The Cessation of the Mosaic Covenant

By Hal Harless

[Hal Harless is a Bible teacher in Garland, Texas.]

Is the Mosaic Law the standard for Christians to follow today? Many Christians answer this in the affirmative. For example Berkhof wrote,

It is equally contrary to Scripture to say … that the law does not apply in the New Testament dispensation. Jesus taught the permanent validity of the law, Matt. 5:17–19. Paul holds his readers responsible for keeping the law, Rom. 13:9.

There is another sense, however, in which the Christian is not free from the law. It is pure Antinomianism to maintain that Christ kept the law as a rule of life for His people, so that they need not worry about this any more. The law lays claim, and justly so, on the entire life of man in all its aspects, including his relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ…. The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements… .

The Reformed do full justice to the second use of the law [as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ] … but they devote even more attention to the law in connection with the doctrine of sanctification. They stand strong in the conviction that believers are still under the law as a rule of life and gratitude.[1]

Berkhof’s reference to Romans 13:9 is strange because in this verse and its context Paul argued that love, which was Jesus’ new commandment (John 13:34), replaced the need for the Mosaic Law.

However, some writers say that the ethic of love is insufficient for Christian living. Bloesch wrote, “Reformed theology takes strong exception to grounding ethics simply in the spirit of love. With the Reformed fathers ethics was grounded not upon love but upon obeying the commandments as God’s commandments.”[2] Aware of such thinking, Chafer complained that the

notion that people will not live righteous lives unless placed upon a works basis of relationship to God has permeated the church to a large degree. This ignorance is manifest in the church by the fact that the greatest incentive to holy living that the human heart can know is ignored, which is, to “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called” (Eph 4:1). The individual who comprehends that he has attained by faith through grace to the perfect righteousness of God, will be incited by so great an honor and trust to walk more faithfully in the path of God’s own choosing than will the individual who hopes—against hope, for it is recognized as an impossible task—to satisfy a holy God by his ever-failing works.[3]

Other Christians assert, with varying degrees of assurance, that the Mosaic Law has in some sense come to an end. Unger stated with conviction, “This Mosaic system, including the Ten Commandments as a way of life, came to an end with the death of Christ (John 1:17; Rom. 10:4). The Mosaic law was thus a temporary divine administration in effect only until Christ should come.”[4] Schreiner, after making an excellent case for the termination of the Law,[5] seems to want to retain some role for the Law. “The Mosaic covenant has passed away because Messiah has come. Nevertheless, this cessation of the Mosaic covenant does not constitute an abrogation of the law but a fulfillment and establishment of the law (Rom. 3:31). In other words, one cannot give an unqualified ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer concerning the cessation of the law in Paul. In one sense it has passed away, and in another sense it has been fulfilled.”[6] At the conclusion of his analysis Schreiner was still somewhat indefinite. “Paul’s understanding of the continuing validity of the law is complex. One cannot respond with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether the law remains in force. Paul argues that the Mosaic covenant has ended in one sense…. The Mosaic covenant, however, has ceased because it is fulfilled in Christ.”[7] Thus some Christians see the Mosaic Law as still in effect, while others are quite sure that it has ended. Still others seek to find some role for the Law of Moses in the Christian life.[8]

Clarification of the Issues

The Law Of Moses And God’s Eternal Ethical Standard

Many of those who seek to find a valid role for the Mosaic Covenant today are concerned about God’s eternal ethical absolutes. Aldrich clarified this issue by differentiating between God’s eternal moral law and the Law of Moses.

Moral law applies in every dispensation. Both the friends and opponents of dispensationalism could agree that the eternal moral law of God applies to every dispensation. By “the eternal moral law of God” we do not mean the Mosaic law or the Ten Commandments, but the eternal principles of righteousness which are a reflection of the character of God. God’s standard of holiness has always been nothing less than His own character or glory (Rom 3:23). Moses did not originate this moral law and it did not cease at the end of the age of Mosaic law.

