JesusSaidFollowMe Blog

By Greg Gibson

2. “But Jesus Did Not Come to Abolish the Law”

For regulation, or revelation? As Old Covenant contract, or Old Testament Scripture?

Here’s a puzzle for you. Which verses are true: Those on the left or right?

Which Verses Are True: Is the Law Abolished or Not Abolished?
The Law Is Not Abolished	The Law Is Abolished
“Do not think that I have come to abolish (Gk: kataluo) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish (Gk. kataluo) them but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17-18). “Do we then abolish (Gk: katargeo) the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31).	“by abolishing (Gk: katargeo) the law of commandments and ordinances…” (Eph. 2:15).

Of course, they’re both true if we believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by the same sovereign Spirit of God. So, how can we harmonize that the law is abolished, but not abolished?

The Distinction Between the Law for
Old Covenant Regulation vs. Old Testament Revelation:
How to Harmonize Paul’s Negative/Positive Verses on the Law

One reason why this question of the law in the New Testament may be the most complex issue in theology is Paul’s seemingly contradictory praise and criticism for the law of Moses. (No, Paul was not a schizophrenic!)

John Owen, the Puritan theologian, had it right when he distinguished 2 important meanings of the word “law.”

“The law is taken two ways:

1. For the whole revelation of the mind and will of God in the Old Testament…

2. The covenant rule of perfect obedience: ‘Do this, and live.’ In this sense men are said to be ‘under it, in opposition unto being ‘under grace.’ They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant.”

Wayne Strickland explains the distinction between regulation vs. revelation…

“…the Mosaic law had a revelatory aspect and regulatory aspect…The revelatory aspect was in mind when Paul discussed the merits of the law…Armed with this understanding of the twofold purpose of the law, the seemingly contradictory assertions of Paul concerning the law may be understood in a harmonious manner.”

Another way to explain this distinction is Old Covenant vs. Old Testament. However, that distinction may be confusing since Christians often use those 2 terms synonymously. Yet, if we view those terms historically, the distinction is valid, since the Old Testament starts from Creation, while the Old Covenant starts from Sinai. Old Covenant and Old Testament may be distinguished, but not separated, since Genesis is the introduction to the Old Covenant.

Paul’s negative statements about the law often refer to regulation (Old Covenant contract). And, his positive statements often refer to revelation (Old Testament Scripture). This is the solution to harmonize many of Paul’s seemingly contradictory statements on the law.

So, the word “law” has multiple meanings in Scripture. Two of the most important meanings are:

1. Law regulation (Old Covenant contract).
2. Law revelation (Old Testament Scripture).

Those 2 distinctions in the word “law” are clearly demonstrated in these 3 verses…

“…whatever the law says (as Old Testament revelation) it speaks to those who are under the law (as Old Covenant regulation)…” (Rom. 3:19).

“But, now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (as Old Covenant regulation), although the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets (as Old Testament revelation) bear witness to it.” (Rom. 3:21).

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law (as Old Covenant regulation), do you not listen to the law (as Old Testament revelation?)” (Gal. 4:21).

There are several other verses demonstrating the Law’s revelational function as Old Testament Scripture…

“…What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Lk. 10:26; cf. Mt. 12:5; Lk. 2:23; Jn 8:17, 10:34, 15:25; 2 Cor. 3:14; etc.)

The Law is written, read, heard, and it speaks. That means the law was more than just commands to be obeyed or disobeyed. Do you see the distinction between Old Covenant regulation for obedience vs. Old Testament revelation for doctrine? We use the Old Testament today for doctrine/faith, but not practice.

