by Arthur W. Pink
by Arthur W. Pink
Philologos Religious Online Books
Philologos.org
by Arthur W. Pink
November, 1938
2 CORINTHIANS 3.
We have long desired to offer a detailed exposition of this section of the Scriptures, but though the time for this be not fully ripe, we feel that some comments upon its contents are called for in connection with the closing articles of our series on the Divine Covenants. This is one of the principal chapters dealing with the new testament or Messianic Covenant, and therefore our treatment thereof would lack completeness were we to entirely ignore it. The main reason why we have for years past wished to open up this passage was because the “Dispensationalists” have so grievously wrested it. But their perversion of it is not to be wondered at, for there is not another portion in all God's Word which more clearly and expressly refutes their pet theory that this present age is to be followed by another which will witness the restoration and glorification of Judaism.
The outstanding error of the Dispensationalists is that the Gentiles in general and Christians in particular are not in any sense under the Ten Commandments, that the Divine Decalogue is not binding upon them as their rule of life, that the moral Law was abolished at the Cross. In order to bolster up their error they have appealed to the terms of 2 Corinthians 3, insisting that such clauses as, “that which is done away” (v. 11), and “that which is abolished” (v. 13), have reference to that which was written by the finger of the Lord God upon the two tables of stone. Before turning to the positive purport of our chapter, let us point out that such expressions as those just quoted cannot possibly be understood absolutely (without qualification) of the moral Law, as is clear from the following considerations.
First, because if the moral Law has been abolished, nothing remains to convict us of our guilt: “by the Law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Second, because if the moral Law be abolished the conduct of the Christless would be unreproveable: “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Third, because if it be abolished it were needless to inquire, “Do we then make void the Law through faith?” (Rom. 3:31)—the inspired answer to which is “God forbid.” Fourth, because Christians could not then “delight in the Law of God” nor “serve” it (Rom. 7:22, 25). Fifth, because if the Law were abolished at Calvary, Paul could never have affirmed in his day there were those, “that are under the Law” (1 Cor. 9:20). Sixth, nor would he have quoted the Law and pressed it on Christians (Gal. 5:13-15). Seventh, nor assured obedient children that its promise of long life on earth held good for them (Eph. 6:1-3).
In order to understand 2 Corinthians 3, it is necessary to have before us something of the circumstances which occasioned the writing of the Corinthian Epistles, for a grasp of these is essential to an insight of many of their details. Soon after Paul's departure from Corinth (Acts 18) false teachers assailed the Corinthian saints, seeking to undermine the Apostle's influence and discredit his ministry. The result was that the believers there became divided into opposing factions, engaged in disputes, and seduced into carnal walking (1 Cor. 1:11, 12)—those who said, “I am of Paul and I am of Apollos,” were probably the Gentile converts, whereas they who boasted, “I am of Cephas and I am of Christ,” (claiming a fleshly relation to Him which they denied to the Gentiles converts) were most likely converted Jews. These false teachers had come to Corinth with “letters of commendation” (2 Cor. 3:1), probably from the temple at Jerusalem. They were “Hebrews” (2 Cor. 11:22), professing to be “ministers of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:23), and yet they were “false apostles” (11:13). They had denied that Paul was a true Apostle of Christ, arguing (seemingly on the basis of Acts 1:21, 22) that he could not be such, seeing he had not accompanied with Christ during the days of His flesh. This had obliged Paul to write the Corinthians, vindicating the Divine authority of His Apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1-3).
His first Epistle to the Corinthians had produced a salutary effect upon them as is clear from 2 Corinthians 1 and 2, yet it did not silence the “false Apostles” (the Judaising teachers), nor completely establish the believers there; hence the need for his second Epistle to them. His enemies were still working there against him, even charging him with not being a man of his word (see 1 Cor. 16:5 and compare 2 Cor. 1:15-24)! 2 Corinthians 5:12 shows plainly that Paul was furnishing his friends with materials for closing the mouths of those who maligned him—cf. also 2 Corinthians 10:2, 7. In 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, Paul, with great reluctance, fully vindicated himself and his ministry by comparing and contrasting his gifts, labours, sufferings, and conduct with the pretenses of the false teachers, and shows himself to be not one whit behind any of the Apostles.
How serious the whole situation was is clear from 2 Corinthians 13:3: the saints there had been made to doubt whether Paul was an Apostle of Christ's at all! In consequence of such leaven working among them, the Corinthians had become carnal in their walk, for corrupt doctrine always produces corrupt practice. That the “false apostles” were Judaisers (i.e., seeking to convert the Corinthians to Judaism—the whole Mosaic system) is apparent from many incidental details. We trust that these few remarks, though of a somewhat technical nature, will supply that key which will enable the closer student to enter more intelligently into the contents of the two Corinthian Epistles.
