p. 132 | Objections to the Sabbath Answered

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 8, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THIRTEENTH OBJECTION.

The ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, was done away. 2 Cor. 3.

Answer. We think an examination of the context will show that this text furnishes no proof for the abolition of the ten commandments. Paul says, verse 3, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.” That this refers to the decalogue, written on tables of stone in the old dispensation, is evident. And more: it is just as manifest a reference to the promise which God made in Jer. 31:31–34, that in the new covenant, the gospel, he would write that same law in the hearts of believers. Thus that promise reads: “After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” God’s law, which once was written on tables of stone, is now written on the tables of the heart by the Spirit of God.

Paul continues: “And such trust have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God, 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.” Verses 4–6. Having in verse 3 spoken of the leading promises of the new covenant, namely, that of writing the law of God in the heart of believers by the Spirit of God, Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:6–12, Paul next declares that the gospel ministry now have committed to them the most glorious work of aiding in the accomplishment of this object. Then he proceeds to compare this work of the gospel ministry with the work of the old Levitical ministry. “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; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.” Verses 7–9.

Now the answer to one simple question must determine the controversy between us on this passage. Is Paul comparing two laws? or two ministrations? the old law with the new law? or the old ministry with the new ministry? Our opponents claim that Paul is contrasting the old abolished law of ten commandments with the new law of the gospel. But there is no such idea nor words in the passage. “The ministration of death,” and “the ministration of condemnation,” he compares with “the ministration of the Spirit,” and “the ministration of righteousness,” declaring that one was glorious, and the other more glorious. Is “ministration” a law? No; it is the service, or work, of a minister. Thus Webster defines it: “1. The act of performing service as a subordinate agent; agency; intervention for aid or service. 2. Office of a minister; service; ecclesiastical function.” He quotes Luke 1:23, as an illustration: “As soon as the days of his ministration were ended.” It is plain, then, that it is the work, or service, of the ministers, which Paul is comparing; the Levitical ministry with that of the gospel ministry. The first was glorious, the second excelled in glory.

With this view, we can understand why he refers to the glory that rested upon the face of Moses. Moses was prime minister of that dispensation, stood at the head of all those ministers, hence represented them in their work. Therefore, when God honored him by putting his visible glory upon him, it was not as an individual, merely, but as the representative of that dispensation. If it were the law of which Paul was speaking, he should have referred, not to the glory that rested on Moses, a minister, but to the glory that rested on the law, or the ark containing it, or that which was manifest on Sinai in giving the ten commandments. In verse 12, Paul says: “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” What was abolished? That which was covered by the vail over Moses’ face. This is too plain to be denied. Very well; were the ten commandments on the tables of stone covered by this vail? If not, then they are not that which was abolished. Turning to the record, Ex. 34:29–35, we read: “When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. . . . And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face,” &c.

Thus we see that it was simply the glory which shone from Moses’ face which was covered by the vail, while the tables of stone were no way covered by it. Paul says that the vail covered that which was abolished, so that the Israelites could not see it. But the law was not thus covered from their sight by the vail. They could and did see that. If a person were not willingly blind, it seems as though he might see this.

I have seen it asserted that in this chapter Paul says of the law that it “was to be done away,” verse 7, “which is done away,” verse 11, “which is abolished,” verse 11, and “is done away in Christ,” verse 14. Certainly it would be a very strong case if all these phrases were applied to the law. But look at them. The first one, verse 7, instead of applying to the law, is applied directly to the glory that shone from Moses’ face—“which glory was to be done away,” are Paul’s words. The third one, verse 11, says that what was abolished was covered from sight by the vail over Moses’ face. Here, again, it could not be the law, as we have shown above. The fourth one, verse 14, says, “which vail is done away in Christ.” Here again it is applied to a very different thing from the law. The second one, verse 11, is the only one where it is not directly applied in the verse itself to something besides the law; and here the connection shows that it is the “ministration” which is done away, not the decalogue.

But does not Paul, in verse 7, say that this ministration, which is done away, was written and engraven in stones? We think not. Indeed, it would be nonsense to talk of writing a ministration in stones or in anything else. You cannot write a ministration. A ministration must be performed, not written. Why so? Because it is an act, a work, and not an instrument. Paul’s words are these, “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,” &c. “For if the ministration of condemnation be glory,” &c. I understand Paul’s meaning to be this: The ten commandments were written and engraven in stones. The penalty for the violation of these was death. They caused death to be inflicted on those who transgressed them. Hence, as is frequent in the use of language, putting the cause for the effect, the decalogue is here called death. 2 Kings 4:40, is a good illustration of this use of the word death. By a mistake, poisonous gourds were boiled in a pot, to eat. When they discovered this, one cried out, “O thou man of God, there is death in the pot.” That is, there is that in the pot which, if eaten, will cause death. Hence, putting the cause for the effect, they said, death is in the pot, i. e., that which will cause death. So the apostle here. That written in stones, the decalogue, is called death, as it causes death to the transgressor.

Hence, it was “death” which was written in stones, and not the ministration of death. Suppose a case under the old dispensation. A man steals. The law condemns him to death. Now this death must be executed upon him, or administered to him by some one. This was done, as we well know, by the proper ministers of the law. Cannot all see that death is one thing, and the ministration of that death quite another thing? The ministration was the work, the act, the service, which the minister performed in executing the condemnation of the law. Hence, it is called “the ministration of condemnation.” So we repeat, it was not the ministration which was written in stones; but death was written there, and there were ministers of the law whose business it was to see this death properly ministered to the transgressor. Now the office, the work, the service, of these ministers, is what the apostle has up and is comparing with the office, the work, the service, of the gospel minister.

But what is the point which Paul has in view in making this argument in this chapter? A proper understanding of this will help us to correctly understand his argument. Is he laboring to show the greater excellence and glory of a new law as compared with the old one? Nothing of the kind appears in all his argument; but the one prominent point he all along keeps before his reader, is, the greater glory and excellence of the ministry committed to him as compared with that committed to Moses. Under that ministration, they condemned men and put them to death; under this, they proclaim pardon, life, righteousness, and the gift of the Spirit. If the former was glorious, how much more the latter? Thus he says: “For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.” Verse 9.

D. M. CANRIGHT.