The same law, from Sinai to the heart
The editorial concludes that nothing of the law was abolished: the same law of stone would be in the believer's heart. But Paul says that no one should judge you by sabbaths, a shadow of what was to come.
Por Rodrigo Custódio ·
The moment
On Thursday, March 10, 1881, the weekly Signs of the Times, founded by James White and published in Oakland, California, continued on page 115 the editorial begun on the previous page — "Abolished in 2 Corinthians 3," signed at the end "U. S." The signature is that of Uriah Smith, one of the paper's editors, and it is here, in the conclusion of the text, that the thesis appears in its final and boldest form.
The issue's masthead records vol. 7, no. 10, with James White, J. N. Andrews and Uriah Smith as editors, and J. H. Waggoner as resident editor. The editorial spanned two pages of the paper — a sign that the editorial staff considered the subject too important to fit in a single column: it was the official defense of the permanence of the law.
Smith's conclusion is direct: "In all this we find no abolition of the law." The law would be that to which the ministry of both dispensations refers — in the former, written on tables of stone, with a ministration of death; in the present, "the same law" written in the believer's heart, with a ministration of mercy. Same law, two supports: stone and heart.
To sustain the thesis, the editorial cites Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:10 — the texts of the new covenant. God's promise to write his law on the heart becomes, in Smith's hands, the proof that the content of the law has not changed: what was on the tables would now be, identically, in the believer's heart. Sinai would merely have changed address.
A covered wagon crossing the desert toward the luminous temple on the horizon — period papercut art.
The absurdity
The editorial concludes that nothing of the law was abolished: the same law of the tables of stone would now be written in the believer's heart — and the texts of the new covenant would be the proof that the content has not changed. Sinai in the heart. The exact words of the printed page:
"In all this we find no abolition of the law. The law is that to which the ministry of both dispensations refers. In the former dispensation, this law was written on tables of stone, and the ministry then connected with it was a ministration of death. In the latter, the same law is written in the believer's heart, Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:10; and the ministration connected with it is one of mercy."
Source: Signs of the Times, vol. 7, no. 10, March 10, 1881 — p. 115.
Marked clipping of the printed page with the quoted passage, edition of March 10, 1881, p. 115.
Why this is serious
The first problem is that the texts cited say the opposite of what Smith concludes. Jeremiah 31 announces a covenant "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" (Jer 31:32) — not according to, that is, different. The prophet does not promise the same covenant in a new support; he promises another covenant. To use the text of discontinuity as proof of continuity is to call the witness against one's own thesis.
The second problem is the phrase "the same law." Paul, in the very chapter the editorial comments on, calls what was engraved on stones a "ministry of death" and a "ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:7,9), and declares its glory transitory. To transport "the same" ministration of death into the believer's heart — and to call that mercy — is to carry the corpse into the house and say it has come back to life.
The third problem is the logical leap: from God's promise to write his law on the heart, Smith concludes that the content is the intact decalogue, including the seventh-day sabbath. But neither Jeremiah nor Hebrews lists the ten commandments as the content of the new covenant — the "law" written on the heart is the will of God internalized by the Spirit, not the tables reprinted on cardiac tissue. The editorial fills the silence of the text with the doctrine it had already decided upon.
And there is the close of the editorial itself, which betrays the thesis: "the dispensation of Moses gives place to that of Christ; the glory of the first is removed by the glory of the second." If the dispensation of Moses gives place to that of Christ, and its glory is removed, then something was abolished — exactly what the title denied. The editorial ends by admitting, without realizing it, what it spent two pages denying.
A convoy of covered wagons crossing the plains at sunset — period painting.
The verdict of the Scriptures
Paul answers the thesis of "nothing was abolished" with the express prohibition against judging believers by the ceremonial law: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Col 2:16). Let no one judge you — not even by sabbaths. If "the same law" were intact and obligatory in the believer's heart, Paul could not forbid anyone to be judged for keeping it or not. The apostolic prohibition dismantles the editorial thesis.
The following verse explains why: those things "are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col 2:17). Shadows — the sabbath included — pointed to the reality that was to come. When the body arrives, the shadow fulfills its role and withdraws. To demand the shadow after the arrival of the body is to prefer the outline to the person, the sign to the reality.
Hebrews confirms that the rest of the people of God is not a day of the week: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works" (Heb 4:9-10). The rest is to enter — to enter into God's rest, as God rested from his works. The believer rests from trying to save himself by works; the sabbath that remains is Christ, not the calendar.
And Paul defines the condition of the liberated believer: "now we are delivered from the law... that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Rom 7:6). Delivered from the law — to serve in newness of spirit. The editorial offers the opposite: bound to the same law, serving in the oldness of the letter under a new name. Scripture calls this oldness; the paper called it mercy. The difference between the two names is the difference between the gospel and its opposite.