The following post, in its entirety, is from Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology Vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 82-84:2Cor. 3:1 (ESV) Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. 3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2Cor. 3:4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The letter/Spirit contrast fundamentally concerns a distinction between...two different powers that represent two different ages or epochs.
The fact that the letter belongs to the old age has definitive implications for interpretation. The old age lacks the dynamic power of the new age because it lacks the distinguishing feature of the new age: the life-giving presence of the Spirit. The term zoopoieo, "produce life," is an eschatological term here and everywhere in Paul's vocabulary.
Few would quibble with Paul's assertion concerning the life-giving capacity of the Spirit. Some scholars raise questions about the legitimacy of Paul's corresponding statement concerning the killing power of the letter. Contrary to some scholarly assessments, Paul's proposition ("the letter kills") stands as a surprisingly fitting summary for the Sinai and post-Sinai accounts of Israel's history. First, the Exodus narrative (Ex. 32:27) itself confirms the validity of Paul's statement that the letter "kills" (apokteino) because Israel's apostasy results in killing when Moses first descends from the mountain. The letter has a literal killing effect at the very moment of its inception.
Second, Israel's own history shows that the law did not solve their problems; it exacerbated them. The centrality of Sinai comes into view because of the literary strategy of placing similar events before and after Sinai. Grumbling at the start of their journey results in no punishment (Ex. 15:22-26) before Sinai, but the same behavior after Sinai results in destroying fire (Num. 10:33-11:3). Grumbling over the manna and the quail led to no punishment before Sinai (Ex. 16:1-15), but to a killing plague after Sinai (Num. 11:4-8). A Sabbath violation resulted in a reprimand before Sinai (Ex. 16:27-30), but in death by stoning after Sinai (Num. 15:32-36). Grumbling over water led to no punishment before Sinai (Ex. 17:1-7), but to a destroying fire after Sinai (Num. 20:2-13). The differences are so staggering that it is hard to escape the dire conclusion that "Sinai does something profoundly negative to Israel." The supporting evidence for Paul's statement begins at the inception of the letter and continues to mount throughout Israel's history.
We must not draw wrong conclusions from this analysis. [In a footnote, Meyer continues:] For example, we must not assume that the old covenant called for salvation by works, whereas the new covenant announces salvation by grace. In fact, the new covenant fulfills the original intention of the old covenant by effecting what it demanded. The old covenant called for the internalization of the law and used an external to internal strategy. That design never materialized because the law could not penetrate Israel's hardened heart. The new covenant fulfills the same objective of the old covenant by starting with the heart. The Spirit transforms the person from the inside and thereby ensures the fidelity of the covenant partner.
The letter (or writing) kills not because it is inherently evil, but precisely the opposite, because it is inherently good. God's good standards do not and cannot square with Israel's hardened condition. Death and condemnation result from this clash between a good law and an evil heart. Therefore, Hays is correct to state that the primary problem with the old covenant as "script" or letter is that it "is (only) written, lacking the power to effect the obedience that it demands. Since it has no power to transform the readers, it can only stand as a witness to their condemnation."
If these observations square with the details of the text, then one cannot escape the implication that Paul correlates the nature of each covenant with its effects. In other words, the intrinsic character of each covenant produces results that flow from it.... This recognition argues that the covenant consisting of letter will inevitably produce death because the letter kills; the covenant consisting of the Spirit will inevitably produce life because the Spirit creates life.
Rudolf Bultmann is thus fully justified in relating the two concepts "new covenant of the Spirit" and the life-giving aspects of the Spirit so that "the new covenant is a covenant of life." Murray J. Harris also says it well: "Here Paul contrasts the old and new covenants with reference to their dominant characteristic (γραμμα [gramma] or πνευμα [pneuma] and their inevitable outcome αποκτεννει [apoktennei] or ζωοποιει [zoopoiei])."
Paul's correlation between the new covenant, the Spirit, and life faithfully echoes the eschatological intervention in Ezekiel once again. The life-giving (zoopoieo) power of the Spirit (3:6) hearkens back to Ezek. 37:3 where the question concerns whether or not the dead bones can "live." God announces that He will put His Spirit in them, which will result in life (37:6).
.jpg)
