We didn’t say they were “no more”—we said they were fulfilled in Christ. They were an expression of God’s eternal law of love that defines his nature and character. Jesus was the only One to keep it perfectly (beyond the letter—in its full spiritual intent) because he was God—humans cannot do it. In his fulfillment of the law, Jesus did for us what we could never do for ourselves. The old covenant law, as a complete package, was never intended as an end in itself—it was designed to bring Israel to faith in the Messiah (see Jeremiah 31:31-34 for example). All the Ten Commandments could do is condemn—Israel and the world needed a Redeemer. Again, it is important to understand the difference between “fulfill” and “abolish.” Saving grace is bound up in belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, not our attempts at old covenant law keeping. Jesus is our true Sabbath rest—freedom from sin, death, evil, and our fallen alienation from God. He was the Reality to which the shadow pointed. There is no command in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath of Israel (see John 4:19-26). If a believer kills, commits adultery, or steals, there are negative consequences in this life, but their salvation is based on Christ’s perfect obedience to God’s eternal law of love and nothing can separate the believer from his grace and assurance (Romans 8:1, 37-39). God is now writing his eternal law of love, the Law of Christ, or “Royal Law,” in the hearts of believers in the lifelong process of new creation. Christians are learning to love as God loves and are being made into real persons in Christ.
The biblical explanations were included in the attachments from previous correspondence. They can also be accessed on our website:
www.gci.org/publications. Also, in biblical exegesis, the whole interprets the parts, not the parts the whole. Presuppositional “proof-texting” is not the way to do proper hermeneutics. There is only one covenant—the fulfilled covenant of Jesus Christ. Everything changed at the cross and resurrection—we are in the age of grace and new creation, not the law. If salvation could be earned through old covenant law keeping, the world would not have needed a Savior and Christ’s death was in vain.
They were not, but they were part of the old covenant package that was replaced by the new covenant of grace. As created beings, we simply cannot earn our salvation through law keeping. Israel did not keep the letter of the old covenant law and Christians, even with the help of the Holy Spirit, do not keep perfectly the Law of Christ. Salvation is a gift to be received with thanksgiving and joy, not something that can be earned. There is no legalism associated with the gospel of grace. The entire old covenant package (Law of Moses) was ratified in animal blood at Sinai. It was for the nation of Israel and served in that national form only until its fulfillment (not abolishment) in Christ. The new covenant is personal, spiritual, and relational in nature—a matter of the “circumcised” heart. It was ratified in God’s own blood at Calvary and is for all who believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for them. He was the vicarious human, the “new Adam” for all.
Do Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17-19 tell Christians they must keep the seventh-day Sabbath? Some people believe these verses make Sabbath-keeping binding on Christians. Others conclude the Sabbath is not in view in this passage.
To discover the answer, let us begin by quoting the verses in question:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
We see right away that Jesus did not mention the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments in these verses. To read Jesus’ statement as having these laws specifically in mind is to bring in ideas that were not stated by Jesus.
Nonetheless, there are certain phrases in this text that need further study: Jesus’ assertion that he did not come to abolish the Law; that he came to fulfill it; that not the smallest part of the Law would disappear till everything was accomplished; that whoever broke the commandments he was speaking about or taught others to break them would be of little reputation in the kingdom. What do all these things mean in terms of the Sabbath? By looking closely at the key phrases in this Scripture, we will learn some surprising things.
“Abolish Law and Prophets”
First, we see that Jesus spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” as not being abolished. What did he mean by this phrase? The “Law and the Prophets” was a regular expression Jews of Jesus’ day used to refer to the entire Old Testament. (See Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21.) The Old Testament comprises the Holy Scriptures or the sacred writings of the Jewish faith. It was through these writings that Jews thought they could understand the will of God and have eternal life (John 5:39, 45).
What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of “God-breathed” literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament.
Jesus also said he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets, that is, the Holy Scriptures, but to “fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). We should notice that Jesus did not tell Christians to “fulfill” these Scriptures down to the smallest letter and least stroke of a pen. He said he came to fulfill the Holy Scriptures.
