2 Corinthians 3
OGC**Butler’s Commentary
Chapter Three**
THE PROBLEM OF LEGALISM
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:
Why is Paul bothered about letters of recommendation?
How do people become letters of recommendation?
If the old dispensation was so glorious Israel could not look on Moses-’ face, how can the new dispensation be more glorious?
What is the veil that remained over the minds of the Israelites?
Where may we behold the glory of the Lord in order to be changed into his likeness?
APPREHENSION:
What is legalism?
How was legalism a problem to the apostle Paul?
How did the Corinthians become letters from Christ delivered by Paul?
What is the dispensation of death? Why was it a dispensation of death?
What is the dispensation of the Spirit?
How could Paul say the dispensation of death had glory?
How did God show the Israelites that the dispensation of death would fade away?
Why would God want the Israelites to know the O.T. was to fade away?
What is the splendor of the new dispensation?
Is Paul teaching here that the Old Testament was completely and totally fulfilled and abrogated? What other scriptures teach that?
What was the purpose of the veil Moses put over his face?
Does it have some symbolic significance for the Corinthians and us? What?
How is this veil removed?
Where may a human being behold the glory of the Lord? Is this the only place? How do you know?
What happens as a result of beholding the glory of the Lord?
APPLICATION:
Is legalism a problem with your preacher?
Is legalism a problem with you?
If Paul were writing to you and your congregation today, what kind of letter of recommendation for him would you be?
Do you have a consciousness of death or of life from your New Covenant relationship with God through Christ?
What do you think about your being saved by grace?
Is there a veil over your face when you try to be pleasing to God? Is there some hardness callusing your mind against the free grace of God?
Are you satisfied with the glory of the Lord revealed exclusively in the scriptures? Do you think the Lord should manifest himself to you in some physical glory?
Would you be more converted, more changed into his character if he would reveal himself to you physically?
To whom do you give credit for your changed character, day by day?
What kind of glory do you anticipate in heaven?
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER THREE**
Analysis
A.
Paul answered the anticipated charge of self-commendation (2 Corinthians 3:1-11).
He asked two questions (2 Corinthians 3:1).
a)
Are we beginning again to commend ourselves?
b)
Do we, as do some, need letters of commendation to you or from you?
He gave two answers (2 Corinthians 3:2-11).
a)
As seen in his relation to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 3:2-3).
(1)
They are his epistle of commendation (2 Corinthians 3:2).
(a)
This epistle is written in his heart.
(b)
It is known and read of all men.
(2)
They are also an epistle of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:3).
(a)
It is evident that they are an epistle of Christ.
(b)
The service of writing was done by Paul.
(c)
This involves a two-fold contrast.
i)
It was written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God.
ii)
It was not in tables of stone but in tables that are hearts of flesh.
b)
As seen in his glorious ministry under the New Covenant in contrast to the glory of Moses-’ ministry under the Old Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:4-11).
(1)
The source of his sufficiency under the New Covenant is God (2 Corinthians 3:4-6).
(a)
His confidence toward God was in Christ.
(b)
He explained that in himself he was not adequate for the task (2 Corinthians 3:5 a).
(c)
His fitness was from God who made him a minister of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:5 b - 2 Corinthians 3:6 a).
(d)
Characteristics of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6 b).
i)
Not of letter but of spirit.
ii)
The letter kills; the spirit gives life.
(2)
The contrast between the glory of the Old and New Covenants justifies his glorious ministry (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).
(a)
Contrasted as a ministry of death and a ministry of spirit (2 Corinthians 3:7-8).
i)
The ministry of death (Old Covenant) written on stones was with glory so that Israel could not look upon the face of Moses.
ii)
The ministry of the spirit (New Covenant) is with glory, is it not?
(b)
Contrasted as a ministry of condemnation and of righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:9-10).
i)
The glory of the ministry of righteousness (the New Covenant) exceeds that of condemnation (Old Covenant).
ii)
The glory of condemnation (Old Covenant) is as nothing compared to the surpassing glory of the ministry of the New Covenant.
(c)
Conclusion from the contrast: If that which passes away (Old Covenant) was with glory, much more that which remains (New Covenant) is with glory.
B.
Paul explained the reason for his great boldness of speech (2 Corinthians 3:12-18).
As seen in the contrast between him and Moses (2 Corinthians 3:12-13).
a)
His hope in the abiding glory of the New Covenant was the basis of his great boldness of a speech (2 Corinthians 3:12).
b)
Moses, on the other hand, put a veil over his face to prevent Israel from seeing the end of the fading glory on his face (2 Corinthians 3:13).
As seen in the contrast between those who were reading the Old Covenant and those who turned to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:14-15).
a)
Their minds were hardened at the reading of the Old Covenant because they were unaware that the veil was taken away in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:14).
b)
Even in Paul’s day wherever Moses was read the veil lay on their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:15).
As seen in the result of turning to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:16-18).
a)
The veil is taken away.
b)
The Lord is (identified with) the spirit-covenant (See 2 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Corinthians 3:8 ASV).
c)
Where the spirit-covenant of the Lord is, there is liberty.
d)
Transformation results from looking into the glory of the Lord (as seen in the spirit-covenant).
(1)
This is to be done with unveiled face as we look into the mirrorthe New Covenant or spirit-covenantwhere we see the glory of the Lord.
(2)
The transformation is into the same image from glory to gloryfrom the Lord of the spirit-covenant.
Questions
What is the connection between the content of this chapter and that of the preceding one?
Why did Paul anticipate charges of self-commendation?
What is the purpose of letters of commendation? How had Paul made use of them?
Why didn-’t he need such a letter to the Corinthians or from them.
How had signs and wonders served to commend him to them?
How did their lives as Christians commend him to others?
In what sense was this letter written on his heart?
How could all men know and read it?
Why does Paul also call it an epistle of Christ?
What did Paul have to do with writing it?
Why did he say that it was not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God?
What message had been written on tablets of stone?
Why did Paul suggest that the gospel message which he preached had been written on hearts of flesh?
Why did Paul speak with such confidence about this letter?
What was the source of his adequacy for his ministry?
What are some of the contrasts between the Old and New covenants?
To whom was the New Covenant first given as a promise?
How did Paul show that there was no conflict between the Old and New Covenants?
What does letter and spirit mean in its various contexts?
To what does letter refer in this chapter?
To what does spirit refer in this chapter?
What indicates that letter is not contrasted with Holy Spirit in this context?
What is meant by the statement that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life?
What popular notion cannot possibly be supported by these words?
What did James say about actually doing what the Word says?
Why, then, was the Old Covenant spoken as the ministration of death?
In what way was the Old Covenant glorious?
What is the difference between its glory and that of the New?
When and why did Moses put the veil on his face?
What is the ministration of the spirit?
Why was the Old Covenant spoken of as a ministration of condemnation?
Why was the New Covenant called the ministration of righteousness?
What does righteousness mean in this context?
In what way does the glory of the New Covenant outshine that of the Old?
How does the allegory of Abraham’s two wives explain the relation between the Old and New Covenants?
Why is the New Covenant spoken of as the one that remains?
On what was Paul’s hope based?
Why could he speak with such boldness about the hope of the New Covenant?
Why did Moses put a veil on his face? When did he remove it?
What is meant by the end of that which was passing away?
What caused the minds of the Jews to become hardened?
What was their attitude toward the reading of the Old Covenant in Paul’s day?
What happens when the veiled heart turns to the Lord?
With what covenant is the Lord associated in this context?
Where is liberty to be found?
Why is the Christian’s face spoken of as unveiled?
What is the mirror in which we behold the glory of the Lord?
What happens when we do?
What did Paul mean by the expression from glory to glory?
What did he mean by even as from the Lord the Spirit?
For Discussion
What can be done through Christian living to promote the work of Christ?
What can be done to help church people speak with conviction about the Word of God?
2 Corinthians 3:1
Applebury’s Comments
Self-commendation Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:1. Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you or from you?
*Comments
Are we beginning again to commend ourselves.*Paul had just written of the glorious triumph of the messengers of Christ and also of the message itself which had to do with eternal life and eternal death. He had indicated that he was adequate for this ministry. In his relationship to Christ as an inspired apostle, he spoke the Word of God with all sincerity. He did not make merchandise of it as some had done. The whole chapter is an explanation of his fitness for the task.
As he often does in his writings, Paul anticipated possible charges of self-commendation. He was well aware of the arrogance of some people at Corinth. See 1 Corinthians 4:18. He knew of those who were bringing false charges against him. See 2 Corinthians 10:10. The message of the Word of God was of such importance to the apostle Paul that he wanted to make sure that the Corinthians would not make the mistake of assuming that what he was writing was idle boasting about his own powers and abilities.
*epistles of commendation.*There is certainly a place for letters of commendation. Paul had written many words of commendation about his fellow-workers, Timothy and Titus. In writing to the Philippians about Timothy, he had said, for I have no man likeminded who will care truly for your state for they all seek their own and not the things of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:20-21). The closing words of First Corinthians contain words of commendation about some of the brethren who were also well known to the Corinthians. Paul wrote to the Romans commending Phoebe whom he calls, our sister who is a servant of the church that is in Cenchrea. He urged them to treat her in a manner befitting the saints and to assist her in whatever matter she might have need (Romans 16:1-2). This faithful saint had been a helper of many including the apostle Paul. In the closing part of that epistle Paul mentioned a number of the brethren whom he commended in various ways because of their service in the Lord. His commendation of Luke, the beloved physician, is found in Colossians 4:14. Mark, for some reason, had not completed the first missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas. This became a matter of sharp contention between them when they started on their second journey. Paul refused to take Mark with him. Long afterwards, he wrote to Timothy, saying, Take Mark and bring him with thee for he is useful to me for ministering (2 Timothy 4:11).
*to you from you?*Paul may have had in mind the many who were corrupting the Word of God and who may have brought epistles of commendation of themselves so that they might become established among the Corinthians. Paul knew about those who had caused so much trouble among the Galatian churches. They had come from James, but there is no good reason to assume that he had approved what they were doing. See Galatians 2:12. In the light of James-’ comments as reported in Acts 15:1-41 and Paul’s investigation as given in Galatians two, one might readily assume that their claims were false.
