Dear friends
First, we have the monumental research by Bro. Samuele Bacchiocchi which covers all this Patristic quotations, From Sabbath to Sunday. Don't you know it? Bacchiocchi's ministry with many of the book's data and other relevant historical information (plus the ways for acquiring the book) has the following link:
www.biblicalperspectives.com
Now, on the text of 2nd Corinthians 3:2-9, I have discussed it in a way that proves that whoever uses this text to contradict the Sabbath institution is "shooting" himself, for that is one of these texts that "backfire". See below:
Bible Texts That “Backfire”
Some Bible texts used to prove certain opinions often mean exactly the opposite of what is taught using them
* 2 Corinthians 3:3, 7, 8: “You show that you are a letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. . . the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. . . . Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?”
Since Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:3ff refers to the Ten Commandment as the law “written on stones” apparently as a “ministry of death”, and in another text he shows that the law became “weakened by the sinful nature” (Rom. 8:3), some imagine that he is discarding the Decalogue, to replace it for another set of rules for the Christian community.
But what Paul is really doing is contrasting the ministry of the old covenant with the new covenant. As he applies the qualification of “ministry of death” by mentioning the “tables of stones”, some Bible interpreters mistake his language to mean that the contents of these tables of stones represented a “ministry of death”. Then, we have something very strange—God, who presented Himself to Israel as “longsuffering, merciful, good, forgiving” actually prepared a terrible trap to that people at Sinai: He offered them there a legal code that would result inescapably in death! He reserved the “law of love and grace” only to the New Testament folks! Is that the God Who is no respecter of people?
Going back to the scenery of where God’s law was solemnly proclaimed to the people we can read in Exodus 19:10ff God’s order that Israel purified and even abstained from sexual activity (vs. 15) for an integral dedication to Him in preparation to the utterance of the law. Limits were set around the mount so that not even animals should roam across the area. Finally the Ten Commandments were audibly pronounced before being recorded on the tables of stones. Now, all this preparation, expectation and remarkable solemnity for the deliverance of a . . . “law of death”! That’s incredible! Any one would feel cheated!
Notwithstanding, that is the bottom line of the exegesis that can be read in the writings of certain interpreters of a semi-antinomian orientation, who are unable to realize that “the law of the Lord is perfect and restores the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Truly, David has in mind the entire law (Torah), but that means the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Decalogue.
Anyway, something went wrong in that agreement, turning its ministry into a death-producing factor. Why? Where was the problem? Was the law of such a tenor—generator of death? Then it couldn’t be “perfect”.
What some people can’t understand is that the problem was not with the law, but with the people who, even before knowing fully what would be proclaimed, precipitously declared regarding the Sinai proclamation: “we will do everything the Lord had said” (Exo. 19:8). But that was a stiff-necked people, so often condemned for their stumbling. Thus, it’s easier to understand: the problem was not in the law, but in the people. That is made very clear in the promise of the New Covenant at Ezekiel’s time—“I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Eze. 36:26). So, what the people needed was not a new law, but A NEW HEART.
The ones who had the wrong heart were the people, then the necessity of this people to change their attitude allowing God to perform a serious change—their stony heart removed and replaced by one of flesh.
And the important detail is that as Paul utilizes the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” metaphor it is implied that he intends to include ALL the commandments belonging to the “tables of stone”, as now transferred to the “flesh stones”. Otherwise, the use of the comparison wouldn’t make sense and he would have to employ a different and more appropriate language in vs. 3:3, something like “being manifested as letter of Christ, ministered for us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the heart, i.e., only nine commandments of the tables of stones, excluded that of the Sabbath day. . .” But that was not Paul’s language. Consequently, the Sabbath commandment SHOULD BE INCLUDED on the tables of stone.
Conclusion: In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul doesn’t say that the law is of death, but the ministry of the old covenant came to be like that. The Pauline illustration of “tables of stone/tables of flesh” deals with the old divine promise to Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 that by the action of the Spirit the stony heart would be removed from them so that a more malleable fleshy heart were granted. On the heart of flesh the complete God’s moral law would be written, as promised in the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).
