John Calvin Commentary 2 Corinthians 3:7

"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:" — 2 Corinthians 3:7 (ASV)

But if the ministry of death. He now sets forth the dignity of the gospel by this argument: that God conferred distinguished honor upon the law, which, nevertheless, is nothing in comparison with the gospel. The law was made illustrious by many miracles. Paul, however, touches here upon one of them only—that the face of Moses shone with such splendor as dazzled the eyes of all. That splendor was a token of the glory of the law. He now draws an argument from the less to the greater: that it is fitting that the glory of the gospel should shine forth with greater luster, since it is greatly superior to the law.

He describes the law in several ways:

1. He calls the law the ministry of death.
2. He says that its doctrine was written in letters, and with ink.
3. He states that it was engraven on stones.
4. He notes that it was not of perpetual duration; but, instead, its condition was temporary and fading.
5. He calls it the ministry of condemnation.

To make the contrasts complete, it would have been necessary for him to use as many corresponding clauses for the gospel. However, he has only spoken of it as being the ministry of the Spirit, and of righteousness, and as enduring forever. If you examine the words, the correspondence is not complete, but as far as the matter itself is concerned, what is expressed is sufficient. For he had said that the Spirit giveth life, and further, that men’s hearts served instead of stones, and disposition, in place of ink.

Let us now briefly examine these attributes of the law and the gospel. Let us, however, bear in mind that he is not speaking of the whole doctrine contained in the Law and the Prophets; and further, that he is not discussing what happened to the fathers under the Old Testament, but only notes what belongs specifically to the ministry of Moses.

The law was engraven on stones, and thus it was a literal doctrine. This defect of the law needed to be corrected by the gospel, because it was necessarily brittle as long as it was only engraven on tablets of stone. The gospel, therefore, is a holy and inviolable covenant, because it was established by the Spirit of God, acting as security.

From this, it also follows that the law was the ministry of condemnation and of death. For when men are instructed about their duty, and hear it declared that all who do not render satisfaction to the justice of God are cursed (Deuteronomy 27:26), they are convicted, as under sentence of sin and death.

From the law, therefore, they derive nothing but a condemnation of this nature, because God there demands what is due to Him, and at the same time confers no power to perform it. The gospel, on the other hand, by which men are regenerated and are reconciled to God through the free remission of their sins, is the ministry of righteousness and, consequently, of life also.

Here, however, a question arises: As the gospel is the odor of death unto death to some (2 Corinthians 2:16), and as Christ is a rock of offense and a stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many (Luke 2:34; 1 Peter 2:8), why does he represent as belonging exclusively to the law what is common to both?

Should you reply that it happens accidentally that the gospel is the source of death, and, accordingly, it is the occasion of it rather than the cause, since it is in its own nature beneficial to all, the difficulty will still remain unsolved. The same answer might be returned with truth in reference to the law.

For we hear what Moses called the people to bear witness to: that he had set before them life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15). We also hear what Paul himself says in Romans 7:10: that the law has turned out to our ruin, not through any fault attaching to it, but in consequence of our wickedness. Hence, as the condemnation of men is something that happens alike to the law and the gospel, the difficulty still remains.

My answer is this: that despite this, there is a great difference between them. For although the gospel is an occasion of condemnation to many, it is nevertheless, on good grounds, considered the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration and offers to us a free reconciliation with God.

The law, on the other hand, as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness; and by denouncing everlasting death upon transgressors, it can do nothing but condemn.

Or, if you prefer it another way: the office of the law is to show us the disease in such a way as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure. The office of the gospel is to bring a remedy to those who were past hope.

For as the law leaves man to himself, it necessarily condemns him to death; while the gospel, bringing him to Christ, opens the gate of life.

Thus, in one word, we find that it is an accidental property of the law—perpetual and inseparable—that it kills. For as the Apostle says elsewhere (Galatians 3:10), All that remain under the law are subject to the curse.

It does not, on the other hand, invariably happen to the gospel that it kills; for in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, and therefore it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:17–18).

It remains for us to consider the last of the properties that are ascribed. The Apostle says that the law was only for a time and needed to be abolished, but that the gospel, on the other hand, remains forever. There are various reasons why the ministry of Moses is called transient, for it was necessary that the shadows should vanish at the coming of Christ.

And that statement—The law and the Prophets were until John (Matthew 11:13)—applies to more than the mere shadows. For it intimates that Christ has put an end to the ministry of Moses, which was peculiar to him and is distinguished from the gospel.

Finally, the Lord declares by Jeremiah that the weakness of the Old Testament arose from this: that it was not engraven on men’s hearts (Jeremiah 31:32–33). For my part, I understand that abolition of the law, of which mention is here made, as referring to the whole of the Old Testament insofar as it is opposed to the gospel, so that it corresponds with the statement, The law and the Prophets were until John. For the context requires this. For Paul is not reasoning here about mere ceremonies, but shows how much more powerfully the Spirit of God exercises His power in the gospel than formerly under the law.

So that they could not look. He seems to have intended to reprove, indirectly, the arrogance of those who despised the gospel as something excessively inferior, so that they could scarcely condescend to give it a direct look. “So great,” he says, “was the splendor of the law, that the Jews could not endure it. What, then, must we think of the gospel, the dignity of which is as much superior to that of the law, as Christ is more excellent than Moses?”