What did he mean by this? The Greek word for “fulfill” is plerosai. According to Greek scholars, the nuance and meaning of this word is difficult to express in English, and several possibilities have been offered. These are summarized by four options:
1. Jesus came to accomplish or obey the Holy Scriptures,
2. to bring out the full meaning of the Holy Scriptures,
3. to bring those Scriptures to their intended completion,
4. to emphasize that the Scriptures point to him as Messiah and are fulfilled in his salvation work.
After reviewing several ways of looking at the word “fulfill,” the Expositor’s Commentary on Matthew concluded by saying: “The best interpretation of these difficult verses says that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they point to him, and he is their fulfillment. The antithesis is not between ‘abolish’ and ‘keep’ but between ‘abolish’ and ‘fulfill’” (page 143).
Let’s see how this possibility works out. It is certainly a proper understanding of Jesus’ intent to say that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets in himself – in his life and salvation work, and that the Scriptures pointed to him.
The book of Matthew was written to prove from the Jewish Scriptures that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of messiahship. Matthew often said Jesus acted “to fulfill” what was said through one prophet or another (Matthew 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17, etc.). One can read through the book of Matthew and note all the times that a reference is made to the Old Testament as being fulfilled in Jesus. It is surprising, indeed.
Jesus said in Matthew 3:15 that “all righteousness” should be fulfilled in his actions. Luke 24:25-27, 44-45 and John 5:39-47 are also instructive on this point. These verses show that Jesus was interested in showing how the Hebrew Scriptures had himself as their object. He was the Messiah of whom all the Jewish holy writings had spoken.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Matthew offers another view of “fulfill.” It emphasizes that Jesus was bringing the meaning of the Scriptures to their intended completion. It says: “Jesus is bringing that to which the Old Testament looked forward; his teaching will transcend the Old Testament revelation, but, far from abolishing it, is itself its intended culmination” (page 114).
But is the keeping of the “holy time” requirement of the Sabbath something Jesus meant to bring forward for Christians to follow? Since the context does not mention the Sabbath in Matthew 5:17-19, we would have no basis to insist that he did.
“Not the smallest letter”
Jesus also said that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen” from the entire body of the Jewish Holy Scriptures would disappear until “everything is accomplished.” Some believe that by saying this, Jesus was saying that Christians should keep the seventh-day Sabbath.
Let’s ask again what the context tells us, and where such a conclusion would lead us. As we saw, Jesus did not mention the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments in Matthew 5:17-19. In order to say that Jesus had the Sabbath in mind, we would be forced to say that he was commanding Christians to follow all the laws of the Law and Prophets, or the Old Testament. At the least, we would have to conclude he was making the entire Law of Moses binding on Christians.
Based on the argument above, we would have to take Jesus’ words as enjoining every single commandment and regulation in the Law of Moses on Christians! The reason is because Jesus said that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen” from the entire body of the Jewish Holy Scriptures would disappear until “everything is accomplished.”
To ask again: Did Jesus mean Christians had to keep all the regulations of the Law of Moses, including the “holy time” regulations of the Sabbath, or strict tithing, or the food laws? Consider what that line of reasoning would demand.
Christians would be obligated to keep all the sacrificial, ceremonial and civil laws described in the Law of Moses. They would have to keep every single law mentioned in Genesis through Deuteronomy – and the rest of the Old Testament. The Jews calculated that there were 613 laws in their Holy Scriptures. Christians, then, based on the idea that Jesus was telling his disciples to keep the regulations of the Law and the Prophets, would have to keep all 613 laws. No wonder the apostle Paul said that thinking in these terms was wrongheaded (Galatians 3:10).
To pick a few examples of this line of reasoning, Christian men would have to be physically circumcised. All Christians would have to offer sacrifices. Men, at least, would have to travel to Jerusalem to keep the annual festivals. Christians would have to keep the various purification rituals. One of these rituals specified that individuals who came in contact with dead bodies would be “unclean” for seven days. They would have to ceremonially wash themselves on the third and seventh day (Numbers 19:11-13). If any person failed to do this, he or she would be “cut off from Israel” (verse 13). There are many dozens of such laws in the Law of Moses that would have to be followed.
