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.)

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