Paul needed no letter of commendation to the church at Corinth, for he performed all the signs of an apostle in their midst. See 2 Corinthians 12:12. Neither did Paul need a letter of commendation from them. He had written to them in First Corinthians saying, If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:2). This point is elaborated upon in the two-fold answer that follows.
Our Epistle
2 Corinthians 3:1-6
**Butler’s Commentary
SECTION 1
It Dooms The Soul **(2 Corinthians 3:1-6)
3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. -Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.
**2 Corinthians 3:1-3 Ineffective: **Legalism is an almost constant problem for preachers. The problem is either his own legalism or that of members of the congregation he serves. It is probably the most productive tool of the devil to thwart the work of the church on earth! It is a sin much more insidious than sins of the flesh. It damns more souls than fornication and thievery put together! Legalism is a problem, not only for those inside the church, but for millions of impenitent sinners seeking to be justified before God by some meritorious code devised by their own self-righteous arrogance. Legalism is fundamentally an attitude. It manifests itself in behavior designed to conform to specific codes or rules. And those codes of conduct are almost as numerous as there are human beings! Legalism is the attitude that demands justification from God on the basis of having behaved in conformity with an established set of regulations or rulesusually regulations established by the individual. The Pharisees took the law of Moses, made their own code of behavior as interpretations (called, traditions of the elders) and declared they were justified before God because they had kept the law.
Followers of the Pharisees were everywhere in the first century world of Paul. Many of them had infiltrated the Christian churches established in the Roman provinces. Paul called them, false brethren (Galatians 2:4) and dogs (Philippians 3:2). They were the Judaizers who insisted that before any Gentile could become a disciple of the Messiah (Christ) he had to be circumcised according to the law of Moses and keep the traditions of the elders.
Someone in the Corinthian church had impugned Paul’s credentials as an emissary of God because he had no commendations from the Judaizers. Some had come to the Corinthians with letters of commendation-’ from the Judaizers and were received. These Judaizers were there, as in Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Rome, Jerusalem, and other places, to undo Paul’s work and regiment the Corinthian Christians into little cells of legalistic Judaism. They undoubtedly carried with them introductory letters from the Sanhedrin to accredit them. Once upon a time even Paul had had such letters himself (Acts 9:2).
Paul’s argument is that no amount of letters of accreditation from the Judaizers will produce eternal life or the Christian freedom cherished by the Corinthians. That is because legalism is totally ineffective in clearing the conscience (see Hebrews 10:1-4). It cannot produce life in the heart (mind) of man. The law of Moses produces condemnation, judgment, and eternal death. So do all traditions and codes of legal justification invented by men, no matter how liberal the code may be (see Romans 2:12-16). Man’s conscience tells him he has sinned and defaulted on his own standards, let alone God’S! The only way sinful man can have a consciousness of life is through a dispensation of divine grace. Grace is dispensed through Christ.
The apostle contends that the converted heathen Corinthians were living credentials of his ministry. They proved he was the properly authorized emissary from Christ. Paul had written on their hearts the eternal gospel. They had become persons with a consciousness of immorality. They looked to the things that are unseen. eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Their mind-set and lifestyle was known and read by all men. (2 Corinthians 3:2). That was Paul’s letter of commendation from God. The Greek philosopher Plato had said 400 years before Paul, that the good teacher does not write his message in ink that will fade; he writes it upon men. And that is the way the gospel of Christ operates. It becomes fixed upon the character, the personality, the spirit of the humble and contrite person. Christ’s word is eternal. It shall never pass away. It never returns to him void but always accomplishes that for which it is sent (see Isaiah 55:11). Christ had written his character, through his servant, Paul, upon the hearts of the Corinthian Christians, not with that which was destined to fade (the law)but with the eternal Spirit of God. Their relationship to Christ was Paul’s accreditation (see 1 Corinthians 9:2). It is an awesome thought that every Christian, whether he likes it or not, is at once a living letter known and read by his contemporaries. Christians represent Christ to the world. Men judge the church by its members. The honor of God is in the hands of believers (see Romans 2:24; John 13:35; 1 Thessalonians 1:7-8).
The possessive pronoun in the Greek text is hemon and should be translated our. Some ancient Greek manuscripts (among them the Siniaticus) have humon for the pronoun which would read your. Evidently the RSV translators chose the pronoun humon even though the preponderance of manuscripts show hemon. For Paul to say, You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all men. does not make sense and does not fit the context. Unless Paul’s sentence could be separated this way: You yourselves are our letter of recommendation to be known and read by all men, and you are written on our hearts. Another commentator has suggested that Paul means the hearts of all Christians, in general, not Paul alone. That is, Paul’s credentials are written on all our hearts to be known and read by men, you Corinthians, too. But Paul goes on to say in 2 Corinthians 3:3, and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us. so he is referring to that which is written on their hearts. The RSV translation seems in keeping with the context. They were Paul’s verification: they were read by all men.
The Greek verbs in this passage are instructive. The perfect tense participle eggegrammene, having been inscribed means what Christ had written on their hearts through Paul had been done in the past with a continuing result. And the present tense participles, ginoskomene (being known) and anaginoskomene (being read) indicate that the Corinthians were continually being known and read by all men. Furthermore, the present participle phaneroumenoi (being shown) indicates they were continually showing that they were Paul’s recommendation.
**2 Corinthians 3:4-5 Insufficient: **The Judaizers went to Corinth with letters from the fathers at Jerusalem, no doubt. But no human being is sufficient to produce in man what God desires. Paul would not even claim that sufficiency on his own. He would have the Corinthians understand that his confidence is through Christhis sufficiency is from God. Legalism is insufficient because it does not come from God. God gave the Law. But God never intended the Law to be used in a legalistic, self-justifying way. The Law had a holy and good purpose (see Romans 7:7-12). It was actually intended to teach just the opposite from what the Judaizers taught. The Law was to bring all who knew it to a consciousness of condemnation and total inability to be justified by it. It is not the law which is insufficientit is legalistic perversion of the law which is insufficient. The Law is sufficient for its purposeto produce awareness of sin, the need for grace, and tutoring unto faith.
Paul would not even take credit for what had been produced in the Corinthians through him. He gave all the credit to Christ and God. That is another of the glaring insufficiencies of the legalistic spirit. It dare not be honest and give credit where the credit is due. The legalist is a legalist because he wants all the credit for himself. Grace, unmerited favor, is anathema to him! Let all preachers and congregations beware of legalism. It is ineffective and insufficient. In fact, it produces exactly the opposite of what God’s powerful word produces. Stay with the Word. Preach the wordleave traditions and codes to the legalists.
Like it or not, right or wrong, people generally manifest what they have been taught or what they have learned. Teaching and learning is a character-building process. People become books to be read by all those with whom they associate. The apostles were read as having been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). That is how people become letters of recommendation. Paul told the brethren at Thessalonica they were his joy and crown of boasting (1 Thessalonians 2:19-20; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-4).
**2 Corinthians 3:6 Incriminating: **Legalism dooms men under the judgment of God even more so than the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was given by God and provisions were made in it for having faith reckoned as righteousness (see Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:1-40). But legalism takes the Law and prostitutes it into a system of human self-justification. But by the law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:16).
Paul reminded the Corinthians that his credentials testified that he had been qualified by God to be a minister of a new covenant, not in a written code which kills, but in the Spirit which gives life. Law condemns to separation from God (death) because man cannot, does not, keep the Law. Man is guilty. God’s penalty for breaking his Law is eternal banishment. But from the very first violation of his Law, God started preparing to forgive and justify men by a totally gracious deed of his own. All who believed in that in the O.T. were justified by God’s gracious deed (redemptive work of Christ). The new covenant was prophesied, typified and proclaimed in the O.T. All those in the O.T. who refused to trust in the coming grace of God through the Messiah (and there were many), but trusted in their legal standing according to Law, never had the salvation of God. Paul plainly says that the new covenant was a manifestation of the righteousness of God apart from law, although the law and the prophets had borne witness to just such justification by faith (Romans 3:21-26).
In this letter to the Corinthians the apostle wants it understood that he has been qualified to be a minister (dispenser) of the new covenant which is all about life. The new covenant does not condemn or sentence anyone to death. It holds forth the word of life. Of course, anyone who does not enter into the new covenant will die forever because all who refuse the gospel must accept lawone kind of law or another (see Romans 2:12-16). And to trust in law for justification is the very essence of legalism. Legalism incriminates and kills. The Spirit of God, given gratis (by grace), brings justification and life.
2 Corinthians 3:2-3
Applebury’s Comments
Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:2-3. Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; 3 being made manifest that ye are an 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 table that are hearts of flesh.
*Comments
our epistle.*The reason he needed no letter from them is seen in the fact that they actually were such a letter. They were his beloved children in the gospel. See 1 Corinthians 4:14-15. They had become Christians as a result of obedience to the gospel which Paul preached to them. Despite the fact that conditions at Corinth were far from what they should have been Paul was perfectly willing to risk his reputation as an apostle of Christ upon the testimony of the Christian character and conduct of those who were faithful to the Lord.
*written in our hearts.*This letter was written in his mind, that is, his understanding and his affections. He knew about the establishment of the church for he was the first one to preach the gospel there, and he had kept in touch with them through the household of Chloe and through the letters which others had written asking questions about their own problems. Paul had just laid bare his own heart as he told them about his anguish and tears and sorrow over those who had failed to come up to the proper standard of Christian character and conduct. He also revealed his anticipated joy which all were to share when he came to them again. The Corinthians knew that he loved them and cared for them as a father for his beloved children.
*known and read of all men.*While this epistle was written in the apostle’s heart, he says that all men knew it and read it. This undoubtedly means that all who came in contact with the church in Corinth knew of their relationship to Christ. They were also aware of the fact that the apostle Paul had brought the gospel to them. Corinth was a strategic point in which to establish the church, for men from the known world came in and out of that city carrying on their commerce. As they did so they learned about the church of God which was at Corinth.
*an epistle of Christ.*As men came to know the life of the church at Corinth, despite all the sordid things that were known about some of them, it became evident that they were an epistle of Christ. A comparison of what they were before and after conversion is given in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. To see such people after their sins had been washed away by the blood of the Lamb, and to hear them boldly tell of their forgiveness in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ must have made a profound impression on the minds of all who came in contact with them.
*ministered by us.*Paul had likened his ministry among them to one who planted and that of Apollos to one who watered. He had served as the masterbuilder to lay the foundation, but another had built upon it. Now he says, Ye are an epistle which Christ wrote. Paul was the servant of Christ through whom the writing had been done. But this was said in humility, not self-commendation, for it was the grace of God that had made it possible for him to serve in this capacity. See 1 Corinthians 15:10.
*written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God.*Paul now contrasts the letter which Christ had writtenthe New Covenantwith the Old Covenant. The epistle of Christ had not been written with ink, for it was not just a piece of parchment with words written upon it. It was written with the Spirit of the living God through the inspired apostle. It was the message of life unto life and death unto death. It could be read by all those who saw the changed character and conduct of the church at Corinth. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul had made it clear that his message had been the testimony of God about Jesus Christ and Him crucified. He had not spoken the wisdom of men, but the wisdom that had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:10-13.
*not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.*Tables of stone suggest the Old Covenant, that is, the Ten Commandments. See Exodus 34:28-29; Deuteronomy 4:13. Hearts of flesh suggest the New Covenant. See Jeremiah 31:31-34 as quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13. The essential difference in the two is indicated by the fact that the New Covenant became a living reality in the lives and hearts of those who became obedient to the gospel of Christ. This is the reason that the Corinthians were both an epistle of commendation of the apostle Paul and an epistle which Christ had written through the ministry of His inspired apostle.
2 Corinthians 3:4-11
Applebury’s Comments
Paul’s Glorious Ministry Under the New Covenant Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:4-11. And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; 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 on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: 8 how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. 11 For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.
*Comments
And such confidence have we.*Despite the hardships which Paul faced at Corinth, his ministry is characterized by confidence and triumph. His confidence was through Christ, for he knew what Christ had done for him. He knew of His resurrection which demonstrated that He had conquered Satan. He had surrendered to the risen Christ on the Damascus road. He had committed himself wholeheartedly to the service of the Lord. He remembered that day when Ananias told him to get himself baptized that his sins might be washed away, because he had called upon the name of the Lord. He had been summoned as an apostle of God. He was convinced that the way of victory was through Jesus Christ. He was never ashamed of Him nor of His gospel, for he was confident that it was the power of God to save the believer, whether Jew or Greek.
*our sufficiency is from God.*That is, it is God who made him adequate for the task of preaching the Word that dealt with eternal life and eternal death. God had revealed the message through the Holy Spirit to the apostles and thus equipped them for the glorious ministry under the New Covenant. No one without that divinely revealed message could possibly undertake such a ministry.
How unfortunate that many who undertake the work of the ministry today seem called upon to substitute the wisdom of man for this divinely revealed message of God. Paul’s confidence in this message is expressed in his word to Timothy, Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He did not hesitate to urge Timothy to preach the Word; to be urgent in season, out of season; to reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. See 2 Timothy 4:2. The same divine Word which Paul preached will equip the consecrated minister of today who has the courage to preach this message of eternal life and everlasting death.
*ministers of the new covenant.*A covenant is an agreement. When that covenant is between God and man, God Himself dictates all the conditions of the covenant as well as the blessings involved in it. Man agrees to the terms of the covenant in order to enjoy its blessings. In the case of the Old Covenant which was given at Mt. Sinai, God revealed the commandments to Moses. The people entered into the covenant relationship when they said all that the Lord has spoken, we will do. See Exodus 19:8. Subsequently, all who were born into the family of the Jews were parties to that Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant only those who are born of the water and of the Spirit are parties to the New Covenanta spiritual birth in contrast to a physical birth.
The New Covenant is the gospel of Christ that promises remission of sins and eternal life to the believer whose faith is expressed through obedience to the commandments of Christ. Every individual who comes into this New Covenant relationship with Christ through the new birth, publically and in the sight of God as he makes the good confession, promises to be obedient to its terms and pledges his allegiance to Christ. To say that I believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God is to endorse all that is involved in ones total relationship to God through Jesus Christ. As Christ, He is our Prophet. Through His prophetic office the message of the Bible was revealed from heaven. See Hebrews 1:1-2. As Priest He shed blood for the remission of sins. Significantly, in instituting the Lord’s Supper, He blessed the cup and said, This is my blood of the new covenant poured out for the many unto the remission of sins. As King, He is seated at the right hand of the throne of God in fulfillment of the promise of God made to David. See Acts 2:25-36. He exercises His authority as well, as His watchcare over His people through the inspired Word spoken through the apostles. All of those who pledge themselves to keep the terms of the New Covenant must let the Word of Christ dwell in them richly in all wisdom and teaching. See Colossians 3:16.
This New Covenant was given in promise to Abraham in the Scripture which says, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. See Galatians 3:8. It was given to Abraham some four hundred and thirty years before the covenant at Sinai, but was not annulled by that covenant. See Galatians 3:16-17. It came to its fulness with the preaching of the gospel on the Day of Pentecost. All those who accept its terms become sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. for as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). Furthermore, if you are Christ’S, then are you Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:29).
God was a party to two covenants at the same time, but they were not in conflict because they served different purposes. One was with Abraham and Christ; the other, the Ten Commandments, was with Israel. It was added, Paul says, because of transgression. There was a time limit on it, for it was to last until the promised seed of Abraham should comethat is, Christ. It served in the capacity of a trusted slave who watched over a child until his majority, and as such held sin in check until Christ came. But since it was a law that could not make alive one who had died in sin, it was necessary that the promise to Abraham be fulfilled in Christ and be put into effect through the preaching of the apostles. On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles told those who were guilty of crucifying the Son of God to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, for the promisethat is, the promise God made to Abrahamwas to them and to their children and all that were far off, as many as the Lord God should call unto Himself. See Galatians 3:19-22; Acts 2:38-39.
*not of letter but of spirit.*This expression is found three times in Paul’s writings: once in this epistle and twice in Romans. The first instance in Romans is found in Romans 2:29. There he uses letter as a symbol of outward conformity to the Law that had been written on the tables of stone. On the other hand, he uses spirit as a symbol of the inward life of the individual, Jew or Gentile, who actually carried out the provisions of the Law. Moses had written that the one who actually carried out the righteousness which is of the Law lived thereby. See Romans 10:5. Paul had said that not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified. See Romans 2:13. Such persons showed the works of the Law written on their hearts, that is, they understood what was right in God’s sight and willingly complied with it. This was not, as some have contended, an impossible thing. Moses wrote, This commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven that you should say, -Who will go up for us to heaven that we may hear it and do it?-’ Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say, -Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us that we may hear it and do it?-’ But the word is very near to you, it is in your mouth and in your heart so that you can do it (Deuteronomy 30:11-14). John says, This is the love of God that we keep this commandment: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3).
The second instance in Romans is found in 2 Corinthians 7:6. The same basic idea is seen in this context. Newness of spirit refers to the new life in Christ which was characterized by intelligent, willing, loving obedience to Him. Oldness of letter, on the other hand, referred to the life under the jurisdiction of the Law. Because of violation of the Law, life was characterized by sinful passions that brought forth fruit unto death. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul uses letter as a symbol of the Old Covenant just as he had done in Romans, and spirit as a symbol of the life under the New Covenant. Keeping in mind Paul’s use of these terms will aid in interpreting 2 Corinthians 3:17-18.
Two further observations need to be made: (1) letter is not contrasted with the Holy Spirit. Verse three plainly indicates that the epistle of Christ had been written with the Holy Spirit, but in verse six spirit (spelled with a small s) is used as a symbol of the New Covenant; (2) There is no justification whatever for the assumption that letter and spirit refer to a literal interpretation of the Word of God as opposed to a so-called spiritual interpretation. All of God’s Word is spirit and life (John 6:63).
The Word is directed to intelligence of man and it appeals to his heart. It shows the way to forgiveness and purity in Christ. It is life, for obedience to it brings the gift of life eternal.
*for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.*This unfortunately has led some to assume that an attempt to actually obey God’s Word results in death. How can such a view be harmonized with what James plainly says? Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word and not hearers only deluding your own selves (James 1:21-22). Why then did Paul say that the letter killeth? Remembering that letter stands as a symbol of the Old Covenant, we may read the Old Covenant killeth. The answer to the problem is clearly indicated in the Scriptures for Hebrews says that the Old Covenant gave place to the New because God found fault with those under the Old Covenant. He found fault with them because they continued not in His covenant. See Hebrews 8:7. Paul shows that by the works of the Law no human being is pardoned in God’s sight. See Romans 3:20. By works of the Law he has in mind those ceremonies such as the animal sacrifices which only served to remind the one who had broken God’s law that ultimately Christ would come providing the sacrifice that would actually blot out sin. See Romans 3:25. He further states that if there had been a law given which would make alive then righteousness (pardon) would have been of the law. See Galatians 3:21. He also states that the law is not a matter of faith but he that doeth them shall live in them (Galatians 3:12). Spirit which stands for the New Covenant gives life. Under this covenant the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, actually cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. See Hebrews 9:14. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is given in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and in Hebrews 10:16 in these words: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and upon their minds also will I write them and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more. As sin reigned in death, even so grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:21).
2 Corinthians 3:7-11
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
It Diminishes God’s Splendor **(2 Corinthians 3:7-11)
7 Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses-’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, 8will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? 9For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. 10Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor.
**2 Corinthians 3:7-8 Deteriorates: **The Law of Moses was a dispensation of death, carved on deteriorating stone. Of course, it had splendor (Gr. doxe, glory)! Anything God does has glory. All God’s actions in history are glorious. His creation of this universe was glorious; his providential intervention (miracles) in creation was glorious; but this universe is destined to pass away, and is passing away because he has subjected it to futility (see Genesis 3:14-19; Romans 8:18-25). This universe was temporary from the day of its creation for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:42-54). So with the Law of Moses. It was glorious but temporary from the moment of its revealing. It was destined to be fulfilled with that which was permanently glorious the Gospel.