When dispensationalists say that the Ten Commandments are done away, they mean that believers are not under the Mosaic setting of the eternal moral law. They recognize that all the moral principles of the Mosaic age reappear for the church in a setting of grace. It is no more antinomian to say that the Mosaic law does not apply in this age than it is for a citizen of Michigan to say that he is not under the laws of Illinois. Much of the argument over law and grace is caused by a failure in definition of terms. If the eternal moral law of God is distinguished from the Mosaic law, much of the confusion disappears. All agree that we are still under the “righteousness of the law,” i.e., the moral principles contained in the law of Moses, and all but extreme legalists also agree that we are not under “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones” (2 Cor 3:7), i.e., under the Mosaic economy of the moral law with its death penalties.[9]

Dispensationalists are not asserting that God has surrendered His moral absolutes. Nor are they ignoring the fact that the Law of Moses is an expression of those moral absolutes. What dispensationalists are asserting is that the Mosaic Covenant has been abolished and that believers under the New Covenant have a different rule of life that also expresses God’s moral absolutes.

Historically theologians have distinguished three uses for the Law. In the first use, the usus politicus or usus civilis, the Law restrains sin and promotes righteousness. In the second use, the usus elenchticus or usus pedagogicus, the Law brings people to faith in Christ. However, in the usus didacticus or usus normativus, also called the tertius usus legis, the third use of the Law, the Mosaic Law is viewed as a rule of life for believers.[10] This third use of the Law is the point of controversy.

Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone

The foundational principle that must guide thinking on this matter is that God justifies human beings by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone and not by works. This was the consistent teaching of Jesus (John 3:14–18, 36; 5:24; 6:28–29, 40; 11:25–27), Paul (Rom. 3:21–22; 4:5; Eph. 2:8–10), and the apostles (Acts 10:43; 15:7–11; 1 John 5:11). To depart from this principle is to depart from the orthodox Christian faith.

In John 1:17 John made it plain that there is an inherent contrast between grace and Law. Paul taught in Romans 3:21–22 that righteousness is apart from the Law. He even asserted that God justifies “the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly” (4:5). According to Paul there exists a danger in placing oneself under the Mosaic Law as a rule of life (Gal. 3:1–5; Col. 2:16–23; 1 Tim. 1:3–7). Walvoord commented on the danger of confusing law and grace.

One of the serious errors of the covenant theologians is their disregard of the essentially legal and non-gracious rule provided by the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament in no uncertain terms describes it as a ministry of death and condemnation, and it is never described as a way of salvation…. It is hard to reconcile such a theory to the direct statement of Scripture that “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). According to Galatians 2:16, justification is impossible by the law. Paul denounced this concept as a perversion of the gospel (Gal 1:7–9) which deserved the severest condemnation. If the Mosaic law could provide salvation, then it was a salvation by religious works and not of faith. Such a viewpoint does violence to the pure grace of God provided in Christ.[11]

The New Covenant is a grant covenant, and as such it is unconditional and gracious. However, the Mosaic Covenant is a suzerainty covenant, and it is therefore conditional and nongracious. These two covenants are very different in form and purpose and must not be confused.

The Scriptural Evidence

The scriptural evidence that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary focuses on nine central passages in the New Testament: Matthew 5:17–19; Romans 7:1–6; 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:7–11; Galatians 3:19–4:7; Ephesians 2:14–16; Colossians 2:13–14; Hebrews 7:11–18; and 8:7–13. These are discussed in this order, except that Matthew 5:17–19 is discussed last.

Romans 7:1-6

In Romans 7:1–6 Paul formulated an analogy based on the law concerning marriage. He explained in verses 2–3 that a married woman who joins herself to another man is an adulteress, but if her husband were to die, she would be free to remarry. This illustrates the principle of verse 1 that “the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives.” Paul’s purpose in mentioning this legal principle was to show that believers, through their union with Christ in His death “were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ” (v. 4). So Paul concluded that “we have been released [κατηργήθημεν, from καταργέω] from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound” (v. 6). The Fribergs give these definitions of καταργέω: “from the basic sense cause to be idle or useless, the term always denotes a nonphysical destruction by means of a superior force coming in to replace the force previously in effect, as, e.g. light destroys darkness; … as release by removal from a former sphere of control free from; passive be discharged from, be freed from … as destruction by replacement abolish, destroy, cause to cease, put an end to.”[12] Thayer defines καταργέω as “to render idle, unemployed, inactive, inoperative … to deprive of its strength, make barren … to cause a person or a thing to have no further efficiency; to deprive of force, influence, power…. to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish.”[13] Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich define καταργέω as “make ineffective, powerless, idle…. (so, above all, in Paul and the writings dependent on him …) make ineffective, nullify … τὸν νόμον make the law invalid…. abolish, wipe out, set aside τὶ someth[ing].”[14] Therefore Romans 7:6 teaches that the Law of Moses is abolished in that it is inoperative or useless, being deprived of force, influence, and power.

