Exposition of 2 Cor. 3 by R. F. Cottrell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 14, 1870

Exposition of 2 Cor. 3.

By R. F. Cottrell

Verse 6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away. 8. how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? 9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11. For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

What does the text assert “is done away”?

“That which was glorious.” Verse 11.

What is the subject of “was glorious,” in verse 7?

“Ministration.” It cannot be “death;” for that is in the objective case, governed by the preposition of. Ministration, and not death, was glorious.

What is the meaning of ministration?

“The act of performing service.”—Webster.

The Greek word here rendered ministration, is, in other places in the New Testament, rendered serving, ministry, ministering, service, administration, &c. The apostle contrasts the service of Moses, who was the leading minister of that dispensation, with that of the ministers of the gospel of Christ, claiming that, though that was attended with glory, this is more glorious. The former ministration he represents in a figure, as ministering death; the latter as ministering the spirit, which is another term for life; for whether it refers merely to the animating principle without which the body is dead (James 2: 26), or to the Holy Spirit, it is the same; it is that which in some sense gives life, and thus contrasts with death. The thing administered by the former was death, by the latter, life. Then varying the figure, the former administers condemnation, the latter righteousness, or, as Campbell renders it, justification, the consequence of righteousness. Thus the contrast is perfect.

What was written on the stones?

Not the ministration, but the thing administered—not the acts performed by Moses in bringing the tables of the law from God to the people, but the law of God, written by his own finger, the ten commandments. The ministration, which was glorious, so that the minister’s face shone, was not written upon the stones, but the death which he administered was written there.

Is the law of God death, then?

In a figure it is. It was “ordained to life”—this was the intention—but Paul says he found it to be unto death. Not that there was any fault in the law; for that is holy, just, and good; but sin deceived him and, by thus turning the law against him, wielded it to slay him. Rom. 7: 9–13.

“Sin is the transgression of the law,” and “the wages of sin is death.” Therefore the law is death to all; for “all have sinned.” The law cannot give life to its transgressor; because it condemns him to death. It is Christ alone that can give pardon and life. Hence the ministration of the law is only the ministration of condemnation and death, while the ministration of the gospel of Christ, is the ministration of pardon and righteousness, of spirit and life.

Was not the law abolished with its ministration?

No; for if the law were abolished, there would be no sin; for “where no law is, there is no transgression,” which is sin; and where no sin is, there is no death, which is “the wages of sin.” Hence, had the law perished when Christ died, there would have been no need of the ministration that Paul had afterward received, to call men to righteousness, and thus deliver them from condemnation and death. Our text says, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Both declarations are in the present tense. He does not say, Once the law killed every one, and the gospel restored no one to life; but now the gospel restores men to life, because there is no law to condemn any one to death. This would be equal to pardoning a sinner, because he has no sin, and remitting the penalty, because no penalty is due. This same apostle, who was converted some years after to the cross, and sent to preach “forgiveness of sins” to the Gentiles, says in another place, “I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” And he found no deliverance “from the body of this death,” till he found it in Christ. When in Christ, he could say there is “now no condemnation.” The law that slew Saul, in the present dispensation, was the law which said, “Thou shalt not covet,” the same that was written in the tables of stone. This is the letter which killed him; but the “Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” made him alive, and free from condemnation. Rom. 7: 7–25; 8: 1–5.

But is it not because the law is abolished, that it is called a dead letter?

Who calls it a dead letter? Paul says, The letter killeth. Dead men do not commit manslaughter. It is the living that deal death-blows. It is a living law only that can slay its transgressor. It was a living law, and one that the apostle says is holy, just, good and spiritual, that slew him. To him it was condemnation and death, till in Christ he found “life from the dead.” Abolish the moral law, and the sinner is alive without the pardon offered by the gospel. If the letter no longer kills, there is no need of the spirit to restore to life.

But I understand that the old covenant was God’s ancient plan of saving men, but now he has a new system of salvation—the new covenant.

What you understand, is an absurdity. The old covenant, with its ordinances of divine service and its worldly sanctuary, could not, with all the blood of slain beasts, take away one sin—could not give life to one sinner. But those sacrifices pointed them to the blood of the new covenant, which could remove their sins. All that are saved of the ancients are saved by the blood of the new covenant alone. They had both the law and the gospel; both the letter that killeth, and the spirit that giveth life. Without Christ to give them life, not one of them could live—all must finally be condemned. The law to kill, and no Saviour to give them life! This would be universal damnation to the ancients. And if the gospel has superseded the moral law, so that the moderns have not the law to condemn them to death, and besides this, have a mighty Saviour who has life in himself to give them, they must be sure of salvation, whether they come to Christ or not.

The new covenant was to write the law of God in the heart. And it will be found that holy men of old that could say in truth, “Oh, how love I thy law? it is my meditation all the day,” are heirs of the “better promises” of the new covenant, namely, the law in the heart, the forgiveness of sins, and an “eternal inheritance,” and that “God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city.” See Heb. 8: 6, 10, 12; 9: 12; 11: 16.

Now why is it that the perpetuity of the moral law, written by the finger of God, is called in question? No Christian doubts the obligation of any one of its commandments except the fourth. But for the “Sabbath question,” our text would never have been supposed to teach the abolition of a jot or tittle of this holy law. But the text does not single out this commandment. It does not mention the Sabbath. If it prove one precept of the code abolished, it proves that all are. And if nine of them, though abolished, are still binding, who knows that the other is not? There must be something peculiar about the Sabbath, that it should be the ground of so much controversy, and that it should be deemed advisable to abolish the whole moral code to get rid of it.

There is something remarkable, if not peculiar, about this commandment, which makes it extremely hard to be disposed of. It is the only one of the ten which points us back to the creation of the world for its origin, to the time when the Sabbath was blessed and sanctified for sinless man in Eden. This it does in these words: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” It is also the only commandment of the ten singled out in prophecy and its observance predicted in the world to come, in Eden restored. Says the evangelical prophet, “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. 66: 22, 23. Now, whether the new heavens and earth refer to the present dispensation, as some suppose, or to a state still future, as we have assumed, it is certain that the Sabbath is not yet abolished. And since we see not yet all flesh observing it from week to week, we are strongly inclined to the opinion that the prophecy will be fulfilled in the future, the immortal state.

It is truly wonderful that an institution so good, so divine, and which extends from Paradise before the fall to Paradise restored, should be the cause of so much trouble among men, and induce such desperate and insane struggling to get it abolished. Would it not be better to cease from the vain struggle, and let truth be truth?

It is certain that Paul does not teach in the clearest manner possible in 2 Cor. 3. that the law of God written in tables of stone is abolished. It is possible that the ministration of Moses and those who succeeded him was the thing declared to be abolished. Those who are inclined to think that the apostle meant here to teach the abolition of the law, will do well to hear his testimony when he speaks directly to the point. Do you wish to know what he would say to the question when directly stated? You can be gratified by reading Rom. 3: 31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law.” The Greek word here rendered “make void,” is the same that in 2 Cor. 3, is rendered “done away” and “abolished.” Hence the apostle raises the very question at issue, and then gives it the most direct and decisive answer in the negative. Those who really wish to know what he meant to teach on this question, here have his testimony directly to the point, and as plain as words can make it.

R. F. COTTRELL.