The Law came to Moses with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses-’ face because of its brightness, fading (Gr. katargoumenen, being done away, being brought to an end, rendering powerless) as this was. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, after receiving the Law of God, his face shone so that both Aaron and the Israelites were afraid to come near him (Exodus 34:29-35). Just as objects exposed to light or radiation sometimes glow even after being removed from the light, so Moses, having been with God who dwells in light unapproachable (1 Timothy 6:16) had acquired some of the glow of God (see Revelation 21:23), even though he had seen only the back part of God (Exodus 33:23). Jesus-’ transfiguration (Gr. metemorphothe, metamorphosis) is described thus: … his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as the light (Matthew 17:2); … his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them (Mark 9:3); … the appearance of his countenance and his raiment became dazzling white (Luke 9:29). This transfiguration of Jesus was a sign to the apostles that his coming with the dispensation of the Spirit was to be with greater splendor than that dispensation of death given to Moses.
If the Law of Moses, which originated with God, revealed a diminishing splendor from the moment of its inception, how much more will legalism, a perversion of the Law, diminish the splendor of God. This is Paul’s aim in this admonition to the Corinthian church. They must not allow the legalists to come in with letters of commendation (no matter from whom) and diminish the glory of the Gospel.
**2 Corinthians 3:9-11 Disappears: **The Law of Moses, the dispensation of condemnation, would inevitably be superseded should a dispensation of righteousness be inaugurated. And that is precisely what took place. Paul had preached that to the Corinthians. He had converted them to Christ with a gospel of righteousness (see 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; 2 Corinthians 5:11-21). Logic, therefore, demands that the Corinthians not be deceived by the Judaizers into returning to a faded splendor of condemnation because the splendor of righteousness in Christ to which they had been called must far exceed the Law of Moses. The dispensation of righteousness, the Gospel, supersedes any and all legal systems, whether revealed to Moses or written on nature and the conscience of man (see Romans 1:18 to Romans 2:16).
Paul puts it this way, Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. The Law of Moses (and all legal systems or legalisms) have no splendor at all! All religious, philosophical, or ethical systems advocating justification by law-keeping or self-improvement are bereft of any glory in the eyes of God. It is, therefore, senseless and useless to seek glorification from God in the Law of Moses or in any form of legalism.
The transfiguration of Jesus Christ was an actual, historical event. It was empirically observed (seen and heard). When Jesus was metamorphosed from his fleshly nature back into his divine glory, there appeared with him (seen by the disciples) Moses and Elijah (representatives of the Law and the Prophets, the dispensation of death) (see Matthew 17:3-8; Mark 9:4-8; Luke 9:30-36). It was at that moment God spoke to the disciples (Peter, James and John) and said, This is my beloved Son, with who I am well pleased; listen to him. God thus served notice that Jesus was to supersede, fulfill and abrogate the Old dispensation and surpass it with such divine glory in the gospel that the Old would have no splendor at all. After God’s message, the disciples looked and saw no one but Jesus only. The Law was to disappear in Jesus.
The New dispensation, the Gospel, remains (Gr. menon, is remaining or abiding) is permanent. It shall never fade away. It was the promise according to faith from the beginning, and the law which came 430 years later did not annul the promise (Galatians 3:10-18). Justification by faith in Christ has always been God’s intent for man. It has been God’s permanent, most glorious, dispensation of grace from the foundation of the earth for Jesus was the lamb slain then (1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8). The Gospel is the eternal gospel (1 Peter 1:25-25; Revelation 14:6). Heaven and earth may pass away but Jesus-’ words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
Hebrews 2:1-4 gives an awesome warning to men to pay closer attention to the gospel than to the revelation given by angels (the Law) because the gospel came through the Son (see Hebrews 1:1-4). The entire book of Hebrews is a clear and absolute command not to return to the Law (or any form of legalism) for justification. Those who seek justification by legalism are apostates who have no avenue for repentance before God (see Hebrews 6:1-8) but only a fearful expectation of judgment (Hebrews 10:1-39). Paul’s epistles to the Romans and the Galatians are also unequivocal treatises on the fulfillment and abrogation of the Law of Moses in Christ, and the apostate nature of legalism as a system of justification.
Applebury’s Comments
The Glory of the Old and New Covenants Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:7-11. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: 8 how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. 11 For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.
*Comments
But if the ministration of death.*Paul had just spoken of the Old Covenant under the figure of the letter that kills. Now for the same reasons he speaks of it as a ministry that produced death. Nevertheless, he declares that the ministry that produced deatha letter which was engraved on stonescame with glory. Paul was not one to criticize the Law of God. Although he had violated it and as a result had died, he insisted that the law was holy and the commandment was holy and righteous and good. See Romans 7:9-12. He is now about to contrast the glory of the Old Covenant with the glory of the New that brought him life in Christ. When Moses came down from the mountain after he had talked with God his face shone with a brilliance that made it impossible for the children of Israel to look intently at it. They were aware of the fact that Moses had been in the presence of God and that the word he was speaking was from God. When he finished speaking to them, he put a veil on his face. When he went again to speak to the Lord he took the veil off and came back to deliver the message to the people of Israel and then put the veil on his face again. See Exodus 34:29-35.
*which glory was passing away.*The veil kept the people from seeing that the shining brilliance on the face of Moses was gradually fading away. It kept them from assuming that what he had said as the Word of God was only a temporary thing. But see verse fifteen for the distorted view that some continued to hold regarding this matter.
*the ministration of the spirit.*Some assume that this is a reference to the ministry of the Holy Spirit and therefore capitalize the word. Let it again be emphasized that Paul has already indicated that the New Covenant came into existence through the work of the Holy Spirit as He spoke through the inspired apostle. The word spirit in this verse however is to be taken, as it is in verse six, as a symbol of the New Covenant. As such it is contrasted with the ministry of death which is a symbol of the Old Covenant. The apostles-’ question was, If the ministry of the Old Covenant, which was a ministry that brought death, came with glory as indicated by the shining face of Moses, how shall not also the ministry of the spirit-covenant (New Covenant) which brings eternal life be with glory? The verses that follow indicate the surpassing glory of this spirit-covenant.
*for if the ministration of condemnation.*The New Covenant which was symbolized by spirit gave life and was called a ministry of righteousness. Paul explained this righteousness as something apart from the Law, as a righteousness of God to which the Law and Prophets had borne witness. It was the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe. It provided pardon from sin for all who fall short of the glory of Godthat is, of His approval. That pardon is freely given because of God’s grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. He is the One who through His blood blots out sins of those who believe in Him and expresses that belief in obedience to His commands. See Romans 3:21-26; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16. Righteousness is used in a three-fold way in Paul’s writings. First, referring to the fact that God is right or just in word and deed. Second, it refers to the standard of conduct which God requires of His people. Third, it is the status of one whose sins have been pardoned by the grace of God through faith in Christ. Is there any wonder that Paul insists that the glory of this ministry of righteousness exceeds the glory of the ministration that brought death? The glory of the New Covenant so outshines the glory of the Old as to cause it to appear as if it had not been at all.
*For that which passeth away.*Paul explained in Galatians that the Law was to serve until Christ. But since faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the Law. See Galatians 3:23-25. He also explained that Christ was born under the Law that He might redeem those who were under the Law. See Galatians 4:4-5. In the allegory of Abraham’s two sons he again clearly points out that the possession of eternal life was not possible under the Old Covenant, for it belongs to those who enjoy the freedom under the New Covenant. Hager, the mother of Ishmael, represented the Old Covenant. She and her son were cast outdid not inherit the blessing of Abraham. Sarah and Isaac represent those who are under the New Covenant. Paul adds, Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. He cited the Scripture that said, Cast out the handmaiden and her son, for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. Christians are children of the free womanthat is, the New Covenantand are heirs of the promise of eternal life through Christ. See Galatians 4:21-31. This position is reinforced by the writer of Hebrews for he says, In that he said a new covenant, he hath made the first old, but that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away (Hebrews 8:13).
It should be noted that verse eleven refers to the Old Covenant which was passing away. This had been symbolized by the fact that the glory that shone from Moses-’ face was also passing away. See 2 Corinthians 3:7.
*that which remaineth is in glory.*The New Covenant is the abiding covenant. Under it the perfect sacrifice has been made, and no further sacrifice is necessary since the blood of Christ actually cleanses the conscience of the worshipper. See Hebrews 10:1-18. The glory of this covenant remains. Its glory is to be found in the fact that it came from God through Jesus Christ as He revealed it by the Holy Spirit through the inspired apostles. See John 16:13-14.
2 Corinthians 3:12-13
Applebury’s Comments
Paul’s Great Boldness of Speech Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:12-13. Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech, 13 and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away:
*Comments
such a hope.*Paul’s hope was based upon the abiding nature of the New Covenant. The blessings of the New Covenant were remission of sins, eternal life in Christ, and the hope of the glory of God. See Romans 5:1-2.
*great boldness of speech.*This is said in justification of his claim that he was adequately fitted for the task of preaching the message of the gospel which dealt with eternal death and eternal life.
*not as Moses.*The fact that God spoke to Moses was symbolized by the shining brilliance on the face of Moses when he came down from the mountain, but that message was temporary. Since it was to act as a guardian over God’s people until Christ should come, the temporary nature of that message is suggested by the fact that the shining brilliance of Moses faded away. Moses had put the veil on his face to keep the children of Israel from seeing when this happened. It was in direct contrast to the great boldness of speech which characterized Paul’s message under the New Covenant which is permanent.
*the end of that which was passing away.*Moses did not want the children of Israel to see that the glory had left his face. So long as they were under the Old Covenant, he wanted them to remember that it was God’s Word. As Moses prepared the children of Israel to go over into the promised land, he said, You shall not add to the word which I command you nor take from it that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I commanded you (Deuteronomy 4:2). No other nation had a God like the Lord God of Israel; no other nation had a law like the law God had given them. See Deuteronomy 4:7-8. The Lord spoke to Joshua as he was preparing to lead the children of Israel in their conquest of Canaan. Be strong and very courageous being careful to do according to all that Moses my servant commanded you. Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left that you may have good success wherever you go (Joshua 1:7). Paul reminds us that the law was holy, and the commandment was holy and righteous and good. See Romans 7:12. All this, however, cannot compare with the surpassing glory of the permanent New Covenant with its blessings of remission of sins and eternal life through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Some have suggested that end may refer to the purpose of the Law of Moses. But certainly Moses was not interested in obscuring that purpose, for he himself had said, The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like unto me from among you (Deuteronomy 18:15). Peter quoted Moses and showed that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. See Acts 3:20-23. Moses simply did not want Israel to see that the brilliance had left his face for it was a symbol that God had spoken to him.
