Exposition of 2 Cor. 3:7

WE recently received a letter containing a statement of a certain writer, that 2 Cor. 3:7 afforded the clearest evidence of the abolition of the ten commandments, and asking for some comments on that passage. The controversy on this text turns on the meaning of the phrase—

MINISTRATION OF DEATH.

The word ministration means, the service of a minister. Greenfield defines it, "ministry, serving, service, waiting, attendance." In the text we have a comparison of two ministrations, both glorious, but one excelling the other in glory. One of the past dispensation—"done away." The other in the present—"which remains." One called the ministration of condemnation or death; the other the ministration of the Spirit, or of righteousness.

In this text we are taught one of two things: 1. It was the ministration or service of the priests that was engraven on stones, or, 2. The ministry of the priests was concerning that which was engraven on stones. As a matter of fact, we know that the arrangement of priestly service was not written on stones, for only the ten commandments were written thereon.

It is inferred from this that the ten commandments are done away. Before proceeding to examine this inference we will notice a position taken by some, which is supposed to remove the difficulty and disprove the inference. It is, that the text does not refer to the tables of stone and to the commandments written thereon, but to the plaistered stones on which other laws were written according to Deut. 27:2, 8. However plausible this may appear, we do not think it is the sense of this passage. We are told that this view offers a successful method of silencing an opponent. Were this so it would not present any inducement to use it unless it is the truth. As truth, and not mere victory, is our object, we must seek for the actual meaning, and not rest on a possible solution.

But we think that examination will show that the idea of successfully meeting opposition with that view is a mistaken one. In this chapter is a comparison of the priesthood of Moses and that of Christ. Moses is taken as the representative of the old covenant, because he was the first priest under that covenant. Ps. 99:6, etc. The reference in 2 Cor. 3 is not to anything commanded in Deut. 27, but there is undoubtedly reference to that which took place as recorded in Ex. 34. Joshua built an altar and wrote on it, after the children of Israel passed over Jordan. Josh. 8. But when Moses came down from the mount where he had been forty days and forty nights, communing with the Lord, with the two tables of stone in his hands, his face shone with the glory which it brought from the presence of the Lord, so that the people could not look upon it, and he put a veil over his face while he talked with them. Of this Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 3.

We shall find on examination that that which was written on the stones is now written on "the fleshly tables of the heart," by the ministration of the Spirit. Many have supposed there is in this chapter a contrast of ministrations. This is true only so far as their effects are concerned, righteousness and life being contrasted with condemnation and death. But the ministrations themselves are compared—not contrasted. One was glorious; the other is more glorious—"excels in glory." Of law there is neither contrast nor comparison. But one law is brought to view, as will be shown when we consider 2 Cor. 3:6 as a fulfillment of Heb. 8:10. There is, however, a wide difference between the places of materials on which the law was written. Under one it was written on stones; under the other, in the heart.

It was the face of the minister, not the law on the tables of stone, which was veiled. The children of Israel could not "look to the end of that which is abolished." They could not look upon the glory of Moses' countenance, or discern that which it represented. The service of Moses and of his fellow-priests was typical; it must pass away. But the words of Jehovah, written by his own finger on the tables of stone, which Moses held in his hands, were not typical; they are moral. They were not nailed to the cross; they are not done away. Paul says, "Moses was verily faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Heb. 3:5. This clearly shows the typical character of the work of Moses.

We say the law of ten commandments is not typical, and no one who understands the nature of a type—who knows the difference between a moral and a positive law—will say in candor that it is. Every part of the ten commandments is moral, relating directly to God, our Creator, and to man, our fellow-creature. It may be replied that all positive or remedial laws also relate to God. But there is this essential difference: they are contingent, and are made necessary by man's action, and his condition as a sinner. The fact that they are remedial sufficiently shows this. But moral law is not contingent; it does not grow out of man's condition as a sinner, or depend on any secondary relation. It grows out of the will and action of God alone, without reference to the condition of the subject.