Now, let’s apply that distinction between law as regulation vs. revelation to the most crucial passage for understanding our relationship to Old Testament law: The Sermon on the Mount. Here are 2 different interpretations of this key passage…

2 Different Views of, “I Did Not Come to Abolish the Law, But to Fulfill It”
*Reformed, Covenant Theology	New Covenant Theology
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Decalogue alone) or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (confirm) them (for obedience). I have not come to abolish them (as O.T. revelation), but to fulfill them (prophetically/ eschatologically cf. Mt. 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9; Lk. 24:44; etc.) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law (the Decalogue alone) until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments (the Decalogue alone) and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Mt. 5:17-19).	“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Gen. - Deut.) or the Prophets (Josh.-Mal., the whole O.T.) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law (whole Old Testament as revelation) until all is accomplished (prophetically/ eschatologically). Therefore (since I fulfill the law’s prophecies) whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments (of Mine, cf. Mt. 7:24-26; Lk. 6:46-47, 7:1) and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Mt. 5:17-19).

*Covenant theologians have multiple interpretations of this passage. For example, some believe “these commands” refers to Christ’s and Moses’ commands, since “they must be the same.”

Why “Plerosai” Means “Fulfill” Eschatologically,
Not “Confirm” for Obedience

In Matthew 5:17, the Greek word “plerosai” is crucial to understanding the whole sermon that Jesus is about to preach. Many earlier Covenant Theologians interpreted “plerosai” as “confirm.” They taught that Jesus was confirming/establishing the Decalogue for our obedience.

However, some recent Covenant Theologians have conceded that their forefathers’ were wrong because Matthew’s normal meaning for “pleroo” refers to eschatological, prophetic, and/or typological fulfillment. (Besides, if Matthew meant “confirm” or “establish” then he should have chosen the Greek words “bebaioo” or “histemi.”)

A Parallel Passage to Mt. 5:17-18, Also About Eschatological Fulfillment, Not Confirming the Decalogue for Obedience
“Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18)	.…everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk. 24:44).

In the 2 passages above, we see 3 parallels:

1. The Law and Prophets
2. All/everything
3. Fulfill/accomplished

So, just as Luke 24:44 refers to fulfilling prophecy instead of confirming the Decalogue for obedience, so does Matthew 5:17-18.

Matthew’s normal meaning for “pleroo” is eschatological fulfillment (not obedience) as shown in these 12 examples…

“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” (Mt. 1:22).

“…This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet…” (Mt. 2:15).

“Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah” (Mt. 2:17).

“…that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled…” (Mt. 2:23).

“so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled” (Mt. 4:14).

“This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah…” (Mt. 8:17).

“This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah” (Mt. 12:17).

“This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet” (Mt. 13:35).

“This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying” (Mt. 21:4).

“But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must be so?” (Mt. 26:54).

“But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Mt. 26:56).

“Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying” (Mt. 27:9).

Notice that all those uses of “pleroo” refer to revelation (Old Testament), not regulation (Old Covenant). And, it’s the same in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and types as revelation, not to confirm the Old Covenant Decalogue alone for regulation.

In the first century, the goal of redemptive history finally started arriving when Messiah fulfilled prophecy as the better Prophet, better Priest, and better King. As the new Prophet, He gave new prophecies and teachings. As the new Priest, He made a new sacrifice. And, as the new King, He gave a new law.

“Law or Prophets” Means the “Whole Old Testament”
(Not the “Ten Commandments Alone”)

Yes, Christ did not come to destroy the law or prophets. And, what is the meaning of the phrase “law or prophets” (cf. “law and prophets”)?

It never once means “Ten Commandments and prophets.” It always means the “Pentateuch and prophets,” a.k.a. “Genesis - Deuteronomy and the Prophets,” a.k.a. the “whole Old Testament.”

John MacArthur agrees that “Law or Prophets” refers to the whole Old Testament and its continuing revelation…

“The phrase ‘the Law and the Prophets’ speaks of the entirety of the OT Scriptures…Here Christ emphasizes both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He specifically affirms the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God - down to the least jot and tittle. Again (see note on v. 17), we should not think that the NT supplants or completely abrogates the OT but instead fulfills and explicates it. For example, all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law are fulfilled in Christ and are no longer to be observed by Christians (Col. 2:16, 17). Yet not one jot or tittle is thereby erased; the underlying truths of those Scriptures remain…”

And, Don Carson agrees that Christ is speaking of not destroying the Old Testament…

“In no case does this ‘abolish’ the Old Testament as canon, any more than the obsolescence of the Levitical sacrificial system abolishes tabernacle ritual as canon.”