2 Corinthians 3:12-17
**Butler’s Commentary
SECTION 3
It Divests People of Freedom **(2 Corinthians 3:12-17)
12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
**2 Corinthians 3:12-13 Conceals: **Moses put a veil over his face after he finished speaking with the Israelites (Exodus 34:33-34) and removed the veil when he went in to speak with Jehovah in the tabernacle. But Moses always put the veil on when he came into the presence of the Israelites. Paul states that Moses put the veil on his face so the Israelites would not see the end of the glory that was fading away (2 Corinthians 3:13). Paul states the veil was because Moses did not have enough hope in the fading away revelation to be bold enough to let Israel see the fading glory. Moses certainly did not veil his face because the Israelites were not allowed to see the glow, or because it was so bright it blinded them, for Moses talked to them before putting on the veil. The apostle used the fading glory of Moses-’ face as a symbol or type (which is prophetic) of the fading glory of the Old covenant (the law). That covenant passed away, like the glow of Moses-’ face. Even though the Old Testament predicts in a number of places that the old covenant was to be done away (e.g. Jeremiah 3:15; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 66:1-24; etc.), most Jews refused to accept that doctrine then and Jews do not accept it now! The Israelite people to whom Moses ministered were certainly not spiritually mature enough to be reminded over and over of the fading glory of Moses-’ relationship to Godthat is why Moses covered his face. The Jews killed the prophets for predicting the fulfillment of the old dispensation with the Messianic age; they killed Christ for that; and they authored the deaths of a number of the apostles for preaching that doctrine.
Legalism veils the freedom (so did the Law of Moses) God intended to give believers in Christ. The prophets hinted at the freedom that would come to man when the Messiah came (see especially Isaiah 61:1-4 as fulfilled in Luke 4:18-19). But that freedom was concealed and obscured in the Law. Any form of legalism certainly hides the freedom which God reveals in the New Testament of Christ Jesus.
**2 Corinthians 3:14-15 Calluses: **Legalism hardens the mind against grace. The veil over Moses-’ face was also a symbol of the hardening of the minds of the Israelites in rejecting Christ. Fourteen centuries after Moses, the Jewish mind was still hardened in Paul’s day whenever the Law of Moses was read in a Jewish synagoguea veil lay upon the hearts of the Jews and they became satisfied with a system of justification by legalism. Twenty centuries after Paul, that hardness is still like concrete over the Jewish mind. Paul told the brethren of Thessalonica that they had suffered the same things from their own countrymen as the Christians of Judea did from the Jews, who (the Jews) killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us (apostles) out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us (the apostles) from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be savedso as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them (the Jews) to completion (Gr. eis telos, unto perfection), see 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. That same kind of callused opposition to Christ and his church continues to go on in modern Israel and among modern Jews.
Jewish legalism is not the only legalism which opposes the gospel. All forms of legalism are set against grace! There is an inveterate legalism within the Christian Church which takes an obscurantist and obdurate stand in opposition to Christian grace and freedom in Christ. The human arrogance that is proud of its pseudo-righteousness through legalistic justification makes war on the humility which rejoices in its freedom through grace alone.
**2 Corinthians 3:16-17 Constrains: **Paul says plainly that when a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Men are free only in the Lord. The obverse truth is that men are enslaved in Law and legalism. The apostle states it much clearer in Galatians. He specifically uses the words, consigned under and confined under. restraint in Galatians 3:21-25. In Galatians 4:1-7 he uses the word slave to describe those under the Law (see also Galatians 4:21-31 for the allegorical picture of those under the Law as children for slavery). Jesus told those who committed themselves to him that they were no longer slaves (John 15:15). He told the Jews that if they would continue in his word, they would be his disciples and they would know the truth and the truth would make them free (see John 8:31-38).
Legalism is even more enslaving than the Law, for legalism cannot do what the Law was sent to doto bring people to an acknowledgment of their sinfulness and lead them to Christ for mercy. Legalism will have none of mercy for it does not acknowledge its need for mercy.
2 Corinthians 3:14-15
Applebury’s Comments
Hardened Minds Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:14-15. But their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. 15 But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart.
*Comments
minds were hardened.*This hardness was a subject of the prophecy of Isaiah which was quoted by Jesus in connection with the failure of some to understand the parable of the sower. By hearing ye shall hear and shall in no wise understand; and seeing ye shall see and shall in no wise perceive. This people’s heart is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing, their eyes they have closed lest haply they should perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and should turn again and I should hear them (Matthew 13:14-15). Paul warned his Jewish hearers about the same thing when he spoke to them in Antioch of Pisidia. He said, Beware therefore lest there come upon you which is spoken in the prophets: Behold ye despisers and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you (Acts 13:40-41). He also quoted Isaiah’s prophecy to the Jews who met with him in Rome. See Acts 28:26-28.
*at the reading of the old covenant.*Tragically many of the Jews failed to anticipate the coming of Christ and the New Covenant although these matters had been clearly set forth in their Scriptures. They became satisfied that they were the chosen people of God. Their religion had become largely a matter of external conformity to ritual and form. They were interested in the ceremonies and the keeping of feasts and sabbaths. But Jesus asked them on one occasion, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions (Matthew 15:3)? Now Paul charges them with spiritual blindness and stubbornness, for even in his day they still clung to the Old Covenant as if it were a permanent thing. They refused to admit that although God had spoken to the fathers in the prophets, that in the end of those days of revelation He had spoken with finality, completeness and authority in the exalted One who bears the name Son. See Hebrews 1:1-2.
*it is done away in Christ.*Moses removed the veil when he went back into the mountain to talk with God but the veil remained on the hearts of those who heard the reading of the Law of Moses for they were not aware that it is removed in Christ. What God said in the completed revelation of His will in the New Covenant is like speaking to Him face to face. See 1 Corinthians 13:12. The examination of the facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Christ should convince one that God’s approval rested upon Him. See Acts 2:22-36. The apostle Peter, recalling his experience in the holy mountain when God said this is my Son in whom I am well pleased, said, We have the word of prophecy made more sure where unto you do well that ye take heed as unto a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts, knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation for no prophecy ever came by the will of man but men spake from God being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21). Paul indicates that God’s gospel, which concerns His Son and the pardon that was made possible through His shed blood, is in accord with the testimony of the law and the prophets. See Romans 1:1-4; Romans 3:21-26.
*whenever Moses is read.*Paul had had many experiences with the stubbornness of the Jews who steadfastly refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Disobedient Jews had rejected his message of Christ at Antioch. They led persecutions against him in Iconium and Lystra. They stirred up trouble for him in Thessalonica. Their hatred for him finally led to his arrest in the city of Jerusalem. Throughout his long imprisonment they pressed their charges with the hope of having him put to death. Only his appeal to Caesar prevented his falling into their murderous hands. Their stubborn hearts were veiled so that the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ did not penetrate that veil.
2 Corinthians 3:16-18
Applebury’s Comments
Transformed Scripture
2 Corinthians 3:16-18. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit.
*Comments
turn to the Lord.*The only way to remove that veil is to make an honest investigation of the claims of Christ as set forth in the gospel which was preached by the inspired apostles. When it, the veiled heart, turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. Then one can see that God has spoken with finality through the Son in the New Covenant. The veil kept the Jews from seeing that the Law of Moses was supplanted by the gospel. They did not know that God was speaking through Christ, not Moses. See Deuteronomy 18:15. The veil, which Moses removed when he was in the presence of God or speaking to the children of Israel, is taken out of the way when one realizes that God did speak with finality through Christ.
*Now the Lord is the Spirit.*The word spirit in this verse is rendered Spirit, assuming that Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit. The Lord is Jesus Christ. See 2 Corinthians 4:5. See also comment on 2 Corinthians 1:3. But this is to identify the Lord with the Holy Spirit. We are well aware of the fact that Scripture makes it clear that there is an intimate unity between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But why should Paul refer to this unity at this point? He had already made it clear that the New Covenant came into being through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit as he directed the minds of those who wrote down the message of the New Covenant. He had also indicated that spirit stood as a symbol of the New Covenant. Since in this context he is contrasting the reading of Moses, that is the Old Covenant, with the boldness of Paul’s speech in connection with the New Covenant, it is possible that he is speaking about the Lord who is identified with that spirit-covenant. It is to the Lord that the veiled heart was to turn. And that was to be done by the reading of the New Covenant which was symbolized by spirit rather than letter. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old.
*where the Spirit of the Lord is.*While this could refer to the Holy Spirit through whom the New Covenant came into being, consistency would suggest that the reference is still to spirit as the symbol of the New Covenant. Where the spirit-covenant of the Lord is, there is liberty.
*there is liberty.*This is the very issue that Paul discussed with the Galatians in Chapter s four and five. The New Covenant is represented by Sarah, and the Christian by Isaac. Paul concludes, Wherefore brethren we are not children of the handmaid but of the free woman (Galatians 4:31). Again Paul says, For freedom, did Christ set us free. Stand fast therefore and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). This freedom in Christ is within the regulation of the Law of Christ. Bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). See also Romans 8:1-4.
*But we all, with unveiled face.*The reading of the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the reading of the New Covenant. While the Jew read with a veil upon his heart, the Christianthe one who turned to the Lordis aware that the New Covenant is the abiding message of Christ.
*beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord.*See James-’ use of the mirror as a symbol of the perfect law of liberty, that is, the gospel or the New Covenant. James 1:23-24. It is the glorious, abiding New Covenant that reveals the glory of the Lord. It reveals His deity, His majesty, His power and His authority. It reveals His work as Prophet, Priest, and King. It reveals Him as our example, in whose footsteps we should follow. See 1 Peter 2:21. It reveals Him as the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. See 1 Peter 1:25. It reveals Him as the One coming again for those who wait for Him unto salvation. God’s children will be like Him for they will see Him as He is. See 1 John 3:2.
*transformed into the same image.*The tragic failure of the Jews under the Old Covenant is indicated by the fact that they were not transformed into God’s children. Though they claimed God as their Father, the simple truth was that they were filled with hatred for His Son and disregard for His Word. Therefore Jesus called them children of their father, the devil. See John 8:39-44.
Will Christ tolerate anything less than genuine transformation into Christlikeness under the New Covenant? Paul wrote to the Romans and said, Be not fashioned according to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds so that ye may approve the will of God, the thing that is good, and acceptable in His sight, and complete (Romans 12:2). How tragic that many of the Corinthians had failed to see this. Their sin of division was destroying the temple of the Holy Spirit, their immoral conduct defiled the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and their unchristian conduct made it impossible to keep the memorial feast of the Lord’s Supper.
*from glory to glory.*The image into which those who turn to the Lord are to be transformed is that of the glorious Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing short of Christlikeness in character and conduct meets this demand. Paul had written to the Corinthians to say, Imitate me as I am also an imitator of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). Guidelines to follow in this matter may be found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Christ demonstrated in His life the meaning of every one of these characteristics of love. Love is the crowning virtue of the Christian life. So the glory of Christ is to be seen in the glorious life of His church. He cleansed it by the washing of the water with the Word that He might present the church into Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle of any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:26-27).
*even as from the Lord the Spirit.*This glorious transformation comes from the Lord of the spirit-covenant. Again some assume that Spirit is in apposition to Lord thus identifying the Lord with the Holy Spirit. The point that Paul is making is that the Lord has spoken through the New Covenant in contrast with the fact that Moses spoke through the Old Covenant as God revealed it to him.
Summary
Following the claim to be equal to the task of proclaiming the message of the gospel which was a message of life and death, Paul asked two questions: (1) Is this self-commendation? and (2) We do not need, as some do, letters of commendation to you or from you, do we? He began his answers by saying, You are our epistle. Others might need letters of commendation, but Paul didn-’t. He knew that they had become Christians through his preaching. He had an abiding love for them. They, then, were like a letter written on his heart, known and read by everyone. They knew of his love for them and that they had become new creatures in Christ. Indeed, they were like a letter that Christ had written through his ministers who had preached the gospel to them. It was written on living heartsthe understanding and affectionsnot stone tablets as if it affected external conduct only. It was not an ordinary letter written with ink, but one written by the Spirit of the living God. Paul was confident of all this because he knew that it had God’s approval. God alone had made him equal to the task of being a minister of the New Covenant. This led to a contrast between the Old Covenantthe Ten Commandments given at Mt. Sinaiand the New Covenantthe gospel covenant given in fullness on the Day of Pentecost. He spoke of the Old Covenant as a letter covenant, and the New Covenant as a spirit covenant.
To many, the letter-covenant was not obeyed out of love for God. It became a thing that killed, because death was the penalty for breaking it. The spirit-covenant, because it was intelligently, willingly, and lovingly obeyed, was a thing that made alive those who were dead in sin. The spirit-covenant was revealed by the Holy Spirit, but for that matter, so was the letter-covenant, and in some respects it too was spiritual. See Romans 7:12-14. The expression, the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the Scriptures as opposed to a spiritual interpretation.
Paul contrasted the glory of these two covenants, that is, the Old Covenant which kills and the New that brings life. The Old brought condemnation to the disobedient, but the New brings forgiveness to those who willingly obey it. The glory of the Old was such that the sons of Israel could not look steadfastly at the face of Moses which shone with a brilliant light because he had talked with God who had given him the covenant for Israel. But the glory of the New Covenant excells the Old just as forgiveness excells condemnation. The glory of the Old could not equal the surpassing glory of the New. Even the glory on Moses-’ face faded away, a symbol of the fact that the Old Covenant was to be replaced by the New which is permanent. As a minister of the New Covenant, Paul spoke with great boldness.
Moses put a veil on his face to keep the people from seeing the end of the glory with which it shone. Moses wanted them to remember the glory as a symbol of the fact that God had spoken to them through Him. This kept them from seeing that the Old Covenant had been done away. Even in Paul’s time, a mental picture of that veil remained in the minds of readers of the Law because they were not aware that the veil had been done away by the New Covenant of Christ. It was done away whenever the veiled heart turned to the Lord through whom God spoke with finality, completeness, and authority. See Hebrews 1:1-2. The Lord is the Lord of the spirit-covenant. The message of the New Covenant is forever fresh just as if one were speaking to God face to face. Where the spirit-covenant of the Lord is, there is liberty. With unveiled faces because we are talking to the Lord, we look as into a mirror when we read the New Covenant and see the glory of the Lord.
As we behold this glorious image of the Lord, we are transformed into the glorious likeness of the Lord of the spirit-covenant.
2 Corinthians 3:18
**Butler’s Commentary
SECTION 4
Defense Against Legalism **(2 Corinthians 3:18)
18And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
**2 Corinthians 3:18 Transformation: **The defense against legalism is a gradual process of transformation into the likeness (Gr. auten eikona, same image, or, same icon). The apostle uses the Greek word metamorphoumetha and it is translated into the English word changed by the RSV. This Greek word is a combination of the prepositional prefix meta (which can mean over and beyond) and morphe (which means form). Thus we have the English word metamorphosis from this Greek word. A metamorphosis is what a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly; its form is changed beyond what it was from one degree of glory to another.
The metamorphosis Paul is talking about here for the believer is a spiritual one in this earthly existence. It is spoken of in the New Testament in a number of metaphors; it is called the new birth; conversion; salvation; partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-11); being born of the Spirit; being transformed; being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Romans 8:29), etc. Nearly all Bible believers agree on these terms as expressing the experience or action required by God for eternal life. The disagreement is usually over the question as to how this transformation takes place in the life of the believer.
Paul says in this text (2 Corinthians 3:18) that it occurs when believers … with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. An analysis of this text, as we compare it with other relevant scriptures, will clearly indicate how this action is accomplished. First, it requires an unveiled face. The Greek verb for unveiled is anakekalummeno. It is a perfect tense verb indicating action in the past with a continuing action or result. It is a perfect passive participle of anakalupto and would be translated literally, having been unveiled. Passive voice would indicate the unveiling was something done to the believer by someone else. Our unveiling is through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Of course, God’s Spirit will not unveil our hardened minds unless we wish him to and cooperate with him in every instruction he gives in his Word. The Holy Spirit may be resisted. This unveiling is definitely a continuing, progressive process. It does not all take place at one time. The perfect tense verb clears that up. Furthermore, Paul states that it is a process from one degree of glory to another.
Second, the unveiled face comes as a result of beholding the glory of the Lord. The Greek work translated beholding is katoptrizomenoi (we get the English word optometry from this word). It is a present tense, middle voice participle. The present tense means action continuing to happen. The middle voice means the subject (the believer) is acting upon himself or in some way that concerns himself. The Greek word katoptrizomenoi might be translated, beholding in a mirror or, seeing a reflection. One way or another, the human being must behold the glory of the Lord in order to be changed. And Paul says that even the beholding comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. Now the question is, how has the Spirit made the glory of the Lord visible to human beings?
We believe the New Testament is unequivocal on that point! We believe there is no room for opinion on the matter. We believe it is a clear teaching of the scripture and Scripture is always authoritative above opinions when sound hermeneutics are exercised. Many passages in the New Testament clearly indicate that in conversion and sanctification (being changed from one degree of glory to another, or, being transformed into the image of God’s Son) the Holy Spirit operates only through the Word of truth: (a) we are made partakers of the divine nature (the nature of Christ) and granted all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Christ and through his precious and very great promises (2 Peter 1:3-4)the knowledge of Christ comes through the Word (Romans 10:17), and certainly there is no other place for a human being to find the promises of Christ except in the written word; (b) we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds motivated to that renewing by the mercies of God (Romans 12:1-2)the mind of the human being must contact the mercies of God to be renewed and those mercies can only be mentally appropriated from the written Word; (c) we are to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Romans 8:29) by setting our minds on the things of the Spirit (Romans 8:5-8)the mind of the human being must be set on the things of the Spirit and these things are revealed through the apostles (see John 16:7-15, and see our comments on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16) in the New Testament only (see 1 John 4:1-6); (d) we are called through the gospel so that we may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14)the gospel is the Word of the Spirit written which is at work in believers (1 Thessalonians 2:13); (e) we purify our souls by obedience to the truth and are born anew of the imperishable seed which is the living and abiding word of God, the preached (or written) gospel (1 Peter 1:22-25)the seed of new birth and continuing purification of the soul is sown in our minds through the written Word of the spirit.
We might go on multiplying references from the scriptures showing that the Holy Spirit operates only through the Word of truth for there a many. We quote now from Alexander Campbell for clarification of this proposition:
All moral facts have a moral meaning; and those are properly called moral facts which either exhibit, develop, or form moral character.. It so happens, however, that all his (God’S) works, when properly understood, exhibit both his physical and moral character, when viewed in all their proper relations.. The work of redemption is a system of works, or deeds, on the part of Heaven, which constitute the most splendid series of moral facts which man or angel ever saw. And they are the proof, the argument, or the demonstration, of that regenerating proposition which presents God and Love as two names for one idea. When these facts are understood, or brought into immediate contact with the mind of man, as a moral seal or archetype, they delineate the image of God upon the human soul. All the means of grace are, therefore, only the means of impressing this seal upon the heart,of bringing these moral facts to make their full impression on the soul of man. Testimony and faith are but the channel through which these facts, or the hand of God, draws the image on the heart and character of man. Alexander Campbell in The Christian System, pub. Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, no date, pps. 90-91.
Alexander Campbell also wrote that in human experience, No living man has ever been heard of, and none can now be found, possessed of a single Christian concept of one spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion, where the Bible, or some tradition from it has not been before him. See the Special Study at the end of this chapter from Alexander Campbell’S, Christian Baptism, on this proposition.
While we endure the sufferings of this present time being changed from one degree of spiritual glory to another into the likeness of Christ, these sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Romans 8:18-39). God is preparing for those metamorphosed into the image of his Son an eternal weight of glory beyond comparison (2 Corinthians 4:16-18) when we shall be clothed with life (2 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Corinthians 15:35-57) and immortality.
And since he (God) is the source of our life in Christ, who is our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption, (1 Corinthians 1:30-31), let us renounce legalism and boast only of the Lord!