Obviously, when we see the implications, we have to conclude that Jesus’ words could not be telling Christians to keep the entire old covenant Law. But if he was not saying this, then we have no justification for saying his words demand we keep the Sabbath as “holy time,” because he did not specifically mention this command – or the Ten Commandments.
“Everything is accomplished”
Jesus said that until heaven and earth ceased to exist, nothing would disappear from the law “until everything is accomplished” (5:18). But heaven and earth will pass away, and by contrast, Jesus’ own words will remain forever (Matthew 24:35). They have a greater validity than the Law because Jesus is greater than Moses.
The meaning of “until everything is accomplished” has several possibilities. It is suggested by the Tyndale New Testament Commentary that the translation: “Until what it [the Law] looks forward to arrives” gives the best sense of this phrase. This links the thought with the idea of “fulfillment” in verse 17. This also seems to be the thrust of Paul’s comments regarding the relationship of the Law and Jesus’ earthly ministry (Galatians 3:19, 23-25).
The Tyndale New Testament Commentary expresses the interpretation of “accomplished” in these words:
“The law remains valid until it reaches its intended culmination; this it is now doing in the ministry and teaching of Jesus. This verse does not state, therefore, as it is sometimes interpreted, that every regulation in the Old Testament law remains binding after the coming of Jesus. The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended” (page 115).
The Tyndale commentary also makes the same point in these words:
“This passage does not therefore state that every Old Testament regulation is eternally valid. This view is not found anywhere in the New Testament, which consistently sees Jesus as introducing a new situation, for which the law prepared (Galatians 3:24), but which now transcends it. The focus is now on Jesus and his teaching, and in this light the validity of Old Testament rules must now be examined. Some will be found to have fulfilled their role, and be no longer applicable...others will be reinterpreted” (page 117).
This explanation must be the correct one, or else the early Christian church and the apostles violated Matthew 5:17-19 by telling gentile Christians that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses was not necessary. The book of Galatians would also have been in error on this point. And the book of Hebrews would have been in extraordinary violation of Jesus’ words, too, since it states that the entire sacrificial system, the temple worship and Levitical priesthood had been annulled.
However, these books are in agreement with the principle mentioned above. They explain that some old covenant religious regulations have fulfilled their role and others need reinterpretation. This is the situation that holds with the ceremonial weekly Sabbath “holy time” regulation. It fulfilled its role in old covenant times and can be interpreted spiritually for Christians as the spiritual Sabbath rest we now have in Christ.
The simple answer to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:18 lies in the word “until” in the phrase, “Until everything is accomplished.” The word tells us that there was an endpoint to the time when the Law would “disappear” – that is, when everything would be “accomplished.” That is the answer to the puzzle.
Nothing of the Law could be made obsolete until Jesus accomplished “everything.” Everything of what? Why, everything that Jesus accomplished from his Incarnation to his resurrection and Ascension. Jesus fulfilled his mission, the mission of the Father, to bring us saving grace. This could not happen until Jesus fulfilled everything necessary for this to become a reality – including his death, resurrection, Ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit.
Once Jesus fulfilled his mission, the old covenant Law became obsolete. After all, the Mosaic covenant was originally planned to be in force only until Christ came and accomplished his work of salvation. The apostle Paul speaks to this reality: “The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:24-25).
“Least of these commandments”
In Matthew 5:19 Jesus also said that if anyone broke “one of the least of these commandments” and taught others to do so, that person would be called “least” in the kingdom. Those who practiced and taught these commands of which he spoke would be called “great” in that kingdom. How do these words fit into the discussion?
One explanation of this phrase is that “these commandments” refer to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5-7, and not to the Old Testament or its law. His reinterpretation of old covenant law was certainly the subject of much of the Sermon on the Mount.