So, Christ did not come to destroy “Genesis - Deuteronomy or the Prophets.” In other words, He did not come to destroy the law as Old Testament revelation. (The error that the Old Testament was abolished as Scripture was popularized later in church history by the heretic Marcion.)

6 Reasons Why “These Commandments” Refers to
“Christ’s Commands,” Instead of “Moses’ Commands”

In Matthew 5:19, does the phrase “these commandments” refer to Moses’ commands or Christ’s commands? (Although, some Covenant Theologians think that Moses’ commands = Christ’s commands.)

1. Since “Law or Prophets” Means “the Whole Old Testament,” Then if “These Commandments” Means “Moses’ Laws” it Must Include All of Moses’ Laws

Since “Law or Prophets” means “the whole Old Testament,” Covenant Theology is trapped in a dilemma…

1. Christ did not come to abolish the Law or Prophets (whole O.T.)
2. We can’t relax one of Moses’ commands (from the whole O.T.)
3. Therefore, we must obey all of Moses’ commands (from the whole O.T.)

Do you see Covenant Theology’s problem? Since “Law or Prophets” clearly means the “whole Old Testament,” if “these commands” means “Moses commands,” then we must obey every jot and tittle of all Old Testament commands, including the Ten Commandments, and so-called “civil and ceremonial laws.”

But, if “these commands” means Christ’s commands, then the dilemma is solved. “Christ’s commands” is far less problematic.

2. Both the Sermon on the Mount and its Parallel Sermon on the Plain Emphasize Obeying Christ’s Words

In the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:1 – 7:29) and the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20 - 7:1) Christ tells us to do (obey) His words…

“Everyone then who hears these words of Mine and does them…And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them…” (Mt. 7:24, 26. The conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount).

“Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them…But the one who hears and does not do them…” (Lk. 6:47, 49).

“After he had finished all His sayings in the hearing of the people…” (Lk. 7:1).

“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” (cf. Mt. 28:20, by the same author).

In these verses above, there is much evidence that Christ is speaking of His commands.

3. The Sermon on the Mount Includes at Least 7 Commands Not in the Decalogue

Another reason that Christ could not have been referring to Moses’ commands is that the Sermon on the Mount includes several topics not even in the Decalogue, such as:

1. Retaliation
2. Love your enemies
3. Giving
4. Prayer
5. Money
6. Worry
7. Judging

So, those topics were all Jesus’ commands, not Moses’ commands.

4. Since the Parallel Passage (Lk. 16:17) Says the Kingdom of God Is After John, Therefore the Commandments of the Kingdom Are After John

The Law and Prophets Were Until ~30 A.D., Then the Kingdom of God Is After ~30 A.D.

“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law (O.T. prophesy) to become void” (Lk. 16:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law (O.T. prophecy) until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 5:17-19).

These 2 parallel passages share 5 ideas:

1. The Law and/or Prophets
2. Not a dot/iota of the Law
3. Will become void/pass away
4. Heaven and earth pass away
5. The Kingdom of God/heaven

In Luke 16:17, notice how “the Law and Prophets” refers to the time before Christ, while “the kingdom of God” refers to the time after Christ. So in Matthew 5:19, “these commands…in the kingdom of heaven” refers to the time of the kingdom of heaven after Christ, not the Law and Prophets before Christ…

6. “These Words” (Ex. 20:1) and “These Commandments” (Mt. 5:19) Are Parallel, and Look Forward, Not Backward

In the chart above, the last parallel is that Moses wrote, “And God spoke all these words…” (Ex. 20:1ff.) looking forward to giving His law, not backward. And, Jesus spoke about “these commandments” (Mt. 5:19ff.) looking forward to giving His law, not backward to Moses commands in “the Law and the Prophets.”