Bearing in mind what has been pointed out above, let us turn now to 2 Corinthians 3. The first three verses contain a part of the Apostle's vindication. “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some, epistles of commendation to you, or of commendation from you?” (v. 1). The word “again” intimates that a charge of glorifying himself had been made against Paul by his critics, so, in view of what he had just said in the context, he pauses to refute such a false accusation. Though the closing verses of chapter 2 contained a strong affirmation of his integrity, Paul wished it to be known that they had not been written with any intention of self-commendation: there was no need for him to “blow his own horn,” or to solicit the praise of dying men.
“Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men” (v. 2). So far was Paul from standing in need of any formal credentials in order to now secure the confidence of the Corinthian believers—their own conversion under his ministry fully authenticated his authority, mission, and fidelity. Why, the Church at Corinth was itself his “letter of commendation,” written not by man, but by the Spirit of God, thereby demonstrating that he was commissioned from Heaven. They were inscribed upon his deepest affections: a fact of which he was conscious and certain—anything of which a man is sure, may be said to be “written” upon his heart (Rom. 2:15; Heb. 8:10).
“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 fleshly tables of the heart” (v. 3). Not only were they inscribed upon his affections, but the miracle of grace wrought in them was obvious to others: “manifestly declared to be,” signifies publicly known as such. Their conversion had been so radical and conspicuous that thanks had been rendered to God for the same by His people far and wide, for their case was not one of a superficial and external reformation, but of a supernatural and internal regeneration. Thus, the saving efficacy of his preaching in that notorious centre of wickedness was the most convincing of all testimonials that he was a servant of Christ and faithful minister of His Gospel. The conversion of the Corinthians was the work of Christ, effected by the instrumentality of Paul. How vastly superior was this to any human “letter of commendation”: any man could write with ink on an external tablet, but only Christ can write with the Spirit on the heart—through His servants.
“And such trust have we through Christ to Godward” (v. 4). The opening “And” at once intimates to what this “trust” referred: the fact that the Holy Spirit had so signally owned and blessed his labours at Corinth assured Paul's heart through Christ that he was engaged in His cause and the kingdom of God, and therefore has he expressed himself so freely in 2:12-17. He was fully assured of the Divine authority and glory of his mission. It was a confidence so strong that it did not falter in the conscious presence of God. This confidence he had “through Christ”: it was not a carnal self-confidence of personal excellency, but a conviction of the veracity of the Gospel and of the reality of that vocation he had personally received from the ascended Redeemer.
“Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God” (v. 5). Admire here the blessed balance: strong confidence was coupled with deep humility! Paul would have them know that neither he nor his fellow-ministers possessed any sufficiency in themselves for so momentous a commission, either in natural endowment or because of their zeal and fidelity. He freely and frankly renders honour to Him: the Apostles were deeply conscious that all their success was entirely of God: He was the One who had called, qualified, and used them. How strongly this sense of insufficiency is expressed: not merely unable of themselves to do anything, but even to “think”—their knowledge, planning, and efficiency was neither self-acquired, nor self-sustained.
“Who hath also made us able ministers of the new testament” (v. 6). This was affirmed in confirmation of what he had previously stated, for the Greek word here rendered “able” is the same as translated “sufficient” in the verse preceding. It was God through Christ who had qualified the Apostles for their work. In referring to them as “ministers of the new testament,” he distinguishes the servants of Christ in this dispensation from those under the old economy. Herein he struck the keynote of all that follows—wherein the Christian is contrasted from the Mosaic dispensation. This “new testament” or “covenant”—as opposed to the covenant which God entered into with the nation of Israel at Sinai—is that “better testament” of which Jesus was made “Surety” (Heb. 7:22), the “better covenant” of which He is the Mediator (Heb. 8:6).
“Not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6). The transition from Paul's vindication of his Apostleship to his exposition of the superiority of Christianity over Judaism was both easy and natural: the terms which he had used in verse 3 at once brought to his mind the outstanding characteristics of the two covenants or economies, where he had set the internal work of the Spirit over against “tables of stone.” The terms of that old covenant which was inaugurated at Sinai were engraved upon the two tablets which Moses received from God, whereas His promise through Jeremiah (31:31-34), was that the requirements of the new covenant should be written upon the hearts of its beneficiaries. This it is which supplies the key to all that follows. It is not (as some have erroneously supposed) that the Apostle here pits Grace against Law, but rather that he contrasts the two covenants: the moral Law in the one case being engraved externally, and in the other being made effectual internally.
