Did Jesus Abolish the Law? Understanding Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15 Together andWhy This Question Matters

Did Jesus abolish the Law? Unfortunately, this is a question that has shaped centuries of debate in the Church and continues to affect how many Christians understand obedience, covenant, and Christian identity til this day. Now, for those who are new to this conversation, the reason why this question has sparked centuries of debate is because the two passages that seem to answer this question seems to be at odds with each other. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus famously says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And yet, in Ephesians 2:15, Paul states that Christ “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” And so as you can see, one verse appears to deny abolition entirely, while the other seems to affirm it. So which is it? Did Jesus fulfill the Law and preserve it, or did He fulfill the Law and bring it to an end?

Now, as you can imagine, there are many Christians that feel pulled between these two statements. Some favor Jesus’ words and try to explain Paul in light of them. Others emphasize Paul’s teaching and reinterpret Jesus’ words accordingly. But the problem with both of those hermeneutical strategies is that Scripture should never be handled in a way that pits one passage against another. Both verses are inspired. Both are true. And when rightly understood, both say something profoundly consistent about what Jesus did with the Law of Moses.

And so in this blog post, we’ll explore how Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15 fit together by looking closely at the original Greek, the covenantal structure of the Law, and the broader story of redemption. But before we do that, we need to understand the different views that Christians hold about these verses because not every believer interprets them the same way. And it’s important that we fairly represent those perspectives before making a case for which one is best. So let’s walk through four major views, each of which tries to make sense of Jesus’ and Paul’s words. We’ll save the critiques for later—our goal first is to understand them on their own terms.

The 4 Major Interpretive Views — What Each One Teaches

While the language of “fulfill” and “abolish” is consistent across all major Bible translations, the way those terms are understood can vary significantly depending on a person’s theological background. That’s why it’s helpful to categorize the major views and understand what each one believes. In this section, we’ll lay out four primary interpretations. Now, one thing that I want to make clear is that these are not fringe ideas—rather they are held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians who want to be faithful to God’s Word. So before we critique or defend any of them, let’s first present each of them on their own terms.

The first is the Continuity View, most clearly represented today by Torah Observant Christians and those within the Hebrew Roots Movement. This view holds that the Law of Moses—including commandments about the Sabbath, dietary laws, and biblical festivals—still stands in full for all followers of Jesus. When Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the Law, this is taken as a direct affirmation that the Torah remains binding. From this perspective, Jesus fulfilled the Law by living it out perfectly and teaching it rightly—not by ending it. Believers today are therefore called to imitate His Torah obedience. The Law is viewed as an eternal covenant, not a temporary arrangement limited to Old Testament Israel.

And so when it comes to Ephesians 2:15, this view splits into two main camps. One group argues that Paul is not referring to the Mosaic Law at all, but to man-made religious traditions, such as the oral law or Pharisaic fences that created division between Jews and Gentiles. According to this interpretation, the written commandments of Moses remain untouched. The other group, recognizing that Ephesians 2:15 makes no reference to oral traditions and instead speaks broadly of “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,” interprets Paul as referring specifically to the sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, and temple rituals—aspects of the Torah they agree have ended. In their view, Paul is not abolishing the whole Law, but only those covenantal structures that Christ has fulfilled, such as animal sacrifices and priestly mediation. Everything else in the Torah—including feasts, Sabbaths, and dietary laws—is believed to remain in effect.

The second is the Division View, which is widely held among Evangelicals, Messianic Jews, and some within the Reformed tradition. This view maintains that the Law of Moses can be divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. According to this framework, Jesus fulfilled and abolished the ceremonial and civil components, which included sacrifices, priestly regulations, and national governance. However, the moral law—especially as summarized in the Ten Commandments—is believed to continue as the timeless expression of God’s will. In this view, Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 confirm that He did not set aside the moral aspect of the law of Moses but upheld it as authoritative. Ephesians 2:15 is usually interpreted as referring specifically to the ceremonial laws that separated Jews and Gentiles, which Christ removed in order to unite both groups into one new people.

The third is the Transformational View, which is found in some Eastern Orthodox traditions and among biblical scholars influenced by redemptive-historical theology. This view sees Jesus as fulfilling the Law not merely by ending certain aspects of it, but by transfiguring or re-expressing it through the New Covenant. According to this view, the Law is not continued in its Mosaic form, nor is it simply abolished; it is internalized and transformed into something new by the Spirit. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17 is seen as pointing toward the Law’s deeper purpose—one that He completes and elevates, rather than discards. Ephesians 2:15, in this framework, is not a legal abolition of Torah but a transformation of the old order into something new through union with Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit.