After discussing the Law and the Prophets, Jesus went on to give six units of teaching, each introduced by the phrase, “You have heard that it was said... But I say to you” (Matthew 5:21-48). In those six units, Jesus gave varied examples of how the principles he was discussing should work out in practice among his disciples. He began each section with how Jews might have taught and applied a literal understanding of Old Testament law. Then Jesus gave his more discerning view – the real intent or aim of the law in general, and the six examples he chose in particular.
To summarize, he mentioned the following subjects: murder and anger, based on the sixth commandment (5:21-26); adultery, the seventh commandment (5:27-30); divorce, from Deuteronomy 24:1 (5:31-32); swearing and oaths, summarizing teaching from such scriptures as Leviticus 19:12 and Numbers 30:2 (5:33-37); legal rights, quoted from Exodus 21:24-25, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 (5:38-42); and the principle of loving one’s neighbor, from Leviticus 19:18 (5:43-47).
What we notice is that the examples Jesus chose come from all five books of Moses. These six principles are then summarized as the greater righteousness of Jesus’ disciples (5:48). The disciples of Jesus, in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees, must be “perfect,” that is, have a life totally motivated by the will of God. Jesus contrasted this new and radical righteousness (5:20) with the scrupulous religious observance of old covenant demands practiced by Pharisees and other Jewish religious teachers (6:1-8. 16-18).
Jesus did not come to annul the Holy Scriptures as a body of holy writings since they were “God breathed” words of the Creator. But they were not an end in themselves, as many Jews thought. Jesus had come to bring the truth to which those Scriptures pointed (John 1:17).
The “law of Christ”
If we look carefully at the context of the verse in which Jesus spoke of fulfilling the Law, particularly at what follows Matthew 5:17-19, we will note that Jesus was redefining the teaching from the Law and the Prophets. He was pointing out which principles from the Holy Scriptures had an eternal validity and their intended purpose, and how both were to be understood.
In short, Jesus was creating a spiritual law, which we may call the “law of Christ” (John 13:33-35) – and this becomes the norm for Christian living, not the old covenant law. This is demonstrated by the fact that one cannot find in the teaching in Matthew 5-6 any discussion of ceremonial laws such as the Sabbath and annual festival “holy time” regulations – a hallmark of Jewish religious observance based on old covenant commands.
While Jews concerned themselves with what Moses and their traditions said, Jesus superseded that approach to God with his own instruction. He became the standard of truth (John 1:17). In referring to both the Law of Moses and the tradition of the elders, Jesus boldly proclaimed, “But I say to you” (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). At the end of the Sermon, Jesus told his hearers that the wise person is one “who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
The orientation of the new covenant is to Christ and the cross, not to Moses and the tables of stone. The great sermon of the new covenant is not the one given on Mt. Sinai, but by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He explained the spiritual-moral principles of the new covenant that apply to Christians. These are amply discussed in several places in the New Testament (in Galatians 5:22-25, for example). We should note that these places do not contain any mention of such ceremonial regulations as keeping a specific day of the week.
Matthew concluded his gospel with the following words of Jesus: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). The disciples are to teach and do the commands Jesus gave, not legalistically follow the Law of Moses (John 15:12-13). Since Jesus did not command Sabbath-keeping in Matthew 5:17-19, we cannot use this Scripture to justify teaching it.
In the interest of fairness, we should point out that some scholars object to the view that Jesus was referring to his own commandments in Matthew 5:19. The word for “commandment,” entole, elsewhere in Matthew always refers to the Old Testament law. These scholars insist the expression “least of these commandments” would be better understood in the context as referring to the law as expounded in the Old Testament. If so, how are we to understand Jesus’ command to his disciples – to respect and teach the “least of these commandments”?
We have already seen that Jesus cannot be telling his disciples to keep each of the 613 regulations of the Law. That would lead to a logical absurdity, violate his teaching in Matthew 5, and stand in conflict with other New Testament teachings and writings. (Since Jesus didn’t mention the Sabbath in Matthew 5, we cannot use this Scripture to insist that one of “these commandments” was the Sabbath “holy time” regulation.)