“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” (2 Cor. 3:6). In the second half of this verse the Apostle begins a series of contrasts between the two covenants. We will not take anything for granted, but pause to give proof as we proceed. That the terms “letter” and “spirit” signify Judaism and Christianity is clear, first from the fact that these are what he continues to compare in the verses that follow; and second, because they are the terms he uses elsewhere in the same sense. Thus in Romans 7:6 he speaks of “newness of spirit” and “the oldness of the letter” when contrasting the two economies; so too in Romans 2:27 he characterises the Jew as being of “the letter.” Should it be inquired what is the ground of these designations, why is Judaism called “letter,” and Christianity “spirit,” two answers may be given.
First, Judaism may be called the “letter” for the same reason that God's Word is called the “Scripture” (both words come from the same root), namely, because it was something written. Not only were the Ten Commandments—the foundation of the Mosaic economy—written on stones, but the whole Mosaic economy—moral, ceremonial and civil—was a volume known as “the writings.” Second, the Law as written was something external and objective. It was addressed to the eye and ear. It was not an inward principle or power. Judaism presented to the Jews the Divine rule of duty to which they must be conformed, but it conveyed neither disposition nor ability to obey. In antithesis thereto Christianity has to do with the heart and is spiritual rather than ritualistic. The Gospel “is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16), for by it the Spirit works in regenerating the soul. Thus, 2 Corinthians 3:6 expresses briefly the characteristic differences between Judaism and Christianity. “The one was external, the other spiritual; the one was an outward precept, the other an inward power. In the one case the Law was written on stone, in the other on the heart. The one therefore was letter, the other spirit” (Charles Hodge).
“For if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stone, 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?” (vv. 7, 8). Paul proceeds to set forth the immeasurable superiority of the new covenant over the old. In order to ascertain the precise trend of the Apostle in this passage it is most important to note his repeated reference to Moses, for it is thereby apparent that he is not opposing the Gospel to the moral Law as such (which long antedated Moses!), but to the whole Mosaic system, namely, Judaism. His later words, “when Moses is read the veil is upon their hearts” (v. 15), cannot possibly be restricted to the Ten Commandments, but obviously refers, mainly, to the ceremonial law, wherein there was so much which typified and pointed forward to Christ and His work of redemption.
The moral Law, whether as revealed in the Scriptures, or as the basis of the Mosaic Covenant, was designed to bring men to the knowledge of their sinfulness and helplessness, to produce a sense of guilt and wretchedness, and a longing for salvation. Yet though the ministration of the Ten Commandments was one of condemnation and death to every transgressor who lay under its curse, nevertheless, as setting forth the holiness, truth, and righteousness of God, it was “glorious.” It bore the stamp of Divinity upon it, and this was emblematically manifested in the face of Moses when he came down from the mount. The brightness of his face (Exo. 34:29) was in two respects a symbol of the glory of the old covenant. First, it was only an external one: what was even the bright cloud overshadowing the cherubim to the light of God's presence filling the soul! Second, it was transient, soon “done away”; whereas the ministry of the new covenant issues in eternal glory.
“How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?” (2 Cor. 3:8). Not only was Judaism “glorious” because the moral Law (its foundation) expressed the moral perfections of God, but also because the ceremonial law contained much that adumbrated the Person and work of Christ; and, too, because the whole Mosaic economy was introductory and preparatory to Christianity. Nevertheless, the Messianic Covenant contains a far higher and grander “glory.” The A.V. rightly used a small “s” for “spirit” here in verse 8, for the reference is not to the third Person of the Godhead but to the new testament or covenant, which in verse 6 he had denominated “spirit” in contrast from “the letter” or old covenant. Observe, it is not, “the operations of the Spirit,” but “the ministration of the spirit,” which can only refer to the evangelical service of the Apostles and those who have succeeded them—the “teaching-function of the Gospel” as one has defined it. The Gospel is not something external and powerless, but is inward and saving, and so is designated “spirit.”
“For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory” (v. 9). “This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The Gospel is more glorious than the Law, for the ministration of righteousness is more glorious than the ministration of condemnation. The 'ministration of condemnation' is that ministration which brings men into a state of conscious condemnation, that is, which makes them know and feel that they are condemned. The 'ministration of righteousness' is that ministration which reveals a righteousness by which men are justified, and thus freed from the condemnation pronounced upon them by the Law. As much better therefore as justification is than condemnation to eternal death, so much better is the Gospel than the Law” (Charles Hodge).