The fourth view, and the one this blog will defend, is the Fulfillment-and-Termination View. This position holds that Jesus did not come to treat the Law with contempt—He came to fulfill it. And by fulfilling it, He brought it to its divinely intended end. Fulfillment here is not seen as continuation or transformation, but as completion. Once the Law’s purpose was satisfied in Christ, its covenantal authority was abolished. Jesus did not destroy the Law in rebellion, but He brought it to an end through obedience. From this perspective, Matthew 5:17 affirms that Jesus respected the Law’s role in redemptive history, while Ephesians 2:15 explains the result of His fulfillment: the Law was nullified as a binding covenant for God’s people. This includes not only ceremonial and civil elements, but the entire Mosaic system.

In the next section, we’ll begin exploring Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17 in more depth. Along the way, we’ll revisit each of these views and ask whether they can fully account for what Jesus says. The goal is not just to critique, but to show why the Fulfillment-and-Termination view gives the clearest, most consistent reading of the text—and why it matters for every believer today.

Matthew 5:17 — Jesus Denied Destructive Abolition, Not Termination Through Fulfillment

When Jesus says in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” many readers stop right there and assume that Jesus is reinforcing the Law of Moses for all time. But a closer look—especially in the original Greek—shows that Jesus is making a much more nuanced statement. He is not saying the Law will never come to an end. He is saying that He did not come to end it in the wrong way. His mission was not to treat the Law as worthless or to overthrow it like a rebel. Instead, He came to fulfill it—and that word “fulfill” is the key to everything that follows.

The Greek word translated “abolish” is kataluō (καταλύω), which means to destroy, dismantle, or overthrow. It is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the destruction of buildings or institutions. In other words, Jesus is saying, “Don’t think I came to recklessly tear down the Law or disrespect it.” That’s what the Pharisees and teachers of the Law may have accused Him of doing. He healed on the Sabbath, forgave sins, reinterpreted commands, and ate with sinners—behaviors that seemed lawless to religious leaders. So in Matthew 5:17, Jesus begins by denying that He came to dismantle the Law in defiance.

Instead, He says He came to fulfill it. The Greek word here is plēroō (πληρόω), which means to complete, bring to full expression, or accomplish a purpose. In the New Testament, plēroō is used repeatedly to describe the fulfillment of prophecy—for example, when Jesus’ life events fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets. Once something is fulfilled, it is not continued—it is completed. Jesus is not saying, “I came to reinforce the Law’s ongoing authority.” He’s saying, “I came to bring the Law to its intended goal.”

Now let’s consider how each of the alternative views understands this statement.

Those who hold the Continuity View read this verse as Jesus affirming the enduring authority of the Law. From their perspective, Jesus’ denial that He came to abolish the Law means that He expected His followers to continue obeying it—just as He did. Fulfillment, in this view, doesn’t mean termination but perfect observance and teaching. Because of this, Torah Observant Christians conclude that the Sabbath, feasts, dietary laws, and other commandments remain in force under the New Covenant.

Those who hold the Division View interpret this passage as Jesus affirming the permanence of the moral law, even though the ceremonial and civil aspects would be fulfilled and eventually set aside. According to this interpretation, Jesus is saying, “I haven’t come to abolish the core moral obligations of the Torah, but to uphold and clarify them.” The Ten Commandments, especially, are seen as still binding.

The Transformational View sees Jesus’ words as pointing to a deep internalization and spiritual transformation of the Law. Rather than ending it or preserving it in the same form, Jesus is understood to be saying, “I came to complete and elevate the Law’s true meaning.” This view focuses on how the Law is fulfilled in the believer’s heart by the Spirit, rather than through external observance of written commands.

But while each of these views captures something true—whether it’s the Law’s divine origin, moral seriousness, or connection to Christ—they ultimately fail to grasp the logic of fulfillment. Jesus did not say He came to fulfill only certain parts of the Law. He said He came to fulfill “the Law”—period. That includes every aspect: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The idea that Jesus only fulfilled or abolished select components creates an internal contradiction. For instance, even the Continuity View acknowledges that the sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, and temple rituals are no longer practiced. And the Division View says that the ceremonial and civil laws were fulfilled and set aside. But if parts of the Law can be abolished while others remain, then Jesus’ statement loses coherence. He wasn’t talking about fragments of the Law. He was talking about the whole covenant.

This is where the covenantal unity of the Law matters. According to both James and Paul, the Law was a unit. James 2:10 says, “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Paul says in Galatians 5:3, “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” Jesus understood this covenantal logic. To fulfill the Law means to fulfill all of it. And once it’s fulfilled, it is no longer binding—just like a contract that’s been completed.