It cannot be a literal observance of the Law of Moses that interests Jesus – this is seen by what he says in Matthew 5:21-48, where he radically reinterprets the commands of the Law. If it were a literal observance that Jesus wanted, the Gospel of Mark was in specific violation of Jesus’ command, because it interpreted Jesus’ view of the laws of “uncleanness” and said he had abrogated these Old Testament food regulations. (See Mark 7:19 in any modern translation.)
What such Scriptures show is that Jesus left the question of interpretation and application of the Law of Moses open to changing circumstances. We can see this in his teaching in Matthew 5:21-48 and elsewhere. Of course, the Old Testament must be respected, and it has value as the word of God, but it is also time-bound to a certain extent. This practical view of the Law is demonstrated in the rest of the New Testament. It allows, for example, the apostles to understand that the ceremonial and sacrificial laws are no longer binding.
Nonetheless, Christians are to respect the Old Testament as the Holy Scriptures of God. They are profitable, when used wisely, for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” and can make one “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15-16). But no one should place faith in the Law itself, for while the Law came through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus. Under grace, Christians are not required to keep a specific “holy time,” go to a “holy place” such as the temple, or be under the authority of the holy Levitical priesthood (John 4:21-24). These were ceremonial regulations, and Christians do not need to keep them.
OK, as long as it’s understood that they cannot save anyone.
The old covenant Sabbath became obsolete in its fulfillment in Christ—there are no commanded worship or rest days in the new covenant—our true Sabbath rest is bound up in a relationship with Jesus Christ. That said, within Christian freedom, believers are free to worship and rest on the Sabbath if they choose. But they cannot do it in a legalistic way, thinking they are being more pleasing to God or in judgment of other believers who worship at other times. God is more interested in unity in the Body of Christ than an day of the week.
Many theologians divide Old Testament laws into three general categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil. The Bible itself does not divide the law into these categories (many of the laws overlap in their purpose), but this three-fold division is nevertheless useful when we talk about the Mosaic laws.
Defining types of laws
Moral laws are generally considered timeless, eternal, and universal, based on God’s own character, and therefore in force today. This is a good working definition of the category, but a problem arises when people assume they know what is in the category.
Some people claim that a certain law is moral, or a certain group of laws is moral, without attempting to see whether the laws are actually timeless, eternal, and based on God’s character. Instead, they seem to reason in a reverse direction: They take laws that they think are still in force, and from that, conclude that they are also a timeless reflection of God’s character.
This procedure, although incorrect, sometimes yields believable results. People’s assumptions about morality are often correct — but sometimes they are not. Before we claim that a law is “moral,” we should examine to see whether it is truly timeless, eternal, and universal, applicable to all.
For example, one law in the Old Testament says, Do not bear false witness. This law says that a witness in court must tell the truth. This law is a specific application of God’s desire that people tell the truth. This is based on God’s own character, his honesty — what he says can be counted on. He is utterly faithful; his word is always true. This principle is reaffirmed in the New Testament, too: people should tell the truth.
This law is universal — everyone, in every nation in every age, should be honest. Even angels should be honest. The principle is always true, and the specific application in a courtroom is also true: No one should give false testimony. This is a moral law.
Ceremonial laws
God gave his people ceremonial laws, too. These laws do not contradict God’s nature, but they reflect it only in a very general sense. For example, he told the Israelites to have a weekly offering of “showbread.” This offering, like other offerings, showed that God is holy and worthy of worship, but the Bible does not assign any theological significance to the details of the offering. The quantity of flour does not tell us much about God. With some ingenuity, some people may see symbolic significance in every detail, but other people may see different significance in the same details. And since the Bible itself does not tell us what the significance is, we cannot be sure.
A cleansing ritual is another illustration of ceremonial or ritual law: the priest was to touch the person’s right earlobe, right thumb, and right big toe (Leviticus 14:1-18). Although God gave these laws and expected them to be kept as written, these details do not reveal much about God’s character. Although God may have had a particular reason for specifying exact quantities and precise details, he has not told us the reason, so it therefore cannot tell us much about God himself.