“For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth” (v. 10). “If that ministry, which in itself tended only to condemnation, contained such a display of the Divine glory as rendered the exercise of it honourable; how should not that ministry, by which sinners are taught the way of righteousness by faith in Christ, and which contained so full and complete a discovery of the glory and harmony of God's perfections, confer far greater honour on the Apostles, who were employed to preach it to the world? Indeed, the glory of the Law, and that of the Legal Dispensation, were so eclipsed by the excellent glory of the Gospel, as in this respect to be comparatively nothing; and after the publication of Christianity, the Mosaic dispensation had lost all its reflected glory and Divine authority and was become a lifeless letter and form to those who rejected Christ” (Thomas Scott).
“For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious” (v. 11). In seeking to discover exactly what has been “done away” the whole context must be taken into consideration. The Apostle was rebutting those who rejected the Gospel of God's grace and opposed Judaism to Christ. Now the central thing in Judaism, that about which the entire system revolved, was the ceremonial law. Most blessedly and strikingly did that shadow forth the Gospel, presaging Christ and His redemption; yet, if emptied of its typical meaning and message, it was but a lifeless form, a shell without any kernel, for the only saving value the ceremonial law possessed was to teach Israel to look beyond the shadows to the Substance. Consequently, after the Anti-type had appeared and Christianity was established, it was discarded, “done away” by God, and was only a killing letter unto those who rejected Christ, determining to cling to it.
“For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” In this verse the Apostle continues to show the superiority of the new covenant to the old, the glory of Christianity surpassing that of Judaism. First, he had pointed out that the one was “the ministration of death” (cf. Heb. 12:18-21), whereas the other was “the ministration of the spirit,” saving (2 Cor. 3:7, 8). Second, the former was “the ministration of condemnation,” but the latter of “righteousness” (v. 9). Here (v. 11) he contrasts their stability or continuance: the one was “done away,” the other “remaineth” to the end of time. The introduction of Christianity necessarily implied the abolition of Judaism: “In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).
“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” (2 Cor. 3:12, 13). We have linked together these two verses because the latter can only be properly understood in the light of the former, as the opening “And” of verse 12 indicates. In them yet another contrast is drawn, showing how the new covenant excels the old. The “such hope” of verse 12 is the reiteration of the Apostle's “trust” or confidence in verse 4, here extending to the future as well as the present: he was fully assured that the Gospel and its ministry would prove themselves to be far more excellent than the ministry of Moses. “Plainness of speech” refers not so much to frankness of language, as to the absence of “dark sayings.”
“And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face.” This has reference to the mode of manifestation in connection with the revelation God made under the old covenant. In comparison with the clear and full manifestation of Divine grace in the Gospel, the redemptive mercy of God was obscured under Judaism by types and shadows, mysterious rites and elaborate symbols. The grand truth concerning the Person and work of Christ “In other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed” (Eph. 3:5). The truth was then hidden beneath the Levitical figures. Judaism had a Divine glory as was evident by the radiance of the mediator's face; but it was obscure, as was denoted by the veil he placed on his countenance, so that Israel could not, “steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.”
The veil with which Moses covered his face was not only an apt emblem of the obscurity of that system of which he was the mediator, but it also served to prevent Israel seeing the end or fading away of the brightness of his countenance, for the glory of his face—in keeping with the transitory character of the Mosaic—was but a fleeting one. In 2 Corinthians 3:7, the “done away” had reference to the glory of the face of Moses, and in verse 11, to this ministry and the economy to which it belonged. Here in verse 13 the reference is again to the former, and “the end” signifies the termination. “Viewing this brightness as a symbol of the Divine mission of Moses, the Apostle ascribes to him a still further intention in the veiling of it (additional to the calming of their fears: Exo. 34:36), namely that the children of Israel might not, by the perception of its transience, be led to think of the transitory nature of the service or ministration of Moses itself” (P. Fairbairn). For Israel to have fixed their eyes on the future glory of Christianity would have tended to weaken their regard for the preparatory system under which they were placed.
“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ” (v. 14). Blinded by pride and prejudice, they looked no further than the outward symbols, and mistaking the shadows for the substance, rejected Christ when He appeared, thereby preventing themselves from perceiving the real intent, meaning, and glory, of the Levitical law. “The veil untaken away in reading of the Old Testament” signifies they were so satisfied with the external, they could not penetrate to what lay beneath. The Jews utterly failed to understand the ministry of Moses, and though the Apostles used such plainness of speech, their hearts were calloused. The words, “which veil is done away in Christ,” fixes for us the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament types, promises and prophecies. For lack of faith in Christ, the Jews to this day are blind to the real purport of Judaism, and grasping tightly the types, despise the Antitype. The Old Testament is intelligible only when Christ is used as the key thereto.
