2 Corinthians 3 did not abolish the law
The editorial denies that 2 Corinthians 3 abolished the moral law. But the chapter itself calls the law a ministry of death and declares the glory engraved on stones to be transient.
By Rodrigo Custódio ·
The moment
On Thursday, March 10, 1881, the weekly Signs of the Times, founded by James White and published in Oakland, California, carried on page 114 the editorial "Abolished in 2 Corinthians 3," signed at the end only "U. S." The discreet signature is that of Uriah Smith, one of the paper's editors, writing with the authority of the editorial board. (The signature "J. H. W." appearing just above the title belongs to the previous article, which ended on the same page.)
The issue's masthead records vol. 7, no. 10, with James White, J. N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith as editors, and Waggoner as resident editor. The editorial occupied the paper's opening page — the printed pulpit from which the movement's official line was proclaimed to subscribers across the country.
The editorial's thesis is an operation of rescue: 2 Corinthians 3 had abolished nothing of the moral law — including the fourth commandment, the Sabbath. It had changed only the "ministration" of the law. To confuse the law with the ministration of the law, says Smith, would be the same as confusing the Constitution of the United States with the regulations governing the executive branch. The law remains; only the "regulation" has changed.
The editorial admits that Paul "testifies in that chapter that something was removed" — and cites verses 7 and 11 to prove it. But it insists: that "something" is only the ministration, never the law. The trick lies in the separation: creating a distance between the law and its ministration in order to save the Sabbath from Paul's text, keeping the Decalogue intact and binding in both dispensations.
Stone tablets examined from various angles — a nineteenth-century engraving.
The absurdity
The paper's editor declares that 2 Corinthians 3 did not abolish the fourth commandment — whoever reads abolition in the chapter would be confusing the law with its ministration, like one who confuses the Constitution with the regulations of the executive. The distinction is invented to shield the Sabbath. The exact words of the printed text:
"Does 2 Corinthians 3 teach that the fourth commandment of the Decalogue was removed or abolished, as some maintain? No. Those who appeal to this chapter as proof of such a position confuse the law with the ministration of the law; the same as a person confusing the Constitution of the United States with the regulations that govern the executive branch of government."
Source: Signs of the Times, vol. 7, no. 10, March 10, 1881 — p. 114.
Highlighted clipping of the printed page with the cited passage, edition of March 10, 1881, p. 114.
Why this is serious
The first problem is that Paul does not allow the separation. He identifies the "ministration of death" as that which was "written and engraved on stones" (2 Cor. 3:7) — and what was written and engraved on stones is the Decalogue, the ten commandments. The "ministration" that the editorial wants to separate from the law is the law itself in its form given at Sinai. There are not two objects; there is only one, called the ministry of death.
The second problem is the adjective Paul chooses: the glory of that ministration "was transient" — and the editorial itself cites the verse that says that glory "was to be removed." Transient is the opposite of permanent. Smith cites verse 7 as proof that "something was removed" and then denies that this something is the law — but the verse says that what is removed is the glory of what was engraved on stones. The text he cites testifies against him.
The third problem is verse 11, also cited by the editorial: "if what was transient was for glory, much more is that which remains in glory." Paul contrasts what passes with what remains — and what passes is the ministration engraved on stones. The editorial uses the chapter itself as a witness for the defense, but the chapter is a witness for the prosecution: it declares transient exactly what Smith wants eternal.
And the Constitution analogy collapses in the detail: no constitution was "engraved on stones" at Sinai, and none was called by Paul a "ministry of death." The comparison sounds erudite and proves nothing — it is rhetoric to distract the reader from the simple fact that the chapter says, in clear Greek, that the glory of the tablets was to come to an end. When analogy replaces exegesis, the pulpit has become a stump.
Stone tablets on the writing desk, among quill, inkwell, and lit candle — a period cinematic scene.
The verdict of the Scriptures
Paul calls the law a "ministry of death, engraved with letters on stones," whose glory "was transient" (2 Cor. 3:7). The editorial denies that 2 Corinthians 3 abolished the moral law; the chapter responds by calling it a ministry of death and declaring its glory transient. Transient is not eternal — it is the exact opposite of what Smith defends. The paper's thesis falls before the verse the paper itself cited.
The chapter continues: "the letter kills and the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). The letter — the written law, engraved — kills; the Spirit gives life. And verse 11 closes the contrast: what was transient gives way to what remains. What remains is not the Decalogue on stones, it is the ministry of the Spirit. Whoever insists on remaining under the stones chooses the letter that kills instead of the Spirit that gives life.
Hebrews confirms the verdict with the language of covenant: "By saying 'new covenant,' he has made the first old. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). The first covenant — that of the stone tablets — grew old. It was not patched, updated, or re-ministered: it grew old, and what grows old is near its end. The editorial tried to rejuvenate it with an analogy; Scripture declares it aged.
And Paul explains the reason for the transition: "the law was our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Gal. 3:24-25). The tutor fulfilled its role and was dismissed — not because it was bad, but because the heir grew up. Whoever returns to the tutor after knowing the Son exchanges sonship for tutelage. 2 Corinthians 3 did not abolish the law, says the paper; it did abolish — it abolished its permanence, and replaced it with the glory that remains.