Special Study
NOTES FROM CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
by Alexander Campbell
PROPOSITION:
In conversion and sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates only through the Word of truth. Argument from. 1.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MIND
In conversion no new faculties are impartedno old faculty destroyed! The Spirit of God, in effecting this great change does not violate, metamorphose, or annihilate any power or faculty of the man, in making the saint. p. 236
EXPERIENCE
No living man has ever been heard of, and none can now be found, possessed of a single Christian concept of one spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion, where the Bible, or some tradition from it, has not been before him. p. 238
OBSERVATION
No one, professing to have been the subject of the illuminating, converting, and sanctifying operations of the Spirit of God, can ever express a single right conception or idea on the whole subject of spiritual things, not already found in the written word, p. 239 I have never heard one suggestion, containing the feeblest ray of light, which was not eighteen hundred years old, and already found in Holy Scriptures. pp. 239, 240
CONSISTENCY-Whatever is essential to regeneration in any case, is essential to it in all cases. p. 240
If then, the Spirit of God, without faith, without knowledge of the gospel, in any case, regenerates an individual, it does so in all cases. But if faith in God, or a knowledge of Christ, is essential in one case, it is essential in every other case. p. 240
THE HOLY SPIRIT’S OWN METHOD OF ADDRESSING MEN
He seems to have sought admission into the hearts of the people by these glorious displays of Divine power presented to the eyes (miracles), and these words of grace addressed to the ear.. He used means, rational means; therefore, we argue, such means were necessary, and are still, in certain modifications of that same supernatural grandeur, necessary to conversion and sanctification. p. 242
THE NAME CHOSEN BY JESUS FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT (Paracletos - advocate)
Now as the Spirit is to advocate Christ’s cause, he must use means.. He was to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.. In converting men, the Spirit, the Holy Advocate, was to speak of Jesus. Hence, speaking of Jesus by the Spirit; is all that was necessary to the conversion of men. pp. 242, 243
THE GIFT OF TONGUES (LANGUAGE)
That language is essential to the completion of the commission, is proved from the great fact, that the first gift of the Holy Spirit, under the Messiah’s commission, was the gift of tongues. p. 243 With Plato, then, I say, that God taught the primitive words, and from that, man manufactured the derivatives. With Newton, I say, God gave man reason and religion by giving him speech. the Spirit of God, now the Spirit of the Word, is the origin of all spiritual words and conceptions. p. 245
SCRIPTURE
1 Peter 1:23 The Word of God is the seed, of which we are born again or renewed in heart and life.. Where this incorruptible seed is not, there can be no birth! pp. 245, 246
James 1:18 God’s will is the origin of it; his Spirit the efficient cause of it; but the Word is the necessary instrument of it. p. 246
1 Corinthians 4:15 The gospel is here the seed, the instrument of the conversion of the Corinthians. p. 247
PAUL’S COMMISSION (Acts 26:15-18)
God would use light, knowledge, the gospel, and would OPEN THE EYES of menturning them from darkness to light, and from the kingdom and power of Satan to God. Illumination is, therefore, an essential prerequisite to conversion and holiness. p. 248
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Whatever influence is ascribed to the Word of God in the Sacred Scriptures, is also ascribed to the Spirit of God. p. 248
Enlightenment-Hebrews 6:4 -Psalms 19:7-8
Conversion-Titus 3:5-7 -Psalms 19:7
Sanctification-Romans 15:16 -John 17:17
Be filled with-Ephesians 5:18 -Colossians 3:16
Life giving-Romans 8:6; Romans 8:11 -Psalms 119:25; Psalms 119:50
RESISTANCE
Resisting the Word of God, and resisting the Spirit of God, are shown to be the same thing. p. 249
CREATION
Every work of creation is represented as the product of his Word. (Hebrews 11:3; Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:20; Genesis 1:24; Genesis 1:26) p. 251
God, therefore, made man in his own image by his Word, and he now restores him to that same image by his Word of power. p. 251
GOD’S WILL AND POWER
The Lord has imbodied his will in his Word.. The Word of the Lord is the Lord himself. p. 251 As the Lord Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, so is his Word an embodiment of his power.. The Word of God is, then, the actual power of God. p. 252 The power of God to salvation is the persuasive power of infinite and eternal love, and not the compulsive and subduing power of any force superadded to it. p. 253
THE CONVERSION ACCOUNTS IN ACTS
In not one of these cases did the Holy Spirit operate without the Word, but always through it. p. 254 (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 5:14; Acts 8:5-6; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35; Acts 9:4-9; Acts 9:17-19)
Special Study
ARE WE FUNDAMENTALISTS? Historically
The answer to that is Yes and No! While the Restoration Movement parallels the great revival of religious conservatism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our Movement predates the historical founding of the movement called Fundamentalism. It is also evident that the Restoration Movement, although believing in the great fundamental doctrines declared at the first by fundamentalism, does not adhere to later theological deviations and dogmatism. George M. Marsden, Professor of History at Calvin College, in his book, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 1980, sees Fundamentalism rising out of the ashes of the destructive debate which occurred at the 1873 Evangelical Alliance.
Until that time, American Protestantism had been riding the crest of a wave of evangelicalism swept along on the tide of revivalism in the late 1700’S and early 1800’S. It is significant that the Restoration Movement in America was begun during this time.
This old order correlated faith, learning and morality with the welfare of civilization. Two premises were absolutely fundamentalthat God’s truth was a single unified order and that all persons of common sense were capable of knowing that truth. The implications of these assumptions were carefully worked out by the philosophical school known as Scottish Common Sense Realism. (Marsden, op, cit, p. 14)
In 1869 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (who moved in the ultraliberal Transcendentalist circles in Boston) predicted the imminent demise of Christian conservatism, saying: The truth is staring the Christian world in the face, that the stories of the old Hebrew books cannot be taken as literal statements of fact. Holmes was seduced by the destructive criticism of such men as F.C. Baur, D.F. Strauss, and J.E. Renan. Throwing fuel on the flame already begun, James McCosh, President of the College of New Jersey (later, Princeton), stated on the floor debate of the 1873 Evangelical Alliance, he thought that evolution and Christianity could be reconciled without violating belief in God and creation. But others, among them the great Charles Hodge of Princeton, countered that the supernaturalism of the Biblical view was utterly incompatible with the naturalism they saw as essential to Darwin’s position. Almost all the basic battle lines had been drawn, but the battle was far from settled. Higher criticism and Darwinism went far beyond the realm of empirical science and took the leap into philosophies of origins and purposes. This threatened the very foundations of Christian belief. Most American evangelicals were so firmly committed to both objective science and historical Christianity they were forced, by the severity of the conflict, into one of two extreme positions. They could say with Charles Hodge that Darwinism and higher criticism was irreconcilable with Christianity; or they could redefine the relationship between science and religion until religion would no longer be seen as dependent on historical or scientific fact susceptible of objective inquiry, but would have to do with only the experiential and moral aspects of lifeareas not open to scientific and historical investigation. Religion was already, in fact, being redefined this very way by Schleiermacher and Ritschl (advocates of Kant’s categorical imperative). At this same meeting in 1873, this new direction was suggested by the most popular American preacher of the day, Henry Ward Beecher. Beecher and others continued to press the new theology of experience. Some say 1877 was the turning point when a minor controversy over future punishment occurred among the Congregationalists. The real shock waves came from abroad. Three strong concussions were felt almost simultaneouslyevolutionary naturalism, higher criticism of the Bible, and the newer Idealistic philosophy and theology. Theology was no longer viewed as a fixed body of eternally valid truths. It was seen rather as an evolutionary development that should adjust to the standards and needs of modern culture. The conservatism of the Blanchards of Wheaton College and Dwight L. Moody’s evangelical revivalism played major roles in swinging the religious pendulum away from the new liberalism. Moody’s close friends and younger lieutenants (Reuben A. Torrey, James M. Gray, C.I. Scofield, William J. Eerdman, and others) lent their able energies and abilities to shaping fundamentalism. There were four main emphases in early fundamentalism: apologetics, holiness, eschatology, and evangelism. In 1910-1915 twelve paperback volumes, written by the best and most loyal Bible teachers in the world, were published. The funds to publish them came from a Southern California millionaire. Among the authors were men of the caliber of James Orr, B.B. Warfield, Sir Robert Anderson, Reuben A. Toreey, and G. Campbell Morgan. The series gave positive, scholarly, conservative expositions of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the deity, virgin birth, supernatural miracles, atoning death, physical resurrection and personal return of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin, salvation by faith through spiritual regeneration, the power of prayer and the duty of evangelism. From that time on, it seems to have become habitual for American evangelicals to refer to these articles as the fundamentals. In 1919 the World Christian Fundamentals Association was formed, and in 1920, a group of evangelical delegates to the Northern Baptist Convention held a preliminary meeting among themselves to re-state, reaffirm and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith; whereupon an editorial in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner coined the title Fundamentalists to denote those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals. The word was at once taken up by both sides as a title for the defenders of the historic Christian position.
In almost every major American denomination, sometime between the late 1870’S and World War I, serious disagreements broke out between conservatives and liberals. In these struggles the conservatives were not necessarily fundamentalists in any strict sense. They were first of all denominational conservatives who had their own distinct traditions and tenets. Some, like the conservatives among the Restoration Movement, were regarded as a part of the fundamenatlist movement largely because their aims were parallel and in certain of their battles they had common opponents. The issues debated most intensely centered on the authority of Scripture, its scientific accuracy, or the supernatural elements in Christ’s person and work. There were also parallel and closely related disputes over the distincitive doctrines, such as Calvinism among Presbyterians and the necessity of baptism by immersion for church membership among the Disciples of Christ. This is the way Marsden (op. cit.) views the contribution of the Christian Churches to the fundamentalist movement:
When fundamentalism became a national sensation, conservative denominational movements with their own traditions and backgrounds temporarily joined in the fundamentalist fray. Some of them had only a tangential relationship to the rest of fundamentalism. Among Disciples of Christ, for instance, although the controversy was as intense as among the Presbyterians or Baptists, their conservative party had a unique set of interests. They shared with the main body of fundamentalists a strong opposition to liberalism, especially the liberalism represented by the former journal of the Disciples, The Christian Century. The controversy focused, however, on preserving strict Disciples traditions, particularly Baptism by immersion. This exclusivism separated the Disciples conservatives from other fundamentalists, even though both groups recognized some mutual affinities. By the 1920’S the conservative Disciples -Restoration Movement-’ had been battling liberals strenuously for a decade and a half. In 1924 at the height of the other denominational controversies, the conservatives established the Christian Restoration Association which seriously threatened to split the denomination. Although a formal schism was averted, within a few years separatism had led to the virtual independence of the liberal and conservative factions within a loose denominational structure.