Romans 10:4

In Romans 10:4 Paul wrote, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι). The Greek word γὰρ (“for”) indicates that this verse states the reason for Paul’s statement in verse 3 that those who sought to establish their own righteousness were not subjecting themselves to the righteousness of God. The Greek word τέλος, which comes first in the sentence for emphasis, is basic to the understanding of this verse.

Τέλος has been explained as either “end” (i.e., termination) or “goal” (i.e., fulfillment). Alford explained that τέλος means “the object at which the law aimed.”[15] He then referred to 1 Timothy 1:5, the only verse in the New Testament in which τέλος has the meaning of “goal.” However, the Fribergs define τέλος “as an action achievement, carrying out, fulfillment … as a closing act end, termination, cessation … opposite ἀρχή (beginning) … as a goal toward which movement is being directed outcome, end (result), purpose (1 Tim. 1.5).”[16] Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich define τέλος as “end … in the sense termination, cessation … τέλος νόμου Χριστός Ro 10:4…. the last part, close, conclusion esp. of the last things, the final act in the cosmic drama … end or goal toward which a movement is being directed, outcome…. Perh[aps] this is the place for Ro 10:4, in the sense that Christ is the goal and the termination of the law at the same time, somewhat in the sense of Gal 3:24f.”[17]

Thayer also defines τέλος as “end, i.e. a. termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be … Rom. 10:4…. b. the end i.e. the last in any succession or series … c. that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue … d. the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose.”[18]

In each of these lexicons the least likely meaning of τέλος is “goal” or “aim.” Instead the more basic meaning seems to be “end,” “termination,” “cessation,” “close,” “conclusion.” Even in the subsidiary meanings of achievement, fulfillment, or goal, the meaning is “that by which a thing is finished.” Thayer cited Romans 10:4 as an example of the meaning “termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be.” Lenski commented, “Τέλος is not aim, object, or fulfillment; it is ‘end,’ finish, windup.”[19] Even the Vulgate translated τέλος as finis. Therefore the normal way to define τέλος is as an end, termination, conclusion, or cessation.

The papyrus evidence supports this conclusion. Moulton and Milligan cite several examples of τέλος from the papyri. “ἐγ δίκης κατὰ νόμον τέλος ἐξούσης, ‘as if a formal decree of the court had been obtained’ … μέχρι δὲ τοῦ τὸ προκείμενον ἐπὶ τέλος ἀχθῆναι, ‘until the matter was concluded’ … ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ χρονου … ἐπὶ τέλει ἑκαστοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, ‘at the end of each year,’ … (a lease—A.D. 280) ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ χρονοῦ.”[20] Several similarities between Romans 10:4 and these papyri may be noted. First, τέλος and νόμος occur together in the phrase ἐγ δίκης κατὰ νόμον τέλος ἐξούσης, referring to the conclusion of a legal matter. This translates literally, “As if concerning the legal case an end (or conclusion) had been obtained.” And in the other three statements τέλος is used with the genitive in the sense of “end” or “conclusion.” Therefore it is highly probable that τέλος should be understood as meaning “end,” “termination,” “cessation,” or “conclusion.”[21]

Scholars have debated the significance of the phrase “of the law” (νόμου) in Romans 10:4. Lenski commented, “The emphasis is on the predicate which is placed forward, ‘an end of law,’ both nouns are anarthous: everything in the nature of law, including, of course, the Mosaic law, but also all use made of law by moralists of any kind for attaining righteousness before God, has been brought to an ‘end’ by Christ.”[22] Denney stated that “νόμου without the article is ‘law’ in the widest sense; the Mosaic law is only one of the most important instances which come under this description; and it, with all statutory conceptions of religion, ends when Christ appears.”[23]

However, Colwell’s rule[24] indicates that νόμου should be taken as definite even though it is anarthous. Therefore the New American Standard Bible and numerous other English, German, French, and Spanish translations translated νόμου as “of the law,” thus indicating the Law of Moses. As Alford commented, “Νόμου is here plainly the law of Moses.”[25] Even through he modified Colwell’s rule considerably,[26] Wallace still concludes that Romans 10:4 is an instance of a definite anarthous predicate nominative.[27] These details, in conjunction with the immediate context which concerns the Law of Moses, agree with the common translation of νόμου as “of the Law,” that is, of the Law of Moses.

