2 CORINTHIANS 3 — THE MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT AND UNVEILED GLORY
Does Paul teach that the Old Testament law is bad or abolished? Study 2 Corinthians 3 with context, apologetic analysis, and cross-references.
2 Corinthians 34 questions
Source linked
Commentary provenance
Dr. Lucas D. Shallua Commentary · 2 CORINTHIANS 3 — THE MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT AND UNVEILED GLORY
01
The precise difficulties
Does Paul teach that the Old Testament law is bad or abolished?
What does "the letter kills" mean?
What does "the Lord is the Spirit" mean? Does it deny the Trinity?
Is it possible for a Christian to be truly changed?
02
Verse and question study
Does Paul teach that the Old Testament law is bad or abolished?
No. He calls the law holy and good elsewhere (Romans 7:12), and Jesus said He came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). What Paul says is that the Mosaic covenant, as an administration of law written on stone, has been superseded by the new covenant in Christ. The moral content of the law is fulfilled in love and written on the heart by the Spirit (Romans 8:3–4; 13:8–10), and the Old Testament remains inspired Scripture, useful for teaching and correction (2 Timothy 3:16).
What does "the letter kills" mean?
It does not mean that Scripture should be read non-literally or that the Spirit gives license to ignore the text. It means that the law, taken as a mere external code without the Spirit, can only expose sin and condemn, since it cannot give life. The Spirit does what the law could not: He gives new birth and the power to obey.
What does "the Lord is the Spirit" mean? Does it deny the Trinity?
No. Paul consistently distinguishes the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (compare 13:14). Here he is saying that the Lord to whom one turns is encountered in the new covenant through the Spirit, who is "the Spirit of the Lord." The statement shows how closely the Son and the Spirit work together, and how the Spirit makes Christ present to the believer.
Is it possible for a Christian to be truly changed?
Yes. This chapter teaches that God has promised a transformation that is real, progressive, and empowered by the Spirit. It does not happen overnight, and Paul can still say elsewhere that the believer struggles against sin (Romans 7; Galatians 5:16–17), but the direction is fixed: from glory to glory.
03
Historical and literary context
Chapter 3 is the beginning of Paul's extended defense of his ministry (2:14–7:4), and it is one of the richest passages in the New Testament on the new covenant. His opponents in Corinth had arrived with letters of recommendation and were presumably demanding the same from Paul. Many of them seem to have been Jewish Christians who emphasized Moses and the law (compare 11:22). Paul answers by pointing to the Corinthians' transformed lives as the real proof of his apostleship, and he then reflects on the story of Moses' radiant face in Exodus 34:29–35. His argument rests on prophecies that God would make a new covenant, writing His law on hearts and giving His Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Ezekiel 36:26–27). Paul does not belittle the old covenant, which was glorious, but he shows that it was temporary and preparatory, and that the new surpasses it in glory.
04
Apologetic note
The new covenant was promised in the Old Testament centuries before Christ. Jeremiah, writing in the late seventh or early sixth century BC, foretold a covenant unlike the one made at Sinai, written on the heart, with forgiveness of sins and knowledge of God for all its members. Ezekiel added the promise of a new heart and God's Spirit. Paul's claim in this chapter is that these promises have been fulfilled in Christ and are being experienced in Corinth. The evidence he offers is moral and relational: a congregation drawn from the pagan population of one of the most morally mixed cities of the empire, now marked by faith, love, and transformed conduct. Historians of early Christianity have regularly observed that its rapid spread owed a great deal to this visible change in the lives of converts. The Corinthian letters are honest that the change was incomplete, but a movement that admitted its own struggles and still pointed to real transformation was more credible, not less.