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.)

By Greg Gibson

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.)

The 12 Names for the Decalogue in All 56 Verses:
“Ten Commandments” Only 3 Times (Zero in the N.T.)

By Greg Gibson

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)