In the phrase “for righteousness” (εἰς δικαιοσύνην) the preposition εἰς may be taken as an εί̓ς of reference or of result.[28] If it is an εἰς of reference, the meaning would be that “Christ is the termination of the law with reference to righteousness.”

However, this leads to two questions. First, does this indicate that the Law was once a means of righteousness? Paul clearly stated in Romans 3:19–21; 4:1–16; and Galatians 3:10–12 that no one ever was or will be justified by the Law. In Galatians 3:12 Paul quoted the same verse (Lev. 18:5) he referred to in Romans 10:5. The point he made in both contexts is that, because everyone sins and falls short of God’s Law, there is no one who is righteous as a result of keeping the Law (Gal. 3:10; cf. James 2:10).

Second, if Christ is the “termination of the Law with reference to righteousness to all that believe,” is there perhaps some group, other than believers, for whom the Law would be effective for righteousness? Schreiner wrote, “The words ‘to everyone who believes’ support the idea that in verse 4 Paul does not make a global statement on the relationship between gospel and law. Christ is not the end of using the law for righteousness for all people. Verse 3 demonstrates that some Jews wrongly try to use the law for their own righteousness. Thus, verse 4 claims that only those who believe, who trust in Christ for their righteousness, cease trying to use the law to establish their own righteousness.”[29] Harrison also commented, “Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as the end of the law for righteousness. He is that ‘for everyone who believes.’ This seems to suggest that the law is still applicable to those who do not believe.”[30] Neither Schreiner nor Harrison say that the Law of Moses justifies anyone. Schreiner referred to the misuse of the Law and Harrison to the condemning work of the Law (usus pedagogicus). However, in neither of these senses can one truly say that the Law is “with reference to righteousness.” Paul had in fact made a global statement that applies to the particular instance of those who sought to establish their own righteousness.

The other possibility, that εἰς is a preposition of result, solves many of these problems. The New International Version renders the verse with this sense of εἰς. “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (italics added).[31] This fits well with Pauline theology. The termination of the Mosaic Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant do result in there being “righteousness for everyone who believes.” This also answers any misguided attempt to establish one’s own righteousness. Thus Romans 10:4 should be translated, “For Christ is the termination of the law [of Moses] so that [there might be] righteousness for all who trust.” Therefore this verse teaches the cessation or termination of the Mosaic Covenant.[32]

2 Corinthians 3:7-11

In this passage Paul contrasted the glory of the Law of Moses to that of the New Covenant. When Paul referred to “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones” (v. 7), he obviously was referring to the testimony of the Mosaic Covenant. He acknowledged that the Mosaic Law had a glory, but it was fading just like the divine light on Moses’ face (v. 7; cf. Exod. 34:29–35). Paul concluded in 2 Corinthians 3:11, “For if that which fades away [τὸ καταργού-μενον] was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.” Schreiner comments, “Paul contrasts the two covenants here, asserting that one is ‘passing away’ while the other is permanent. The word for ‘passing away’ (καταργούμενου, katargoumenou) [sic] must refer to the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant, in comparison with the new covenant ‘which remains’ (μένον, menon). Paul evidently has constructed an antithesis in which one covenant is said to remain forever, while the other (the Mosaic) is coming to an end.”[33] The Law of Moses in general and especially the Ten Commandments are “being made useless.” They were of a temporary nature. The New Covenant is “that which remains.”

This passage has strong implications for those who hold the doctrine of the third use of the Law, that the Law is a rule of life for believers today. Frequently they narrow their definition of the Law to the Ten Commandments. However, as Ryrie and Fruchtenbaum have explained, it is precisely the Ten Commandments that have been discontinued as a rule of life.[34] Therefore any attempt to reintroduce them as a rule of life is erroneous.