Some aspects of the rituals and ceremonies, from our perspective, seem to be arbitrary. For all we know, God could have required the left cheek instead of the right earlobe. He could have required 10 percent less bread than he did. Some of these details do not seem to be based on anything intrinsic — they were simply what God specified. Since we do not know the divine significance of such details, they had to be given by special revelation.
The Israelites (like other peoples around them) might have invented a bread offering on their own, but they may not have used the precise quantities God specified. Even without God’s special revelation to them, they might have had a concept of religious impurity, and from that developed a religious cleansing ritual, but they probably wouldn’t have come up with the exact formula God gave them.
Although the ceremonial laws portray concepts like sacrifice and cleansing that are found in many cultures, the details of God’s ceremonial laws are given by special revelation, not by ideas that people could figure out for themselves.
What about the Sabbath?
Some people claim that the weekly Sabbath is a moral law, and therefore required today. They often claim this simply because they assume that the Ten Commandments are all moral laws.
But let us look at the evidence: God himself does not keep the Sabbath as a six-day-one-day cycle of work and rest. He did not before creation, and he does not now. Angels do not keep the weekly Sabbath, either. In the new heavens and the new earth, when there is no nighttime, no one will have to change their behavior according to days of the week. Everyone will be in God’s eternal rest all the time.
Although the seventh-day Sabbath has a basis in what God did once, the six-one cycle does not reflect what God is eternally. Although the weekly Sabbath rest looked forward to the eternal rest we have in salvation, the six-one cycle of work and rest is not an eternal one. The seventh-day Sabbath is not a universal or eternal law.
Instead, the Sabbath has characteristics of a ceremonial law. Although people might figure out that regular rest is good for us, it is not likely that they would figure exactly one day out of seven, and even more unlikely that they would naturally figure out that it must be the seventh. This specific detail had to be specially revealed. Of course, if God says that we have to keep this detail, then we do. That’s the same for any law, ceremonial or otherwise. The point is that the details of the Sabbath command are like ceremonial laws in that they have to be specially revealed.
The Sabbath law says that behavior that is perfectly acceptable one day is forbidden the next, merely because it is a different day of the week. But God’s morality does not change with the days of the week. If it is moral one day, it is moral on all others. God certainly has the right to require different things on different days, but we need to understand that this would be a ceremonial law, not a law about what is moral all the time.
Paul tells us that the gentiles, even without the written law, had a law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). They could know by nature that honesty was proper. In contrast, they could not know from nature that they should anoint the right thumb instead of the elbow. They could not know by nature that they were to avoid work on the seventh day of each week.
God never required the gentiles to obey laws they did not have. They were required to obey the law written on their hearts, but they were not required to obey the ritual laws, for such laws have to be specially revealed, and God revealed them only to Israel, and they applied only to Israel.
God did not expect gentiles to celebrate the Israelites’ exodus, or to have harvest festivals on the exact dates that Israel did. He did not require them to have Levitical priests, nor to make the animal sacrifices he told Israel to offer. Nor did he command them to keep the Sabbath. They could if they wanted to, of course (Isaiah 56:4), but he did not require it.
Jesus categorizes the Sabbath
When Jesus talked about the Sabbath, he clearly grouped it with the ceremonial laws, not with the moral law. When it came to matters of morality, Jesus had a very strict standard, stricter than the Pharisees. When it came to ceremonial laws, however, he was more lenient than the Pharisees.
With the Sabbath, Jesus was more lenient. On several occasions, he noted that the Pharisees were too strict about the Sabbath. He is never recorded as giving any restrictions about the Sabbath. He never told anyone to avoid anything on that day. This in itself suggests that Jesus saw the Sabbath as a ceremonial law.
But even more clearly, Jesus compared the Sabbath to ceremonial laws. When his disciples were criticized for picking grain on the Sabbath, Jesus used the example of David eating the tabernacle showbread (Matthew 12:1-4). He said, if David could eat the showbread, my disciples can pick enough grain to eat.
