Psalms, as we have seen, however uncomfortable we may be with such language as Christians today.

The devotion of the Psalmist’s soul to God (v. 9) is here contrasted with the idea of his wicked enemies seeking (vb vq^B*) his soul (for the purpose of destroying it). The expression of their evil purpose is ha*ovl=, “for destruction”. The noun ha*ov basically means something like “devastation, desolation, ruin,” but with a clear sense of violence implied (cf. Dahood, II, p. 100).

Given the imprecatory character of this verse, the imperfect verb form in the second line should be understood as having jussive (volitive/precative) force.

Verse 11 [10]

“May they be hurled down by (the) hand of (the) sword—
(as) a portion for (the) jackals they shall be!”

The verb form at the beginning of the first line is problematic. The vocalized MT, read as a jussive (continuing the imprecation/curse), would be “may they pour/hurl down him” (vb rg~n`). Almost certainly, this should be understood as a passive verb form, while the context suggests that the 3rd person singular suffix (Wh-) expresses a dative of agency; on both points, cf. Dahood, II, p. 100f (for a different explanation, see Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 120). Literally, then, the line would read: “May they be hurled down by him upon (the) hand [i.e., by the edge] of the sword.” For poetic concision, I have abridged this in my translation above. Presumably, YHWH would be the agent acting—it is He who will hurl the wicked down into Sheol (the realm of the dead in the “depths of the earth”).

Verse 12 [11]

“But the king shall rejoice in (the) Mightiest—
he shall shout, every one binding himself by Him,
(while the) mouth of (those) speaking lies shall be shut.”

Some commentators would read the initial line of verse 12 as a secondary addition to the original couplet. To be sure, lines 2 and 3, taking by themselves, would be sufficient for emphasizing again, at the close of the Psalm, the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. The one trusting in YHWH, being faithful and loyal to Him, will be able to shout boldly (vb ll^h*, the idea of a “boast” may be intended), while the mouth of the wicked (those “speaking a lie”) will be “shut up” (vb rv^s*).

The loyalty of the righteous is expressed here by the technical use of the verb ub^v* (which apparently denotes doing something “seven times” or “seven-fold”). This technical usage clearly refers to swearing an oath, and may carry the basic meaning of binding oneself [passive/reflexive] sevenfold by an oath. For poetic concision, I have rendered uB*v=N]h^-lK* above simply as “every one binding himself”. However, the contrastive parallel with “speaking lies” probably means that the idea of speaking the (truthful) words of an oath is specifically being emphasized; if so, then it might be better to translate as “every one swearing (an oath)”. The oath, of course, is made by YHWH (“by Him”)—that is, trusting in YHWH as God and Protector of the covenant.

The brings us back to the reference to “the king” in line 1. As I have mentioned repeatedly, many of the Psalms evince a royal background, retaining certain traditional elements—language, imagery, etc—that may reflect both historical traditions and ancient royal theology. This is quite valid, even if one does not accept the attribution of these Psalms to David, etc, in the headings. The Psalmist here may be said to represent both the righteous Israelite and the king (as representative of the people as a whole). The covenant bond is between YHWH and the king (as His vassal), just as it is between God and His people. The Divine blessing and protection has a special place in relation to the king; this is very much part of the Israelite/Judean royal theology, and it is reflected throughout the Psalms at a number of points.

For these reasons, I tend to regard the first line of verse 12 as an integral part of the original Psalm. For further discussion, see Dahood, II, pp. 96, 101 and Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 120-2.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

January 21: 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

[This series of notes, on 1 Corinthians 2:10-15, is part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”. The previous note dealt with 2:16; and see the initial note with links to earlier notes covering 1:18-2:6; cf. also the main article.]

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Before concluding this series of daily notes (focusing on 1 Corinthians 2:10-15), it is necessary to study briefly the opening of the section which follows (3:1-4:21), in which Paul applies the arguments of 1:18ff more directly to the situation at Corinth. To begin with, the parallel between 2:6 and 3:1 is unmistakable, and must be noted:

“And we speak wisdom among the (one)s (who are) complete…” (2:6)
“And I was not able to speak to you as (one)s with the Spirit…” (3:1)

This allows us to supplement the earlier conclusions regarding a proper interpretation of 2:6a more precisely: the ones who are “complete” essentially = the ones who “have the Spirit”. However, the distinction in 2:6-16 was between those who have the Spirit and those who have (only) the soul/spirit of a human being—the contrast of the adjectives pneumatiko/$ and yuxiko/$ being that of believer vs. non-believer. Here in 3:1ff, on the other hand, Paul is speaking directly to believers, which means that he now gives a somewhat different nuance to the adjective pneumatiko/$ (“spiritual”). To the basic sense of “one who has (received) the Spirit”, we must add the connotation of “one who thinks/acts according to the Spirit“. This is confirmed by Paul’s use of the more familiar contrast between “Spirit” and “flesh”, with its strong moral/ethical implication. The Corinthian believers are not living out (i.e. thinking and acting according to) their identity as believers who have the Spirit. We can capture this through a careful translation of v. 1:

“And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as (one)s of the Spirit [pneumatikoi/], but (rather) as (one)s (still) of the flesh [sarki/noi], as infants in (the) Anointed {Christ}.”

This “fleshly” manner of thinking/acting is marked by the very divisions (“rips/tears”) in the Community mentioned in 1:10ff, along with jealously, quarreling and partisan/sectarian identity (“of Paul”, “of Apollos”, etc). Paul actually makes use of two related adjectives:

    • sa/rkiko$ (sárkikos)—generally belonging to, or characterized by, the flesh (sa/rc)
    • sa/rkino$ (sárkinos)—more specifically, something made of, or constituted by, the flesh

The second of these is used initially in v. 1, followed by the first (twice) in v. 3. The adjective sa/rkino$ (sárkinos) carries the more neutral sense of a physical human being (i.e. made of flesh). It is used by Paul, somewhat metaphorically, in 2 Cor 3:3, while in Rom 7:14 it preserves the moral/ethical sense of the spirit vs. flesh distinction; the only other NT occurrence is in Heb 7:16. The adjective sa/rkiko$ (sárkikos) is a bit more common, used by Paul in 1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 1:12; 10:4 and Rom 15:27; the only non-Pauline occurrence in the NT is 1 Pet 2:11. It is likely that the specific use of sa/rkino$ in 3:1 is due to the earlier usage of the adjective yuxiko/$ (psychikós) in 2:14. There would seem to be a progression of terms involved, which narrows the focus of Paul’s discussion:

    • yuxiko/$ (2:14)—one who has the inner life-breath (“soul”) of a human being, but has not received the Spirit of God
    • sa/rkino$ (3:1)—a human being who is “made of flesh”, i.e. in his/her physical and sensual aspect
    • sa/rkiko$ (3:3)—a person who thinks/acts “according to the flesh” —that is, fundamentally in a sinful, selfish or “immature” manner

The progression involves a kind of natural and logical consequence:

    • The person without the Spirit is merely a human being, and is not able to be guided by the power and direction of the Spirit
    • He/she is left to be guided by his/her own natural impulses and inclinations, which tend to be dominated by physical and sensual concerns
    • As a result, the person tends to act, and ultimately think, in a selfish and sinful manner

This again allows us to refine a basic conclusion regarding Paul’s terminology in 2:6a: the ones who are “complete” are defined, in a negative sense by the opposite—those who think and act in a “fleshly” manner are “incomplete”.