So, there are 6 reasons why “these commandments” more likely refers to “Christ’s commandments,” than “Moses’ commandments.” And, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke about not abolishing the whole law as Old Testament Scripture, but fulfilling it prophetically.

(Excerpted from the book: “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled, And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience, by Greg Gibson, pp. 41-51.)

How would you like to read 3, free chapters from my new book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience

(BTW, I’ve edited and expanded this book from the previous e-book by adding 7 new charts and 8349 more words. Now, it’s far clearer than before.)

Here is the book’s Table of Contents:

And, here are the 3, free chapters…

Preface and Introduction (with 1 chart and 3 diagrams)

But the Ten Commandments Are the Moral Law of God

But Christ Did Not Come to Abolish the Law

Please don’t order the book yet, since we are waiting for the printer’s approval. When the book is ready for shipping next week, I’ll announce it here…

P.S. Notice to Email Subscribers:

In order to continue receiving future updates about new Bible studies, blogs, and book excerpts, you must resubscribe to our new email service Feedburner (owned by Google).

To resubscribe, please…
1. Click on JesusSaidFollowMe.org
2. Look in the upper left corner of the page for JesusSaidFollowMe News.
3. Type your email address.
4. Click “Send Me News.”

If you don’t resubscribe, then you will not receive any more emails when I post new, book excerpts here.

See you next week…

One of the hottest arguments against New Covenant Theology (NCT) in blogs/forums goes something like this:

“Since the New Testament doesn’t explicitly state that beastiality and incest are sins, therefore New Covenant Theology can’t be true.” (Just try to follow the “logic” behind that one!)

(Covenant Theologians might hurl that kind of argument against the New Covenant Theology in “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Cancelled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.”)

However, the same type of argument could easily be made against the Old Testament. Where does the Old Testament explicitly state that the following are sins:

1. Abortion?
2. Po-rn?
3. Pedophilia?
4. Being a pimp?
5. Oral s-e-x before marriage?
6. Buying an idol?
7. Trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:20)
8. Lovers of themselves? (2 Tim. 3:2)
9. Lovers of money? (2 Tim. 3:2)
10. Etc.

(If you want to reply with the above words, please use the hyphens to avoid the spam filter.)

And, if you put your mind to it, I’m sure you could think of many more examples of so-called “moral sins” that aren’t stated explicitly in the Old Testament.

Two Assumptions: Explicit and Exhaustive

The problem with the above objection is that it’s dependent on 2 unexamined assumptions:

1. The Old Covenant contains an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” (I prefer the phrase “law of conscience.”)

2. The New Testament must contain an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” for New Covenant Theology to be true.

However, I don’t believe that either the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly reveal ALL the laws of conscience. (If they did, the Bible would have to be a lot longer!) We know some things are wrong because “we know that we know” (conscience.)

Although the objections about beastiality and incest are irrelevant to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above, let’s discuss them anyway…

All Christians agree that humans have consciences convicting them of certain “sins.” But, God never defines those sins for us in Scripture. However, He does tell us in certain sin lists the standards by which He will judge men for heaven or hell.

I believe that the sin lists for all humans (including Gentiles) are the most likely definition of the “law of conscience” (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, 22:15.) Notice that Lev. 18:23 (beastiality) and Lev. 18:9 (incest) are part of a list of the sins of the Gentiles (18:3, 24-30.)

Even though the whole law of Moses (including Lev. 18) was cancelled as Old Covenant (but not Old Testament,) the same sins in Lev. 18 may also be recorded in Gentiles’ consciences. So, if a heathen living in a rainforest commits incest, he violates the law of conscience, not Lev. 18:9.

Majoring on the Minors

Again, questions about beastiality, incest, etc. are peripheral to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above. Such questions major on the minors. They’re really rabbit trails diverting from the main issues:

1. Are Jer. 31:31-33; Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:16-17 really proof texts for Covenant Theology against New Covenant Theology? (Or, are some of them actually proof texts for New Covenant Theology against Covenant Theology?)

2. Does the Bible teach one Covenant of Grace, or 2 major covenants (structured by one purpose of grace?)

3. How can the law of Moses be divided into 3 parts when it’s one indivisible whole (Gal. 3:10, 5:3; Jas.2:10?)

4. How can the whole Decalogue still be binding when God calls it “the covenant” (which was cancelled?)

5. How can the Sabbath be changed to the first day of the week when the first day is called “one/first from the Sabbath?” (Gk.)

“The 30-Second, Law-Hermeneutic Test”

Here’s a simple test to identify anyone’s law hermeneutic in less than 30 seconds. If a Christian child dishonors his parents, which command did he violate?

1. Both Ex. 20:12 and Eph. 6:1 (Covenant Theology)
2. Neither Ex. 20:12 or Eph. 6:1 (Antinomianism)
3. Only Eph. 6:1, not Ex. 20:12 (New Covenant Theology)

That test will clearly and instantly define anyone’s nomology.

Many Covenant Theologians, Seventh Day Adventists, and others are reading the Bible study “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Canceled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.” If you have a question about it, please post it publicly here on this blog (rather than privately by email.)

P.S. Here are the next 6 blog posts coming soon…

1. “12 Questions to Ask When Searching for a Church”

2. “How Much of the Bible Should We Preach, Part or All of it?”

3. Book Review of “God’s Big Picture” by Vaughn Roberts

4. “3 Advantages to Preaching From Long Passages Instead of Short Passages”

5. Book Review of “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin

P.S. See more Bible studies, blogs, and books at JesusSaidFollowMe.org

“I was in the Spirit in the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10)

Have you ever heard Sunday called “the Lord’s Day?” Reformed, Covenant Theology believes that the Lord’s Day = Sunday = the Sabbath.

Here is their Lord’s Day/Sabbath view defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689…

“…He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him; which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, (in Scripture [W.C.F. only]) is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.” (W.C.F. 21:7; 1689 L.B.C.F 22:7)

Let’s examine Revelation 1:10 more closely to see if it’s really true that the Lord’s Day = the Sabbath…

In Revelation, John’s 3 Other Uses of “In the Spirit”
Refer to a Future, Eschatological Time, Not the 1st Century

“…I will show you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit…” (Revelation 4:1-2; Rev. ch. 4-22: the first century - the end of time)

“Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute….And he carried me awayin the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.” (Revelation 17:3; the future, final judgment of Babylon at the end of time)

“Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,” (Revelation 21:9-10; the future, descent of the New Jerusalem to the new earth at the end of time)

Since in Revelation, John’s 3 other uses of “in the Spirit” refer to a prophetic revelation about a future, eschatological time, it’s likely that Revelation 1:10 also refers to a future, eschatological time, not the day John wrote on in the first century.

6 Things Revelation 1:10 Does Not Say

Many years ago while listening to an audiotape about the Sabbath, the teacher observed that Revelation 1:10 says nothing about the Sabbath. All of a sudden, a lightbulb turned-on in my head, and I felt like I fell out of my theological chair!

You see, for the first 10 years of my Christian life, whenever anyone said, “Lord’s Day,” my mind thought “Sabbath.” Why? Because men had told me that the the Lord’s Day = the Sabbath. But, when I took a fresh look at Revelation 1:10, I realized that it says nothing about the Sabbath. As a matter of fact, here are 6 things that Revelation 1:10 does not say…

1. The Sabbath

2. Seventh day of the week

3. First day of the week

4. Rest

5. Work

6. Worship

These 6 ideas have been assumed, and read into (eisegesis) the passage, instead of read out of (exegesis) the passage. But notice, Revelation 1:10 is a description, not a prescription. In other words, it’s a fact, not a command. It’s an indicative, not an imperative. John was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, period. It doesn’t command…

“Keep the Lord’s Day”

“You shall not work on the Lord’s Day”

“Rest on the Lord’s Day”

“Worship on the Lord’s Day”

All of these duties have been read into Revelation 1:10 by Sabbatarians.

How Often Is the Lord’s Day?

How often is the the Lord’s Day? Or, what is the frequency of the Lord’s Day? Sabbatarians assume the Lord’s Day is weekly. But, the verse says nothing about it’s frequency. Maybe the Lord’s Day is…

1. Daily like “exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today?’”

2. Weekly like the Sabbath?

3. Monthly like the New Moon Festival?

4. Annually like the Day of Atonement?

5. Every 50 years like the Day of Jubilee?

6. Once like the Day of the Lord?

Remember, we saw that Revelation 1:10 says nothing about…

“One day in seven”

“Every week”

“The seventh day of the week”

“The first day of the week”

Clearly, no one can know from Revelation 1:10 how often the Lord’s Day occurs. To claim that the Lord’s Day is weekly is merely an assumption.

The Book of Revelation Climaxes in the Day of the Lord

The timing of Revelation’s prophecies (ch. 4-22) stretches from the first century to the end of time. However, they climax at the end of time in the day of the Lord…

“…the great day of God the Almighty. Behold, I am coming like a thief…” (Revelation 16:14-15)

“for the great day of their wrath has come…” (Revelation 6:17)

“…the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night…then sudden destruction will come upon them…” (1 Thessalonians 5:2)

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved…” (2 Peter 3:10)

“The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.” (Revelation 6:14)

“…From His presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.” (Revelation 20:11)

“…for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away…” (Revelation 21:1)

“….we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed…that the day of the Lord has come…For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; cf. Rev. ch. 13)

No Biblical Evidence for Lord’s Day = Sunday = Sabbath

There is no Biblical evidence that the Lord’s Day is the Sabbath or Sunday. I repeat, there is zero evidence in the Bible that the Lord’s Day is Sunday or the Sabbath. Sabbath-keeping has been read into Revelation 1:10. We should not call Sunday “the Lord’s Day.”

(There is some historical evidence that the Lord’s Day may be Sunday. But, that early evidence is based on questionable sources and questionable interpretations. The later evidence is more credible.)

Some Biblical Evidence for Lord’s Day = Day of the Lord

Since “in the Spirit” in Revelation refers to a future, eschatological time, and Revelation climaxes in the Day of the Lord, there is some Biblical evidence that the Lord’s Day may be the Day of the Lord. Let us eagerly anticipate that day by living holy, godly, and pure lives, that we may be unashamed at His coming. (2 Peter 3:11-14; 1 John 2:28-3:3)

Perhaps someone will raise the objection to New Covenant Theology, “How can all Old Testament commands be cancelled, when some of them are quoted in the New Testament?” But, their assumption is that quotation = continuation. There’s another possibility…

Old Testament commands quoted in the New Testament have been transferred, reinstated, and canonized into the New Covenant canon. (To simplify it, let’s just say they’ve been “transferred.” Maybe an analogy from contract law will help to illustrate this…

Suppose your home has a mortgage containing the clause “Borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.” Then, suppose you refinance the mortgage for a lower interest rate with the same lender. And, the lender transfers the above clause to your new mortgage like this, “As the old mortgage stated, borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.”

Now, suppose you’re feeling rebellious, and you decide to paint the house with pink polka dots. Which mortgage did you violate, the old mortgage or the new mortgage? Obviously, you violated the new mortgage, since the old mortgage was cancelled, and the painting clause was transferred to the new mortgage.

And, it’s the same way with the old and new covenants. If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14.

To sum it up, the new covenant is not a postscript (P.S.), addendum, or codicil to the old covenant. The new covenant is a new and separate contract.

If this leaves some questions in your mind, I’ll explain in more detail in the book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience
New Covenant Theology