Every part of the ten commandment law is of this nature. Every jot and tittle of it has for its sole origin and basis the action and authority of God the Creator, entirely independent of man's action. Of the one contested point, the Sabbath, this is eminently true, it being founded only upon the act of the Creator and the work of creation. Ex. 20:8-11. Over this work man could not possibly have any control. But not so of the typical institutions. Had not man sinned they would never have had an existence; there would then have been no place or necessity for the gospel which they prefigured. If the law of ten commandments, including the Sabbath, is not moral, then nothing can be proved to be moral, and morality and moral character are meaningless terms.

In settling the meaning of a text of Scripture we must not altogether lose sight of the consequences of our conclusions. If they are found to be dishonorable to God and to his government, or if they lead to a conflict with other scriptures, we may be assured that our investigations have led us in a wrong direction. As all things was created for God's pleasure and glory, it must be that the counsels of his grace will not be to the dishonor of his government, or at variance with the moral law which he has revealed. And as his word is yea and amen—not yea and nay—no one part of his word will conflict with another part, or no part will be contrary to the tenor of the whole. But above all things we should cultivate a spirit of reverence and submission to his will, and not let our feelings incline us toward certain conclusions, for if we do this we shall certainly pervert the word of God, and make it minister to our selfishness. Let no one think this caution is not in place; for it is necessary on this subject above all others, because the carnal mind being enmity to the law of God, Rom. 8:7, and the law and the flesh being contrary to each other, Rom. 7:14, 18, there is danger that our natural dispositions will control us and incline us to accept conclusions not in harmony with the righteousness of the law. There is surely little danger that the carnal mind, or a fleshly, selfish spirit will err in favor of the law of God, which is holy, and just, and good.

To make it appear that it was the law of ten commandments which was abolished, it will be necessary to establish the following points:—

1. This law is not a rule of holiness; though Jehovah himself declared it was. Ex. 19:5-8; Deut. 4:12, 13.

2. It is not the condition of life; though both Moses and Christ declare it is.

3. It is not perfect; though David says it is.

4. It does not contain the whole duty of man; though Solomon says it does.

5. Christ did not magnify it and make it honorable; though the Lord by his prophet said he should do so.

6. Christ destroyed or abolished it; which contradicts his own words.

7. Men could have been proved sinners on the day of Pentecost in the absence of the law; which is contrary to reason and to Paul's words in Rom. 5:13 and 3:20.

8. Sinners will not be judged by the law; but Paul says they will. Rom. 2:12, 16.

9. Sin is imputed without the law; but Paul says it is not.

10. The knowledge of sin is not by the law; but Paul says it is.

11. The law is made void through faith; though Paul says it is not.

12. The law is not spiritual; but Paul says it is. Rom. 7:14.

13. The righteousness (or precept) of the law is not to be fulfilled in the followers of Christ; but Paul says it is. Rom. 8:4.

This list might be largely extended, but it is not necessary. The theory of the abolition of the ten commandments involves the above and many other contradictions of Scripture, and is every way dishonoring to the moral government of God.

But, the objector inquires, is there not a difficulty in your view of the text, and does not ministration agree, grammatically, with that which is written and engraven in stones? We answer, yes, there is such an agreement, and at first sight, without a thorough examination of the text, one might be led to infer therefrom that that which was engraved in stones is done away. We should not deny or seek to hide the difficulty, even though we could not solve it. And even if we could not solve it, we could not admit the view of the objector, because it involves a contradiction of known facts, and of many declarations of Scripture. We invite the attention of the objector to the following quotations from Dr. Carson's work on Baptism:—

"It is an important truth that is stated by Dr. Hawkins, that 'there may be truth, and truth supported by irrefragable arguments, and yet at the same time obnoxious to objections, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy of solution.' I go further; there may be truth liable to objections that to us may be unanswerable, while the proof is irrefragable."

