The Old and the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3
The term covenant occurs in another context that is also polemical, or
at least apologetic, namely 2 Cor 3. In defense of his apostolic ministry
against rival missionaries, Paul develops the “glory” and dignity of his
ministry in comparison with the ministry of Moses (and the law) in a bold
exegesis of Exod 34. There is no need to discuss the exegetical problems of the
argument here. We should rather note that the two terms do not occur in exact
juxtaposition but are embedded into different sub-arguments. The first
reference to the new covenant—or: to Paul as “minister of the (or: a) new
covenant”—in 2 Cor 3:6 follows the idea that the community is a letter of
Christ (which can recommend Paul and his ministry), written not with ink but
with the Spirit of God, not on tablets of stone but on hearts of flesh. Here
Paul adopts aspects from Ezek 11:19 and 36:26–27 combined with LXX Jer 38:33 (i.e.,
Jer 31:33). Thus, on the one hand Paul does not merely adopt a single scriptural
passage but a cluster of motifs, although on the other hand this is just a
short step away from the terminology in LXX Jer 38:31, which was known to the
Corinthians from their Eucharist tradition. Hence, Paul can present himself as διάκονος
καινῆς διαθήκης—“minister of the (or: a) new covenant.” After the concluding
sentence “the letter kills, the Spirit imparts life,” Paul turns to the
comparison of his “ministry of the Spirit” and the ministry of Moses, which is
called “ministry of death” (3:7).
The argument for the superiority of the former is based on the reading
that the radiance (δόξα) on Moses’ face disappeared in time, whereas the glory (δόξα)
of the ministry of the Spirit does not fade. In a second step, he focuses on
the veil on Moses’ face (3:13), which is boldly interpreted not as a means to
protect the Israelites but as a means to hide the transient character of his radiance
or glory. When he then turns from the veil on Moses’ face to the veil on the
reading of the “old covenant,” it is clear that παλαιὰ διαθήκη is not used for
the covenant but for the related writings, viz. the Torah and the Prophets. Thus,
the term is close to the later term Old Testament. This goes far beyond the
context of Jer 31: In Jeremiah we have the promise of a new covenant in contrast
with the old. In his adaptation Paul especially develops the aspect of revelation,
perhaps based on the motif of the internal relation with the law (Jer 31:32–33)
but even more so based on the idea of the Spirit (from Ezek 36), while the term
“old covenant” is boldly related with the Scriptures of Israel.
To what extent is Paul influenced by Jeremiah? He is certainly aware
that the term “new covenant,” which is known to him and his communities, is
based on Jer 31. However, neither in Gal 4:24 nor in 2 Cor 3:6, 14 does he
develop a real “theology of the covenant.” His reading of Jer 31 (LXX 38) is
also intertwined with other scriptural passages, especially from Ezekiel, where
the motif of the Spirit is prominent. Thus, we must conclude that the influence
of Jeremiah (and also of Jer 31:31–34) in Paul is rather limited. (Jörg Frey, “The Reception of
Jeremiah and the Impact of Jeremianic Traditions in the New Testament: A Survey,”
in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation,
ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid [Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 171; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2017], 516-17)