At the North American Christian Convention Theologial Forum, summer 1973, Dr. Jack Cottrell, Prof. of Theology at the Cincinnati Christian Seminary, made an address on Values in Evangelical Theology. It has been published in The Seminary Review, Vol. 19, No. 4. This address gives an excellent perspective on the relationship of the conservative stream of the Restoration Movement to Fundamentalism. Dr. Cottrell says:
… in the 1920’S the character and reputation of fundamentalism changed. The change was not basically in its theological position, but in its mood and temperament and attitude. Dispensationalism (including its pre-tribulation pre-millennialism) did become a more widespread characteristic of this view, but the greatest change was the development of a negative attitude, characterized in various ways such as legalism, anti-intellectualism, obscurantism, literalism, separatism, bigotry, harshness of spirit, and other-worldliness. Today when people speak of contemporary fundamentalism, they usually mean this kind of temperament.
… It was as a corrective to this negative attitude that the movement called evangelicalism (or the new evangelicalism) began to emerge in the 1940’S. In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals was formed. In 1947 Carl Henry indicted The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. The Evangelical Theological Society was organized in 1949. The aim of this new movement was to retain the conservative theological position of fundamentalism, but to rid itself of the negative attitude.
This brief historical summary has hopefully clarified the options before us. First, one must choose between liberal theology and conservative, orthodox, supernatural theology. Then, within conservative theology, one must choose between fundamentalism and evangelicalism.
Dr. Cottrell concludes that we need to share with profit some of the theological positions of evangelicalism while avoiding compromising the distinctives of the Restoration Plea. Are we Fundamentalists? Are we even Evangelicals? No! Historically, the Restoration Movement was defending the Biblical faith more than a century before the 1920 formation of the Fundamental Association. Alexander Campbell wrote in his personal diary, January 29, 1809, The Word of God, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. Mr. Campbell also said: Reason deciding the testimony is true is believing; reason deciding the testimony is false is disbelieving; reason unable to decide is skepticism. Are we Fundamentalists? Yes! The Restoration Movement was leading a return to Christian foundations and the fundamentals of the faith while others in Christendom were falling away into human creeds and traditions. The Restoration Movement is both historically and theologically more fundamental than the Fundamentalists. Alexander Campbell said, in 1842, The Bible alone must always decide every question involving the nature, the character or the designs of the Christian institution. It is true, historically, that in the 1920’S the Restoration Movement was invaded with the same deadly liberalism which had ravaged the rest of Christendom. And it is true that there were some faithful and courageous Christians who fought the same battles as the fundamentalists were fighting. But it is also true that those same brave, Bible-believing Christians in the Restoration Movement had been battling for a return to the real fundamentals of the faith long before the liberalism of the 1920’S.
Theologically
Most analysts of the phenomenon called fundamentalism characterize it by its five great fundamental doctrines: (1) the infallibility of scriptures; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) his substitutionary atonement; (4) his bodily resurrection; (5) and his visible second advent. The most important of these five is the issue of the infallibility of scripture. James I. Packer, in his book, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, 1958, gives a brief definition of the fundamentalist concept of infallibility:
… the teaching of the written Scriptures is the Word which God spoke and speaks to His Church, and is finally authoritative for faith and life. To learn the mind of God, one must consult his written word. What Scripture says, God says. The Bible is inspired in the sense of being word-for-word God-given. It is a record and explanation of divine revelation which is both complete and comprehensible; that is to say, it contains all that the church needs to know in this world for its guidance in the way of salvation and service, and it contains the principles for its own interpretation within itself.
When this fundamental is granted (the inspiration, infallibility and authority of the scriptures) the other doctrines of fundamentalism, as originally stated, follow as a matter of course. We, (of the conservative elements of the Restoration Movement) have no difficulty believing in the five great tenets of early Fundamentalism. In hundreds of Christian Chruches throughout this land and the world we would find no deviation from these basic beliefs. Conservative Restorationists should have no reservations about being classified as fundamentalists within the tenets just stated. In fact, some of us would classify obedience to the gospel terms proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) and the unity of all believers on the basis of the apostolic word (John 17:20-21) as fundamentals.
However, the inclination of present-day Fundamentalists to add to this body of basics, and to be dogmatic regarding their additions, presents a problem to many in the Restoration Movement. Ronald H. Nash, in his book, The New Evangelicalism, deplores the tendency of contemporary fundamentalists to reduce the Christian message to one of salvation alone, to the concept of religious faith as something separate from everyday life, and the depreciation of scholarship in all fields. To these should be added their dogmatic approach to dispensational eschatology and their insistence on a latter day Pentecostalism or outpouring of miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Carl F.H. Henry speaks of the temperament and attitude of modern fundamentalism as one of the main factors leading to its being discredited. He speaks especially of the attitude of rancor and negation often found in representatives of the movement:
By some fundamentalism is considered a summary term for theological pugnaciousness, ecumenic disruptiveness, cultural unprogressiveness, scientific obliviousness, and/or anti-intellectual inexcusableness. By others, fundamentalism is equated with extreme Dispensationalism, pulpit sensationalism, excessive emotionalism, social withdrawal, and bawdy church music. (What Is This Fundamentalism? by Carl F.H. Henry, 1956, p. 303.)
Contemporary fundamentalism’s most conspicuous theological aberration seems to be dispensational-premillenialism. Some fundamentalists of great stature rejected dispensationalism. Reuben A. Torrey came to recognize it as faulty hermeneutics. G. Campbell Morgan also rejected it, saying, I am quite convinced that all the promises made to Israel have found, are finding, and will find their perfect fulfillment in the Church. It is true that in the past, in my other expositions, I gave definite place to Israel in the purpose of God. I have now come to the conviction that it is the new spiritual Israel that is intended. Nevertheless, dispensationalism is a widely influential position within contemporary American fundamentalism. Millard Erickson says in his book, Contemporary Options in Eschatology, 1977, pp. 109-110:
Because the rise of dispensationalism roughly paralleled that of the fundamentalist movement, it became virtually the official theology of fundamentalism. Some commentators have practically identified the two. Some proponents of dispensationalism consider it to be not an interpretation of the Bible, but simply a restatement of what the Bible says. Some have made it a test of orthodoxy, regarding one who fails to hold all of its points as one who denies Scripture itself. In many cases a whole mind set or collection of attitudes is involved.. For the dispensationalist. the truth of the dispensational system implies the truth of pretribulationism, and the falsity of pretribulationalism implies the falsity of dispensationalism. For such a person, then, an attack upon pretribulationism appears to be an attack upon the whole Christian system of belief. His entire Christian experience has been associated with this way of believing, and even conditioned to particular terms and expressions.. We must therefore bear in mind that their sense of religious security is bound up with what appear to them to be essentials of Christianity.
Many dispensational premillennialists are so thoroughly convinced their eschatological system is essential to loyalty to Christ, they have excommunicated dissenters or categorized them as apostates. All sorts of anathemas have been pronounced upon non-premillennialists:
a. The real hypocrites of our day are those who turn their backs on the real message of our day, the Second Coming of our Lord. Scripture indicts ministers and pastors who refuse to investigate the signs of the time leading to Christ’s return, and warn the unsaved to prepare, as being ignorant, hypocrites, and false prophets. 1974-1978 - Jewish Temple rebuilt; 1981-1985 Beginning of the Tribulation; 1997-2001 - The Beginning of the Kingdom Age. (The Gospel Truth, pub. in Oklahoma City, OK)
b. Israel is invincible unless God is vulnerable. (from a church paper of one of our Christian Churches) c. Opposition to premillennialism had its rise in the attackers of true Scriptural doctrine.. (The Millennial Kingdom, John F. Walvoord, p. 39)
James Barr writes in his book, Fundamentalism, The forecasting of the end comes to be the central preoccupation, and other things fall into the background. Millennial interest is also a dangerous threat to the unity of evangelicals: millennial schemes are many, and quarrels among their adherents are often bitter.
Clearly, the Restoration Movement’s conservative brotherhood would be fundamentalist in its theology if early fundamentalism is our touchstone. Perhaps our Restoration Movement is more fundamental than the Fundamentalist!
But we must, for the most part of our Movement, disclaim the reductionism, the dogmatism, and the hermeneutical aberrations of contemporary fundamentalism’s theology. For those interested in further study of the relationship of the Restoration Movement to Fundamentalism and/or Evangelicalism, I strongly urge the reading of Dr. Jack Cottrell’s address cited earlier in this essay. Dr. Cottrell forms this Conclusion:
I have suggested that this (Evangelicalism) is a theological position which the central stream of the Restoration Movement should and can share, with profit and without compromise. This is not a call for organic union with any evangelical bodies. This is not necessarily a call for overt cooperation with other evangelicals in any kind of projects. Indeed, such cooperation is impossible in some areas without compromising our plea. For instance, any cooperative effort which presupposes a common view of the nature of the church, and common view of the way of salvation (or which takes our differences as a matter of indifference) is a compromise of the Restoration Plea and must be avoided. In other areas, however, such cooperatjon is possible and even advantageous. This is true especially in areas relating to apologetical interests.
Let me conclude this presentation with an exhortation Bro. R.C. Foster made to the Cincinnati Bible Seminary chapel audience on November 11, 1958:
The Cincinnati Bible Seminary arose amid the wreckage of our older educational institutions, and our missionary organizations. The silence of pacifism had fallen like a pall upon the restoration movement. Many feared to proclaim the plain commands of the Gospel lest they offend their denominational friends. They feared to speak of the apostasy of the great organizations of the restoration movement, of the unbelief that sat in the high places, lest they be dubbed controversialists, and the heavy hand of the hierarchy be raised against them. then it became evident that unless a dynamic generation of preachers would be produced, men who believed and were able to defend the Gospel against all attacks, men who knew and could meet the critical issues at hand, then the extinction of the restoration movement is in sight.. If the student body of this institution once allows itself to be seduced by such ideas as this, then the curse of half-hearted pacifism will descend even upon the Seminary.
Let us here, today, resolve we shall not relax our faith in and our proclamation of the fundamentals of the faith once for all delivered.