Notice that the argument doesn’t work if the Sabbath is more important than showbread — the Pharisees could have said, It’s permissible to take liberties with the showbread, but the Sabbath is more important, so we have to be more careful about it. No, in order for the logic of the argument to work, the showbread has to be just as important as the Sabbath. Only then could the comparison carry any weight. The point is that Jesus deliberately used a ritual law as a point of comparison for the Sabbath.
Jesus also compared the Sabbath to the sacrificial laws (Matthew 12:5). The priests were allowed to work on the Sabbath because the requirement to sacrifice animals was more important than the requirement to rest on the Sabbath. The ritual law was more important than the Sabbath law. This again shows that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about working on the Sabbath. It was permitted for priests. It is not a universal law required for all peoples at all times. Rather, the Sabbath was a ritual law, specifying when certain kinds of work could or could not be done.
Jesus also compared the Sabbath to circumcision (John 7:22). Again, ritual work was allowed (even required) on the Sabbath, because the ritual law was more important than the requirement to rest on the seventh day. The ritual law was more important than the Sabbath. Again, Jesus is putting the Sabbath into the company of ritual laws.
Jesus never grouped the Sabbath with moral laws, or any other of the Ten Commandments. He always compared it to ceremonial laws. Jesus treated the Sabbath as a “lesser” law. The requirement to work on certain days and avoid work on other days was a ritual law. It was an important part of the covenant God gave Israel, but it was not given to other nations.
No doubt some of the first Christians were surprised that any of God’s laws could become obsolete when Jesus died. This had to be explained, as we see in the book of Hebrews. But once they realized that some of God’s laws were indeed superseded, that they had been given for a temporary reason, that their purpose had now been fulfilled by Jesus Christ, then they could also understand that God no longer required ritual, ceremonial laws.
Since Jesus clearly ranked the showbread as more important than the Sabbath, and the temple sacrifices as more important than the Sabbath, and circumcision as more important than the Sabbath, it should be no surprise that the Sabbath command expired at the same time as those other commands.
It is a historically demonstrable fact that Jews in the first century understood that God did not require gentiles to keep the Sabbath. When the barriers between Jews and gentiles were eliminated through Jesus’ death (Ephesians 2:13-16), the Sabbath was one of the barrier ordinances eliminated. It was a ritual law, not a timeless and eternal moral law.
It was included in the attachments and it is on our website. It is clear teaching from the New Testament—see gospel of John for example.
The Old Testament must be read through the lens of the New Testament. The Messiah had not appeared yet when God was dealing with the nation of Israel in Old Testament times. The incarnation changed everything. Christians are under a new and different covenant than ancient Israel’s.
We only have time and resources for brief responses here. We recommend the books, The Gospel Solution by Tom Weaver; Unlock Your Bible and Beyond an Angry God by Steve McVey for a more detailed study of this topic.
The New Testament is clear that Christians will sin in this life (see Romans 7 and 1 John 1:8 for example). But Christ’s atonement made righteous provision for all sin (past, present, and future). In Christ, we are considered free of sin because our faith is bound up in him, not ourselves (see Philippians 3:7-9).
Sin in the new (fulfilled) covenant of Jesus Christ is any behavior that hurts relationships—any “unloving” behavior, whether internal or external. The fulfilled covenant adds the spiritual dimension (the inner heart) to the old letter. The Ten Commandments were for a nation that did not generally have the Holy Spirit available to them. Christians go beyond the old blessings and cursings of the law toward the motives of the heart. They tried to keep the law to be blessed as a physical nation; believers in Christ always look to him, their Reconciler and Redeemer, knowing they can’t do it themselves. Beyond the do’s and don’ts of the old law, the spiritual relationship Christians have with Jesus affects their inner motive, the desire to become more Christ like—they obey the Royal Law of love as a response to what God has done for them in Christ, not to earn anything. Godly behavior is an overflow of the love relationship they enjoy in union and communion with Christ through the Holy Spirit.