“But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart” (v. 15). This is explanatory of the preceding verse: the reason why the unbelieving Jews failed to see that the Siniatic Covenant had been “done away” in Christ, was because of the state of their hearts—had they not been blinded by prejudice and pride, when the Redeemer appeared and His glorious Gospel was proclaimed by His servants, they would have seen that the Substance now replaced the shadows. The revelation of Christ even in the Old Testament, though obscure when compared with the plain Epistles of the New Testament, was sufficiently plain to be understood by the Jew had he only been in a right state of mind; hence our Lord's upbraiding of His disciples in Luke 24:25.
“Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away” (2 Cor. 3:16). Salvation for the Jew comes in precisely the same way as it does to the Gentile, namely, by faith in and surrender to the Lordship of Christ. When the heart of that people, whether individually or collectively, is truly converted, then shall be given a true insight into the meaning of Judaism and the spiritual import of its ceremonies and sacrifices. “Now the Lord is that spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (v. 17). The word “spirit” should be with a small “s” as in verse 8, for the reference is obviously to “the spirit” of verse 6, the “spirit” that stands opposed to “the letter,” namely, the animating principle, the truth and power under the forms and types of Judaism. “Christ is the life of the Law” (Calvin)—savingly so when the heart truly turns to Him. Apart from faith in and grace from Christ, all knowledge, ordinances, and external obedience is but a dead form of godliness.
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (v. 18). The opening “But” introduces that company of believers opposed to the blinded Jews who knew not the Lord. The “we all (Christians) with unveiled face beholding” is first in designed contrast from those who have a veil upon their hearts (v. 15). Second, it looks back to the eminent case of Moses, who, unlike the people, was admitted into the immediate presence of the Lord (being unveiled before Him, though veiled before them), whence he received impressions of glory upon his countenance. So Christians, though in a far higher sense, behold and reflect the glory of the Lord, and not only so, are transformed after His image. How this, again, demonstrates the vast superiority of Christianity over Judaism.
Now to sum up 2 Corinthians 3. Paul is vindicating the Divine authority and excellency of his Apostleship, in the course of which he magnifies his office by showing how much grander was the mission entrusted to him than had been the ministry of Moses. In developing his demonstration, the Apostle places Christianity in sharp antithesis from Judaism, the latter especially as it revolved around the ceremonial law. The contrast is between the two “testaments” or “covenants,” the Mosaic and the Messianic economies (compare Heb. 12:18-24), which he opposes as “letter” and “spirit” (v. 6), and in what follows to the end of the chapter a series of contrasts are drawn showing wherein the latter excelled the former.
The Judaisers were insisting that the ministration of the Mosaic economy still obtained (the temple yet stood at Jerusalem), and therefore they, consistently, taught that when Gentiles believed in Christ they must be circumcised and brought into subjection to the whole ceremonial law if they were to become recipients of the peculiar blessings promised the Jews. The Apostle here demolished their very foundation by affirming that the old covenant was “abolished.” His argument from verse 8 onwards shows that if Christ be taken out of the old covenant—that is, if the ceremonial law were regarded as law and not as a type of Him—then it was but a dead body—lifeless and powerless. Considered abstractedly (a thing apart as it were in itself), the old covenant was but a ministration of condemnation and death. The Apostle was not dealing with the Law as a standard of conduct for believers, but as that which sounded the doom of unbelievers.
That which the Apostle here dwelt upon particularly was the fact that the Mosaic dispensation was a veiled or obscure one. Not only was the Siniatic Covenant a covering cast upon the Covenant of Promise made with Abraham (Gal. 3:16-19), but it largely concealed the glories of Christ. Hence it was that Moses veiled his face, denoting that the blessings of redemption were hidden beneath elaborate symbols, and also adumbrating the fact that the hearts of unbelieving Israel were calloused when they read his writings. It is to be duly noted that throughout this chapter Paul studiously avoided using the words “grace” and “law” (for it is not a contrast between them), but he does employ the terms “new testament” (v. 6) and “old testament” (v. 14)! That which is “done away” is not the Ten Commandments as the Rule of life for all God's people, but the Mosaic economy; and since Judaism is “abolished” it will never be resuscitated in some future “millennium.”—A.W.P.
Philologos | Bible Prophecy Research | The BPR Reference Guide | About Us