It was with this just remark by Dr. Carson in view that we said we should not admit the objector's position even if we could not answer his objections. But we do not intend to avail ourselves of the benefit of the truth he has stated; we do not need it. The objection is far from being strong against our position, because it cannot itself be harmonized with the Scriptures. Indeed, it involves a still greater difficulty by contradicting well-known facts. And this is admitted by the very best authorities even among those who are not with us in our views of the teachings of the law.

No class of religionists have made so free use of this text as the Disciples. Being antinomian in faith, they have used this as a stronghold of their position, and confidently referred to the Greek as proving that the law is done away. Prof. Anderson, of Kentucky, was of that church. He early conceived the idea of making a version of the New Testament, and gave himself up to the thorough study of the Greek in order to the accomplishment of the task. It was the work of his life, and he literally sacrificed his life to the work. He rendered this text as follows:—

"But if the ministration of death by means of a covenant written and engraven in stones is glorious," etc.

Prof. Anderson recognized the evident fact that the ministration, or service, of the priests of the old covenant, was not written on the stones, and he therefore supplied an antecedent in agreement with "written and engraven in stones," and in harmony with the tenor of the Scriptures.

But Prof. Anderson was not alone in this view. We are confident that he gave such a rendering only after a careful examination of the subject of the text, and a careful consultation of authorities. Thus Olshausen says:—

"The entupomene en lithois [engraven in stones] refers only figuratively to diakonia [ministration]; its primary reference is to the decalogue."

Thus he considers that by a figure, putting that to which the ministry relates for the ministry itself, the apostle brings to view the effects of the ministration in the most direct manner. For, as Anderson renders it, it was only by means of the decalogue that the ministration or service of the priests had any efficiency or significance.

Bloomfield, in his Critical Notes on the Greek of the New Testament, says:—

"I have in Recens. Synop. shown that the sense of the verse is this: If the ministry or office of promulgating a covenant which in the letter (when written on tables of stone) brought nothing but death with it, was glorious (namely, by the appearance of angels with the cloud of glory), and so glorious that the children of Israel were not able to look upon the face of Moses, because of the shining of his countenance," etc.

Here again we have the same idea presented; the ministration was concerning that which was engraven on the stones. And so also Lange:—

"By a bold turn of expression he combines the ministry itself with its object, and designates the whole as one which was engraven in letters upon stones (the only point in which we can here agree with Meyer, who regards the decalogue as Moses' commission, or matricula officii). The ministration of Moses and of all his successors, consisted in the presentation or enforcement of the law whose letters had been engraven upon some tablets."

Dean Alford, in his "Testament for English Readers," takes the same view; he says;—

"It seems strange that the ministration should be described as engraven on stones; but the ministration is the whole putting forth of the dispensation, the purport of which was summed up in the decalogue, written on stones."

Connybeare and Howson, in Life and Epistles of Paul, makes the same distinction between the ministration and the law. They render it thus:—

"Yet if a glory was shed upon the ministration of the law of death (a law written in letters and engraven in stones)."

And yet again, Barnes says:—

"The word ministration means, properly, ministry; the office of ministering in divine things. . . . The word here seems to refer to the whole arrangement under the Mosaic economy by which his laws were promulgated and perpetuated. The expression 'a ministration—written and engraven on stones,' is somewhat harsh; but the sense evidently is, the ministration of a covenant, or of laws, written on stones."

There are very few contested passages upon which there is such a remarkable agreement of eminent authorities. They all accept the fact, which every careful reader of the Bible understands, that the ministration or service of the priests was not written on the stones; they all recognize the clear distinction between the ministration and that which was written on the stones, and that it is by a figure of speech the ministration is thus spoken of. That that ministration, or priestly service, is done away, there is no dispute, for it was typical. But the law which that typical service concerned was moral and did not and cannot pass away; and to contend that it has passed away is to discard all morality, and to contradict a multitude of scriptures.