See the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was showing them that the old law could not save them and pointed them to their need for a Redeemer and the new law (of love) that was to come after his death, resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. The key to understanding this is bound up in the realization that it is Christ that did it all for us because we could not save ourselves through law keeping. It’s not OK to break the Ten Commandments, but they are now redefined according to their deeper spiritual intent. Not committing adultery is not sufficient; one must not lust either. Not killing is not enough; one must not hate, etc. The old Sabbath pictured the spiritual rest that was to come in Christ—Jesus is the true Sabbath that Israel failed to appreciate—they never got past the letter of the old law. That’s why there is a “veil” that prevents them from seeing Christ (see 2 Corinthians 3:12-16).
Of course not—we would never say that. This passage was explained in detail in the previous correspondence.
Believers do overcome in Christ (not through their own efforts)—he is our sufficiency, our “all in all.”
Explained previously. The old law was given to Israel. We have the real thing now in Christ, who, through the Holy Spirit, is leading us into “all truth.” There can be no contradiction—the Christian is either under grace which is a gift of God or they must save themselves through their own efforts at law keeping. If it were not for Christ, no one would be saved.
Yes. While he was alive, he was still under the old law. It changed when he said, “It is finished.”
He was a Jew and a full human. He was also God. He lived in a transition period between the covenants. See N. T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant.
The Ten Commandments were part of the same complete package that was the old covenant, ratified in animal blood at Sinai. That covenant ended as a complete package with its fulfillment in Christ. No one is saying it is OK to break the commandments. But we are in the time of grace, not law, and are led by the Spirit, not legalism or fear.
As God, that is true. But he was also a human. He was paving the way for the new age that was about to come.
God’s law of love that defines his nature and character is eternal. That is the new Law of Christ or Royal Law that Jesus brought. Believers are now experiencing the true love of God that brings life.
Absolutely. God is love.
No. We are saying that the old covenant ended in its national and religious form to Israel with its fulfillment in Jesus Christ—the Savior of the world. Blessings.
Jesus never grouped the Sabbath with moral laws, or any other of the Ten Commandments. He always compared it to ceremonial laws. Jesus treated the Sabbath as a “lesser” law. The requirement to work on certain days and avoid work on other days was a ritual law. It was an important part of the covenant God gave Israel, but it was not given to other nations.
No doubt some of the first Christians were surprised that any of God’s laws could become obsolete when Jesus died. This had to be explained, as we see in the book of Hebrews. But once they realized that some of God’s laws were indeed superseded, that they had been given for a temporary reason, that their purpose had now been fulfilled by Jesus Christ, then they could also understand that God no longer required ritual, ceremonial laws.
Since Jesus clearly ranked the showbread as more important than the Sabbath, and the temple sacrifices as more important than the Sabbath, and circumcision as more important than the Sabbath, it should be no surprise that the Sabbath command expired at the same time as those other commands.
It is a historically demonstrable fact that Jews in the first century understood that God did not require gentiles to keep the Sabbath. When the barriers between Jews and gentiles were eliminated through Jesus’ death (Ephesians 2:13-16), the Sabbath was one of the barrier ordinances eliminated. It was a ritual law, not a timeless and eternal moral law.
It was included in the attachments and it is on our website. It is clear teaching from the New Testament—see gospel of John for example.
The Old Testament must be read through the lens of the New Testament. The Messiah had not appeared yet when God was dealing with the nation of Israel in Old Testament times. The incarnation changed everything. Christians are under a new and different covenant than ancient Israel’s.
We only have time and resources for brief responses here. We recommend the books, The Gospel Solution by Tom Weaver; Unlock Your Bible and Beyond an Angry God by Steve McVey for a more detailed study of this topic.
The New Testament is clear that Christians will sin in this life (see Romans 7 and 1 John 1:8 for example). But Christ’s atonement made righteous provision for all sin (past, present, and future). In Christ, we are considered free of sin because our faith is bound up in him, not ourselves (see Philippians 3:7-9).