Galatians 3:19-4:7

Paul explained to the Galatians that Abraham was justified by faith (3:6–9). Then he demonstrated that the Law brings only a curse since no one keeps it (vv. 10–14). Then he explained that the law of Moses did not set aside the Abrahamic Covenant (vv. 15–18). This gives rise to the question, “Why the Law then?” And Paul answered, “It was added because of transgressions” (v. 19). Then Paul explained the second use of the Law (3:19–4:7). However, in doing so he mentioned in 3:19 that the Law had a temporal aspect. “It was added … until [ἄχρι] the seed would come to whom the promise had been made” (italics added). The seed, according to verse 16, is Christ. The conjunction ἄχρι has a temporal sense with rare exceptions (as in Acts 28:15, where it is spatial). It should normally be translated “until” and occasionally “as long as” (e.g., Heb. 3:13). The Fribergs say it is “a conjunction expressing time up to a point until.”[35] Thayer called ἄχρι “a particle indicating the terminus ad quem.”[36] Thus Paul affirmed that the first advent of Christ was the terminus ad quem of the Law of Moses.

Next Paul used an illustration from Roman life to explain the change in salvation history from life under the Law to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:24–4:7). In 3:24 Paul spoke of the Law as a “tutor” (παιδαγωγός), a slave who led a child to his lessons. The Fribergs define παιδαγωγός as “literally boy leader, a trusted attendant who supervised the conduct and morals of a boy before he came of age guardian, trainer, instructor.”[37] This custom was common not only in Greco-Roman society but also in Jewish culture. The Midrash Exodus Rab. 21.8; 42.9, by means of haggadah, referred to Moses as Israel’s pedagogue (פדגוג, a loan word from Greek παιδαγωγός). Although the midrash does not refer to the Law as a pedagogue explicitly, Moses may well be a metonymy for the Law of Moses, as in 2 Corinthians 3:15. Schreiner observed that “the word pedagogue is used for temporal reasons in Galatians 3:23–25. One who was still ‘under a pedagogue’ had not yet grown up. Paul’s intention here is to make a salvation-historical point. Now that Christ has come the pedagogue is no longer needed…. Pedagogues, guardians, and managers, therefore, are appropriate illustrations since they contrast childhood with adulthood…. He uses these words to stress that the law was not intended to be in force forever. It has a temporal limit in salvation history.”[38] While a boy was under a slave’s authority, he, though the heir, was no better than a slave (4:1–3). However, with the coming of Christ at the “fullness of time” believers are no longer “children” (νήπιοι, v. 3) but have received the “adoption as sons” (υἱοθεσίαν, v. 5). A νήπιος was “a very young child infant.”[39] The word υἱοθεσία “adoption,” is from υἱός, “mature son,” and θέσις, “placing.” All this serves to confirm the truth of 3:25 that “now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Some have said the problem Paul was addressing in Galatians 3 was legalism, not the Law of Moses. Schreiner criticizes this position, arguing that it does not explain the abolition of circumcision and noting that Paul used the term “Law” and not “legalism.”[40] Paul did not merely argue that legalism is wrong. He taught that the Mosaic Covenant had passed away.

Ephesians 2:14-16

Paul asked the Ephesian Gentiles to remember their condition before Christ (Eph. 2:11–12). Before their salvation they were the uncircumcision, separate from Christ, excluded from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope, and without God. Now God has brought these Gentiles into a new relationship by virtue of their union with Christ (v. 13). The church, the body of Christ, consists of both Jews and Gentiles in one body (v. 14). Christ accomplished this by breaking down the barrier between the groups. Ryrie notes that the “dividing wall” is “an allusion to the wall which separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Jews in the Temple. An inscription warned Gentiles of the death penalty for going beyond it.”[41] Fruchtenbaum explains the implications of this wall.

As noted earlier, God made four unconditional eternal covenants with Israel. All of God’s blessings, both material and spiritual, are mediated by means of these four Jewish covenants. God also had a fifth covenant which was temporary and conditional. It was the Mosaic Covenant that contained the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law served as a wall of partition to keep the Gentiles as Gentiles away from enjoying Jewish spiritual blessings. If the Mosaic Law was still in effect, it would still be a wall of partition to keep the Gentiles away; but the wall of partition was broken down with the death of Christ. Since the wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, that meant the Law of Moses was done away with. Gentiles as Gentiles on the basis of faith can and do enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings by becoming fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.[42]

Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing [καταργέω] in His flesh the enmity” (vv. 14–15). Paul then added that the enmity he referred to was “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (v. 15). As already seen in Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:11, καταργέω means that the Law of Moses was abolished in that it is inoperative or useless, being deprived of force, influence, and power. In Ephesians 2:16 Paul stated that by means of the cross Christ has put to death the enmity. Since in verse 15 he equated the enmity with “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,” this is equivalent to saying that Christ by His death on the cross put the Law of Moses to death.

Colossians 2:13-14

In a passage reminiscent of Ephesians 2:14–16 Paul reminded the Colossians that, although they were dead in their “transgressions and … uncircumcision” God forgave them and made them alive in union with Christ (Col. 2:13). This forgiveness is accomplished by “having canceled out [ἐξαλείψας] the certificate of debt [χειρόγραφον] consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us” (v. 14). ᾿Εξαλείφω refers to doing away with or erasing a written record or removing or eliminating a record of misdeeds.43 Thayer said χειρόγραφον is “a handwriting; what one has written with his own hand … specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at an appointed time … metaphorically, applied in Col. 2:14 to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.”[44] Bruce observed the similarity of Colossians 2:14 to Ephesians 2:15 and its implications.

One must also take account of the dative τοῖς δόγμασιν attached to χειρόγραφον. This writer has translated this as a dative of accompaniment: “the bond, ordinances and all.” … This takes τοῖς δόγμασιν in the same sense as the parallel ἐν δόγμασιν in Ephesians 2:15. But if the words are rendered “ordinances and all” or “consisting of ordinances,” is this not equating the bond with the Law itself? Yes. There is no doubt a natural reluctance to think of the Law itself as being blotted out by God; but one must remember the different ways in which Paul speaks of the Law of God…. Those who undertook to observe the Law either as a means of getting right with God or as the way to higher attainment in spiritual experience soon found that the Law, instead of helping them, bore witness against them… .

The canceled bond of Colossians 2:14, then, seems to be the Law, bearing witness against those who tried to use it as the way to justification or sanctification. Its cancellation is expressed in two figures: it has been blotted out, and it has been nailed to the cross.[45]

Here, as in Ephesians 2:15, the Cross is shown to be the terminus ad quem of the Law of Moses.

Hebrews 7:11-18

In Hebrews 7–8 the author argued strongly that the Messiah is the believers’ great High Priest. This argument focuses on the similarities between Jesus and the Old Testament character Melchizedek (7:1–10) and the promise of a Melchizedekan priesthood made to David (Ps. 110:4). In Matthew 22:44 Jesus quoted Psalm 110 as messianic. This psalm states that the Messiah will be both a King (vv. 1–3, 5–6) and a Priest (v. 4). Ryrie observed, “Verse 1 refers to the present position of Christ sharing the Father’s kingly authority; verse 2, to His rule on earth during the millennial kingdom.”[46] The Talmudic sages sought to avoid the troubling implications of verse 4 of a priesthood that rivaled the Aaronic priesthood.[47] However, the clear implication of that verse is that the Messiah will be a Priest, but not of the order of Aaron.

The author of Hebrews wrote that if the Mosaic Covenant were still in effect, Jesus would be disqualified from being a priest. Jesus, as a descendant of David, was from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi (Heb. 7:13–14). Since the Levitical priesthood was part of the Mosaic Covenant, a change in the priesthood meant “a change [μετάθεσις] of law” (v. 12). Μετάθεσις is a “changeover from one state or institution to another, transformation, change.”[48] Verse 18 spoke of “setting aside [ἀθέτησις]” the commandments. The terms “law” (v. 12) and “commandment” (v. 18) refer to the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. ᾿Αθέτησις is “a legal technical term annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force.”[49] Nowhere do verses 11–18 say that only the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law has been abolished. The Law is a unit, and therefore the entire Law has been set aside.

Since the Mosaic Covenant was terminated at the death of Christ, there is now no hindrance to Christ exercising His priesthood. Thus the present high priestly ministry of Christ is another evidence for the abolition of the Mosaic Covenant.

Hebrews 8:7-13

After presenting his argument that the change in the priesthood necessitated setting aside the Mosaic Covenant, the author of Hebrews argued that this change in the covenant was predicted by Jeremiah. In Hebrews 8:8–12 the author of Hebrews quoted all of Jeremiah 31:31–34. He apparently considered it self-explanatory, since he added only one verse to the beginning and one to the end of the quotation. The first point he made is that the Mosaic Covenant was deficient. This is not in contradiction to Paul, who taught that “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The deficiency of the Law was due to the inability of sinful human beings to keep it (8:3). The establishment of a New Covenant remedied this deficiency. This strongly indicates that the New Covenant is not just a restatement or renewal of the Mosaic Covenant.