As Paul employs the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” allegory, which is about the same used by Ezekiel (see 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27), he certainly wouldn’t think of excluding any part of the “tables of stone”, as Ezekiel wouldn’t either. Otherwise the Apostle would have to explain that the Christian would be a letter written, not in tables of stones, but in tables of flesh, excluding the Sabbath commandment, or something on this line.
Paul’s intention is to show that for the Christians renewed by the Spirit, the terms of the divine moral law leave the cold tables of stone to be recorded on their hearts warmed by God’s grace (see Rom. 8: 3, 4). That makes the semi-antinomian interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:3ff another interpretative “shot” that backfires.
How folks
Let me leave a contribution on this allegation that the Gentiles were left with just the Noachian laws, so they are freed from both the Ten Commandments and the hygiene laws, as some Messianic Jews teach:
10 Questions Regarding the Supposed Limitation of the Gentile Christians to Obey Only the “Noachian Laws”, Not the 10 Commandments
Some serious reflections for our Messianic-Jew friends
1 – Can you indicate where did Yeshua ever imply that there are two law codes—one for the Christian Jews, and another for the Gentile Christians, inasmuch as He said to His followers, “If you love Me, keep My commandments”? Should only those Christians of Jewish origin love Him and keep His commandments?
2 – And how about when Yeshua summoned the disciples for the world evangelization task and recommended them to witness the Gospel message to the different nations and tribes of the Earth, teaching them “to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you”, would that be applicable only to Christians of Jewish origin? In case the answer is yes, then where are defined those things He commanded separately to be applied to the Gentile Christians?
3 – When Yeshua said specifically that the Sabbath was established “for man” (Mar. 2:27), since the word “man” in the original is anthropós—the same utilized in Matthew 19:5 as He spoke of the man who leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife—if the Sabbath is an obligation only to Christians of Jewish origin, does that mean that marriage applies only to Jews also?
4 – After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention of the Sabbath as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey it, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, a topic that wasn’t even discussed in said council for not requiring such clarification: everyone observed it regularly (as, for instance, there was no discussion regarding the inconvenience of pronouncing God’s name in vain, something which needed no clarification)?
5 – After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention to the dietary laws as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey them, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST their observance, rather the REAFFIRMATION of the rule not to consume blood (cf. Lev. 3: 17; 7: 26; 17: 10; 19: 26; 1 Sam. 14:33?). Would the apostle repeat a rule of an “abolished law” to be obeyed by the Christian community—from Jewish and Gentile origin?
6 – Since the believers of the Jerusalem mother-church were ethnically Jews and “zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20) and they would never accept that they tinkered with the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws without a vigorous contrary reaction--institutions that had tremendous importance in their religious and cultural life (as can be seen in their disputes on circumcision, exactly because it was an altered rule)--isn’t it very clear that both the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws were not altered, for there are no discussion regarding any such changes?
7 – If we are to follow this strange rationale that the Gentile Christians should limit themselves to God’s “Noachian laws”, since there aren’t any clues in these NOACHIAN LAWS against disrespecting the parents and pronouncing God’s name in vain, are the Gentile Christians free to violate both these principles (see Genesis 9)?
8 – Where can it be demonstrated that the apostle Paul was aware of this limitation of the “Noachian laws” for the Gentile Christians, since he wrote to the Romans on their need of honoring all the Decalogue commandments naturally (Rom. 13:8-10), citing various of them as he took a part for the whole (see on vs. 9, “if there are any other commandments. . .”), and to the Ephesians he recommended “the first commandment with a promise” (Eph. 6:1-3), besides other commandments of the same rule (see Eph. 4:25-31) without clarifying that there were different rules (the “Noachian laws”) to the Gentiles?
9 – Since the Bible information is that in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of ALL who accept the terms of that New Covenant [New Testament] (see Heb. 8:6-10), where are there any rules of following the “Noachian laws” for the Christian Gentiles, and “My laws” [God’s] for the Christians of Jewish descent?
10 – Since the language of this New Covenant clearly indicates that God establishes that covenant “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8), but the context indicates that it applies to ALL those who accept the gospel (see Hebrews 10:11ff, especially vs. 16), how can someone justify this supposed division of rules for the obedience of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians?