“The Law of Moses Has Really Truly Been Rendered Inoperative!”

The New Testament unequivocally teaches that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative through the death of Christ. This means that the Mosaic Law, in its entirety, no longer holds authority over any individual and is no longer the standard by which believers are to live. Rather than serving as the rule of life, it has been set aside in favor of the new covenant established through Jesus.

This conclusion is supported by multiple passages in Scripture, which have been examined in detail previously. Romans 6:14 declares,

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14, ESV)

Likewise, Galatians 3:24–26 explains that the law served as a tutor to lead people to Christ, but believers are no longer under its jurisdiction now that faith has come.

“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” (Galatians 3:24–26, ESV)

Hebrews 7:18-19 further reinforces this point by stating,

“For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:18–19, ESV)

These passages and others make it clear that the Law of Moses has fulfilled its role and is no longer binding under the New Covenant.

As a result, the believer’s rule of life is now governed by the Law of Christ, which emphasizes love, grace, and the leading of the Holy Spirit rather than adherence to the Mosaic system. The inoperative status of the Law of Moses marks a fundamental shift in how believers relate to God, highlighting the superiority of the New Covenant and the superiority of the finished work of Christ.

The Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral Distinctions

Many who advocate for mandatory Sabbath observance recognize that much of the Mosaic Law no longer applies today. To justify retaining certain parts of the law while discarding others, they attempt to divide the Law of Moses into three categories (some give more categories): ceremonial, civil, and moral commandments. According to this perspective, believers are no longer obligated to follow the law’s ceremonial and civil aspects but must still observe its moral commands. The Sabbath is often classified as a moral commandment and is therefore considered binding. (This is the Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal view as stated in Fundamental Belief #19)

However, Scripture never makes such a distinction within the Law of Moses. While categorizing different types of laws may be useful for study, the Bible consistently presents the Mosaic Law as a single, unified legal system. Nowhere does the Bible separate the Ten Commandments from the rest of the 613 commandments and declare them to be perpetually binding while the others are not. Instead, the entire Law of Moses is treated as a complete and indivisible covenant given to Israel.

D.A. Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Seminary, critiques this approach in his analysis of Mark 1:21-28 and Luke 4:31-37. He notes that,

“In Sabbatarian apologetic, it is common to distinguish between moral, ceremonial and civil law. The Sabbath commandment is then thought to be binding on all not only because it is alleged to be a “creation ordinance,” but also because it is part of the Decalogue, which is classified as “moral.” The distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law is apt, especially in terms of functional description, but it is not self-evident that either Old Testament or New Testament writers neatly classify Old Testament law in those categories in such a way as to establish continuity and discontinuity on the basis of such distinctions.[1] Even if such categories are applied, it should be noted that both David’s law-breaking and that of the priests (found only in Matthew) come from ceremonial law. It is difficult, then, to resist the conclusion  that their applicability to the Sabbath case puts Sabbath law in the ceremonial category with them.” [2]

Carson further argues that reading these categories back into Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17–20 is anachronistic. He emphasizes that Jesus’ reference to “not one iota or dot” excludes any interpretation that only moral law is being upheld in this passage. Rather, Jesus treats the law as a whole and does not selectively affirm one category while discarding another. [3]

Max B. Turner, a lecturer in New Testament at the London Bible College, also dismisses the notion that Jesus or Luke operate with such rigid legal categories.

He states,

“Even less does He (or Luke) operate with such categories as “moral,” “ceremonial,” and “civil” law, dividing some that are retained from others that are abolished. Indeed, to bring such categories into the discussion at this point would be anachronistic. [4] Jesus fulfills and surpasses the law.” [5]

T. Lincoln of Gordon-Conwell Seminary further supports this perspective, stating that Paul

“…treats the law of Moses as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within it. Paul’s freedom to draw on the law in giving ethical guidelines (cf. Rom. 13:8–10; Eph. 6:2) comes not simply because such elements are moral as opposed to ceremonial nor because of the Sinaitic origin of the material nor because it is part of the Decalogue but rather because, when viewed in the light of its fulfillment in Christ and the new situation He has brought about, portions of that law can be seen to be appropriate to the new expression of God’s will in Christ.” [6]

Paul does not distinguish between moral and ceremonial elements but rather presents the law as a singular entity that has been set aside in Christ.

The attempt to divide the Mosaic Law into separate categories in order to maintain the Sabbath as a binding command lacks biblical support. Those who argue for mandatory Sabbath observance while rejecting other aspects of the Law of Moses are engaged in an inconsistent interpretation of Scripture. If the Sabbath were still obligatory on this basis, then the rest of the Mosaic system—including dietary laws, priestly regulations, and civil ordinances—would also have to remain in effect. Since the New Testament teaches that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative (Rom. 7:6; Gal. 3:24–25; Heb. 7:12), no part of it can be selectively retained while others are discarded. The law was given as a unified covenant, and with the coming of Christ, it has been fulfilled and replaced by the Law of Christ.

In Christian Love,

[1] This is not to deny that “moral law” exists in the sense of unchangeable prescriptions of right and wrong, or that some laws are ceremonial and others civil. However, I question the view that New Testament writers used this classic three-fold distinction to present the relationship between law and gospel.

[2] D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 68–69.

[3] Ibid, 78-79.

[4] Conservative evangelical writers are particularly prone to this fault; e.g., R. T. Beckwith, This is the Day, pp. 26ff.; but cf. also K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung, pp. 17ff., whose position is effectively rejected by M. Hengel, The Son of God (London: SCM, 1976), p. 67, n. 123. See also Banks, Jesus and the Law, pp. 109, 242; F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), pp. 192–93; and E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977), pp. 112, 114; idem, “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” Donum Gentilicium, ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett and W. D. Davies (Oxford: University Press, 1978), p. 125.

[5] M. Max B. Turner, “The Sabbath, Sunday, and the Law in Luke/Acts,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 111.

[6] A. T. Lincoln, “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 370.