The second point the author of Hebrews made is that the New Covenant means that the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Therefore the Mosaic Covenant was disappearing. “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete [πεπαλαίωκεν]. But whatever is becoming obsolete [παλαιούμενον] and growing old is ready to disappear.” Πεπαλαίωκεν (“made … obsolete”) is the perfect active indicative of παλαιόω “to make old, declare or treat as obsolete.”[50] The use of the perfect tense indicates that the first covenant (i.e., the Mosaic Covenant) had from the author’s point of view been made obsolete in the past, with the result that it now stands obsolete in the present. However, παλαιούμενον (“becoming obsolete”) is a present passive participle. Was the author saying that the Mosaic Covenant had been made obsolete or was he saying that it was becoming obsolete? The answer is that verse 13b states a general principle: “Whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” He already stated in verse 13a that the Law had been “made … obsolete.” In syllogistic form the author argued as follows: (1) All that is obsolete disappears. (2) The Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete. (3) Therefore the Mosaic Covenant has disappeared. The logical conclusion the author of Hebrews expected his readers to draw is that the Mosaic Covenant had disappeared.

Matthew 5:17-19

Matthew 5:17–19 is often cited to prove that the Law of Moses is still in force today. Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” The phrase “do not think” (Μὴ νομίσητε) is a prohibitive subjunctive. “This is the use of the subjunctive in a prohibition…. It is used to forbid the occurrence of an action.”[51] Colloquially one might say, “Don’t even think it!” The word καταλύω (“abolish”) means basically to “put down or loosen, from which comes the literal meaning of “buildings with their stones destroy, demolish, dismantle … opposite οίκοδομέω (build); … [or] figuratively, as invalidating an institution, such as law or sacrifice do away with, annul, abolish.”[52] Wallace observes, “This summarizes the views of Jesus’ opponents. The supposed direct discourse would have been, ‘He has come to destroy the law.’ ”[53] As Keener explained, “Jewish teachers said that one ‘abolished’ the law by disobeying it (cf. Deut 27:26), because one thereby rejected its authority. Such highhanded rebellion against the law—as opposed to particular sins—warranted social and spiritual expulsion from the Jewish community.”[54] In contrast (ἀλλὰ, “but”) to abolishing the Law and the Prophets, Jesus asserted that He had come to “fulfill” (πληρόω) them.

In Matthew πληρόω is used fairly consistently of prophetic fulfillment. A close parallel is Matthew 26:56. “But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Jesus said, “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John” (11:13). And Jesus told His disciples, “All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). All three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures are mentioned in this verse: the Law (Pentateuch), the Prophets, and the Psalms (which as a synecdoche represent all portions other than the Pentateuch and the Prophets). In John 1:45 Philip told Nathanael that Jesus of Nazareth is He “of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote.” Jesus did not abolish the Hebrew Scriptures; rather He fulfilled all that they contained about Him. Of course in His sinless life Jesus also “fulfilled all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).

Fruchtenbaum comments, “True, Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of Moses did not end with the coming of the Messiah, or by His life, but by His death…. The statement of Matthew 5:17–19 … was made while He was living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Law of Moses in every manner that Moses commanded and not in the way that the rabbis had reinterpreted it.”[55] Fruchtenbaum notes that Jesus implied that the dietary laws of the Mosaic Covenant were abolished.[56] With the destruction of the temple the Jews abandoned sacrificial law, as stated in Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah. “This bears out what the Scripture says, To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice (Prov. XXI, 3). Scripture does not say, As much as sacrifice, but ‘More than sacrifice.’ How? Sacrifices were operative only so long as the Temple stood, but righteousness and justice held good during the time when the Temple stood and also hold good now when the Temple is no longer.”[57]

Covenant theologians agree that the dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and circumcision have been abolished, but many covenant theologians restrict the meaning of the Law to the Ten Commandments. Yet even there they change the Sabbath to refer to Sunday. Thus out of 613 commandments in the Mosaic Covenant they would retain only nine (1.47 percent). Taken as a statement that the Law of Moses remains in force, Matthew 5:17 proves too much. In fact those who are most zealous for the Law have abandoned many jots and tittles along the way.

Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (v. 18). The phrase “not … shall pass” (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ) is an emphatic negation. As Wallace notes, “Emphatic negation is indicated by οὐ μὴ plus the aorist subjunctive…. This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek…. οὐ μὴ rules out even the idea as being a possibility.”[58] The word “Law” in this verse may well be a synecdoche for the entire Scriptures. If Jesus meant that the Law of Moses would be eternally valid, why did He say “until all is accomplished,” and not “forever”? However, if He was referring to the prophetic fulfillment of all the Scriptures, His words make perfect sense.

Jesus taught that “whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (v. 19). One’s relationship to the commandments does not determine his or her salvation. Instead it relates to one’s standing in the millennial kingdom. Therefore verse 19 is referring to eternal rewards.[59] When Jesus said this, the Mosaic Covenant was still in force and rewards would be determined by a person’s relationship to the Law of Moses. However, with the abolition of the Mosaic Covenant, now fulfillment of the law of Christ determines rewards.

Conclusion

Paul and the author of Hebrews clearly taught that the Mosaic Covenant had ceased at the death of Christ. Christ taught the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, their preservation, and fulfillment in total. He taught that the believers’ position in the kingdom, not their salvation, will depend on their response to God’s revealed will.[60] At the time of the Sermon on the Mount that standard was the Law of Moses. Now it is the New Covenant.

Notes

1. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 613–15 (italics added).
2. Donald G. Bloesch, “Law and Gospel in Reformed Perspective,” Grace Theological Journal 12 (fall 1991): 182 (italics added).
3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Soteriology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (July-September 1946): 265.
4. Merrill F. Unger, “Law,” in Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3d ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 646–47. See also Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:234–51.
5. Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 123–43.
6. Ibid., 160-61.
7. Ibid., 177-78.
8. David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (September 1991): 321-34.
9. Roy L. Aldrich, “A New Look at Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (January-March 1963): 48 (italics his).
10. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 614–15.
11. John F. Walvoord, “Amillennial Soteriology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 107 (July-September 1950): 288.
12. Timothy Friberg and Barbra Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 221 (italics theirs).
13. Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 336 (italics his).
14. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 418 (italics theirs).
15. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (reprint, 4 vols. in 2; Chicago: Moody, 1958), 2:417.
16. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 377 (italics theirs).
17. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 818–19 (italics theirs).
18. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 619–20 (italics his).
19. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 645.
20. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 630.
21. So also Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 133–36. Although he agrees with the view that τέλος in Romans 10:4 means “end” or “termination,” he differs from this writer on the general applicability of this verse to the argument. However, it seems preferable to assert that Paul was citing a general principle that explains verse 3.
22. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 645.
23. James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 2:669.
24. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 256–57.
25. Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 2:417.
26. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 257–70.
27. Ibid., 264.
28. Ibid., 369-71. See also H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 103.
29. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 135–36.
30. Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 111.
31. The Revised Standard Version reads, “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.” The New Revised Standard Version has, “For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” The New Living Translation reads, “All who believe in him are made right with God.” And the Jerusalem Bible renders the phrase, “so that all who have faith will be justified.”
32. See Charles Caldwell Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967): 239-47.
33. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 132.
34. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Grace of God: A Handbook of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody, 1963), 60–61; and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 2d ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 646.
35. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 85 (italics theirs).
36. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 91.
37. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 291 (italics theirs).
38. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 79–80. Richard N. Longenecker includes a wealth of historical background on this practice (“The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7, ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 [March 1982]: 53-61).
39. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 271.
40. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 139–40.
41. Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard (Chicago: Moody, 1976), 1782.
42. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 645.
43. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 153. See also Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 687; G. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan (New York: George H. Doran, 1927; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 333–34; and idem, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, trans. Alexander Grieve (Edinburgh: Clark, 1901; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 247.
44. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 668 (italics added).
45. F. F. Bruce, “Colossian Problems, Part 4: Christ as Conqueror and Reconciler,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (October-December 1984): 295-96.
46. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard, 905.
47. b. Nedarim 32b.
48. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 260 (italics theirs).
49. Ibid., 36 (italics theirs).
50. Ibid., 292 (italics theirs).
51. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 469.
52. Friberg and Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 220 (italics theirs).
53. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 456.
54. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 57.
55. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 648. See also Chafer, Systematic Theology, 5:105–8.
56. Ibid.
57. Midr. Deut. Rab. 5:3; and The Soncino Midrash Rabbah, 5:103 (italics added).
58. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 468.
59. See Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle, 1992), 67–68.
60. Ibid., 551-83.