JesusSaidFollowMe Blog

Did the Holy Spirit replace the law of Moses? Some Christians have concluded that based on Gal. 5:18 and Rom. 7:6. Yet, perhaps a better term to describe the relationship between the law of Moses and the Spirit is “contrast” instead of “replace.”

So, does the Spirit replace/contrast the law of Moses? Yes, but we need to be careful not to read the word “only” into Gal. 5:18 and Rom. 7:6, since the law of Moses is contrasted with at least 3 other truths…

4 Contrasts to the Law of Moses

1. The law of Moses vs. the Spirit

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18).

“But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6).

2. The law of Moses vs. faith

“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed…But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian…” (Gal. 3:23-25; cf. justification 3:11-12, 24-25, and righteousness 3:21).

3. The law of Moses vs. adoption

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who are under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5).

4. The law of Moses vs. the law of Christ

“To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law” (1 Cor. 9:20-21).

(This is not to imply that there was no Spirit or faith during the law of Moses. However, few Israelites possessed saving faith or the indwelling Spirit. But, all New Covenant saints have faith in Christ and the indwelling Spirit.)

It’s important to understand that all 4 of the above contrasts refer to the Old Covenant law of Moses, not to all law, including the New Covenant law of Christ. The whole context of Galatians is about the law of Moses in redemptive history. And, one of those contrasts above (1 Cor. 9:20-21) actually distinguishes and affirms the law of Christ. Plus, Galatians includes several commands, and also affirms the law of Christ…

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2)

Jesus Christ the New Lawgiver has a law/commands inspired and written by the Spirit in the New Testament, for His people who have faith in Christ, who are adopted by the Father, and led by the Spirit. Here’s how I explained it in my book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”…

“Moses’ Law Prepared Unjustified, Spirit-Less Slaves
For Christ’s 1st Coming

One reason why God gave the law of Moses to Israel was to tutor/prepare them for Messiah’s 1st coming, so they might be justified by faith, adopted, and Spirit indwelled. But now, we don’t need the Mosaic law to tutor/prepare us because Messiah has already come, we are justified by faith (Gal. 3:23-25), adopted (Gal. 3:26 - 4:7), and Spirit-indwelled (Gal. 5:18).

Christ’s Law Helps Prepare Justified, Spirit-Indwelled Heirs
For His 2nd Coming

Moses’ law prepared unjustified, Spirit-less slaves for Christ’s 1st coming. But, Christ’s law helps prepare justified, Spirit-indwelled heirs for His 2nd coming.” (“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. 118.)

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?

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?

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…

*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.”

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.”)

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.

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.)

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

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.)

Only 3 Passages, All Negative

As we saw above, the Holy Spirit never uses the names “Ten Commandments” or “moral law” in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, there are only 3 New Testament passages that definitely refer to the whole Decalogue, and they’re all negative…

1. “The letter,” “letters on stone,” and “tablets of stone” (2 Cor. 3:6-9) are:

• Not where the Spirit writes (2 Cor. 3:3)
• (What) kills (2 Cor. 3:6)
• A ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7)
• A ministry of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9)

2. “The handwriting of ordinances” (Col. 2:14) was:

• Blotted out (Col. 2:14)
• Taken away (Col. 2:14)
• Nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)

3. “The tablets of the covenant” (Heb. 9:4) are:

• Obsolete (Heb. 8:13)
• Growing old (Heb. 8:13)
• Ready to vanish.” (Heb. 8:13)

(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, p. 25.)

When you hear the words, “Ten Commandments,” what’s the first thought that comes to your mind? If you automatically think, “The moral law of God,” then your view is very different from God’s view.

Depending on how you classify them, the whole Decalogue and its synonyms appear ~56 times in Scripture. (We’ll exclude the names “ark of the covenant,” “ark of the testimony,” and “tabernacle of the testimony,” even though they would be accurate.) And, in those 56 occurrences, God calls the Decalogue by 12 different names. Listed below, are the number of times He uses each name.

Old Testament:

14 = The tablets (Ex. 32:15, 32:16a,b, 32:19, 34:1b,c, 34:28; Deut. 9:17, 10:2a,b, 10:3, 10:4, 10:5; 2 Chr. 5:10)

13 = The tablets of stone (Ex. 24:12, 31:18, 34:1, 34:4a,b; Deut. 4:13, 5:22, 9:9, 9:10, 9:11, 10:1, 10:3; 1 Kg. 8:9)

10 = The testimony (Ex. 16:34, 25:16, 25:21, 27:21, 30:6, 30:36, 40:20; Lev. 16:13; Num 17:4, 17:10)

3 = The tablets of the testimony (Ex. 31:18, 32:15, 34:29)

3 = The tablets of the covenant (Deut. 9:9, 9:11, 9:15)

3 = The Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4)

2 = The covenant (1 Kg. 8:21; 2 Chr. 6:11)

1 = The words of the covenant (Ex 34:28)

1 = His covenant (Deut. 4:13)

0 = The moral law

New Testament:

2 = The letter (2 Cor. 3:6a,b)

1 = Letters on stone (2 Cor. 3:7)

1 = Tablets of stone (2 Cor. 3:3)

1 = The handwriting of ordinances (Col. 2:14)

1 = The tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4)

0 = The Ten Commandments

0 = The moral law

So, when you hear the phrase “the Ten Commandments,” the first thought that should come to your mind is, “tablets (of stone”), not “moral law.” Remember, another thought that should come to your mind is “the covenant.”

Do you think of the Ten Commandments as “the tablets of stone,” and “the covenant” (Old Covenant made with Israel?) When talking about the Ten Commandments, if you have to rely on words uninspired by the Holy Spirit (like “moral law”) to explain your theology, then you probably have a different theology than the Holy Spirit.

Did you see how many times the phrase “Ten Commandments” appears in the New Testament? Zero! (Think about that.)

(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, Greg Gibson, p. 23-24)

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…

Here’s a digest of some favorite resources I’ve discovered recently around the Web…

Does Your Calvinism Build Relationships With Arminians?

“…Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian…when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians…Even if a biblical argument can be made for a certain position…the proof of what’s really happening is not in the theological argumentation but in the sociological integration…(Paul) was a free man setting others free…What unifies the church is the gospel…My reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them?…Relationships reveal what we really believe, as opposed to what we think we believe.” Truly Reformed by Ray Ortlund at Christ Is Deeper Still

Several, Helpful Articles on God’s Law

God’s Law by Doug Moo

Starved for Mature Meat

“A prominent radio preacher frequently makes the statement that 85% of the people never darken a church door. Just could be that they’ve been starved out.

Tell me now, how long is it since you preached a sermon on the Sovereignty of God, the Majesty of God, the Holiness of God, the Justice of God, the Immutability of God, and the eternal, electing Love of God? Most of the preaching of our day in evangelical, as well as in liberal churches, is man-centered, not God-centered. Christian people have been entertained and whipped and broken and crucified and psychoanalyzed and sensitivity-trainingized, etc., etc., until they hardly know who God is or who they are…” Hey Preacher by G.E. MacLean at Banner of Truth

Joel Osteen’s Negative Message

“…The ‘positive’ message he proclaims is this: Do better. Try harder. Believe you can succeed. In other words, you can change! Just do it! God will help you, of course, but you have to make it happen.

Though Osteen claims he has positive sermons, I believe he is proclaiming the most negative, unmerciful message possible! Like telling a clinically depressed person to “just snap out of it!,” Osteen is giving people burdened by sin, guilt and despair more reason to despair.

Do we really think that more willpower will solve our problems? What is this message but the Law on steroids? There is no gospel in Osteen’s message, regardless of his rare references to Jesus Christ. Osteen’s idea of “good news” is telling self-centered people to look for salvation in more narcissism!…” Joel Osteen’s Negative Message by Trevin Wax at Kingdom People

Follow Me

“…Yet, Jesus didn’t say, “Follow them”; he said quite clearly, “Follow me.” The true disciple puts his loyalty, not with a group or another human or a new idea, however good those things may be, but only with his master who has called him by name…” Following Christ by Trevin Wax at Kingdom People

Inventing Mental Illness

Interviews with several psychiatrists where they concede too much. Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM): Inventing Mental Illness by the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights (A Scientology group, beware!)

One Man Committed to Christ

“…(William) Borden’s small morning prayer group gave birth to a movement that spread across the campus. By the end of his first year, 150 freshman were meeting for weekly Bible study and prayer. By the time Bill Borden was a senior, one thousand of Yale’s 1,300 students were meeting in such groups. Borden made it his habit to seek out the most “incorrigible” students and try to bring them to salvation…” No Reserves. No Retreats. No Regrets by Brian Hedges at Light and Heat

8 Dangers of Exclusive, Redemptive-Historical Preaching

I lo-o-ove redemptive-historical preaching. But, like all styles of preaching, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Ethics, Preaching, and Biblical Theology by John Frame

Minimizing the Bible?

Have seeker-sensitive preachers and over-contextualizing missionaries lost faith in the power of God’s Word to change people? Preach the whole counsel of God!

“…It seems to me that a growing number of pastors and missionaries have lost confidence in this truth. They have concluded that the gap between the glory of Christ and the felt needs of their neighbors, or between the glory of Christ and the religion of the nationals, is simply too great for the fullness of God’s word to overcome. The upshot seems to be the minimization of the Word of God in its robust and glorious fullness.

This is on my front burner just now because in recent weeks I have received a steady stream of testimonies from aching saints who say in so many words, “Our pastor doesn’t proclaim to us what the Bible says and means. The messages are not revelations of the glory of Christ. They are advice-talks with a religious twist…” Minimizing the Bible by John Piper

The Guilt of Giving Part of God’s Counsel

Preach the whole Bible, nothing less! The Guilt of Giving Part of God’s Counsel by John Piper

Seminary Training vs. Church Training?

Who can better train future church pastors than current church pastors? Where better to learn to pastor a church than in a church? Long before pastors’ training became academicized and institutionalized, local churches trained pastors. Proposal for a New Seminary by John Frame

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.

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.

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.)

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

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