This is confirmed just a few verses later when Jesus says, “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). In other words, the Law remains in place until it is fulfilled—and Jesus is the one who fulfills it. The continuation of the Law is tied to the timeline of His redemptive mission, not to the permanent binding force of the Mosaic covenant. Once Jesus fulfills the Law’s purpose through His teaching, obedience, death, and resurrection, the Law has been honored—and it has reached its end.

So far from contradicting Paul’s later statement that Jesus abolished the Law, this verse sets the stage for it. Jesus did not kataluō—He did not destroy or disregard the Law. But He did plēroō—He fulfilled it. And once the Law was fulfilled, it was no longer needed as a covenantal system. That’s not contradiction—it’s completion. And that’s exactly what Paul will affirm in Ephesians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:15 — Christ Abolished the Law as a Covenant System

After establishing that Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it, Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:15 serve as the natural continuation of that idea—declaring what happens once the Law is fulfilled. Paul writes that Christ has “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” At first glance, this might sound like a contradiction to Matthew 5:17, but as we’ve seen, Jesus’ fulfillment is the very reason the Law is no longer binding. What Paul is doing here is not reversing Jesus’ teaching, but explaining its outcome: the Law—fulfilled in Christ—is now abolished as a covenantal system.

The Greek word for “abolish” in this passage is not kataluō (as in Matthew 5:17) but katargeō (καταργέω), which means to render inoperative, to nullify, or to bring to an end. It’s a legal term often used by Paul to describe the setting aside of something that has fulfilled its purpose. It does not imply rebellion or disrespect; it implies completion. Paul isn’t saying that Christ destroyed the Law in a hostile sense. He’s saying the Law has been rendered obsolete because it has served its redemptive role.

Importantly, Paul doesn’t say Christ abolished some parts of the Law. He refers to “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”—a comprehensive phrase that encompasses the entirety of the Mosaic legal system. The division between Jews and Gentiles was not caused merely by ceremonial laws. It was created by the Law as a whole, which defined Jewish identity and covenant inclusion. So if the goal is to create “one new man” out of both groups, then the whole covenant that once separated them must be set aside. Not partially. Fully.

Now let’s look at how the other views try to interpret this.

The Continuity View, especially among Torah Observant Christians, usually argues that Paul is not speaking about the Mosaic Law here at all. They often claim he’s referring to man-made traditions—rabbinic or Pharisaic ordinances—that created hostility between Jews and Gentiles. But this interpretation is difficult to sustain. Nowhere in the context of Ephesians 2 does Paul mention man-made traditions. The language he uses points directly to the Torah itself: “commandments expressed in ordinances.” This is Mosaic Law language. Furthermore, if Paul meant man-made customs, then abolishing them would not resolve the real covenantal divide between Jew and Gentile. The Mosaic covenant itself created that wall. Only by setting aside that covenantal structure could Jesus truly make the two one.

A more moderate version of the Continuity View recognizes this and agrees that Paul must be referring to some part of the Mosaic Law. These proponents will typically say that Paul is only speaking about the sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, and temple rituals—things they agree have been fulfilled and are no longer practiced. However, this still runs into a major problem: Paul doesn’t say Christ abolished part of the Law. He uses sweeping language—“the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” There’s no clean break in the grammar. You can’t preserve Torah categories like Sabbath and dietary laws while saying that the covenant that delivered those laws has been nullified. The Law was a unit. And Paul says that Christ rendered it inoperative.

The Division View reads this passage in a similar way—limiting it to the ceremonial aspects of the Law that divided Jew from Gentile. But again, this interpretation tries to separate what the Bible treats as unified. The Law of Moses never divides itself into ceremonial, civil, and moral components. Those divisions were introduced later as helpful teaching tools, but they don’t exist in the Torah itself. If even one category is abolished, then the entire covenant must be considered fulfilled. That’s exactly what Paul’s language communicates here.

The Transformational View often takes a more symbolic approach. According to this interpretation, Paul is saying that the old way of relating to God through external command has been spiritually replaced by a new way of life through the Spirit. In that sense, the Law hasn’t been strictly abolished, but absorbed into a new identity. But once again, Paul uses language far too strong to support such an abstract reading. He doesn’t say the Law was “transformed” or “internalized.” He says it was abolished. And he says this abolition was necessary to create one new humanity in Christ.

The Fulfillment-and-Termination View makes the best sense of Paul’s wording, his argument, and the broader story of redemption. Jesus didn’t come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it—and once fulfilled, Paul tells us, it was rendered inoperative. This is not a contradiction; it is covenantal logic. Jesus completed what the Law pointed to. And when the reality came, the shadow faded. That’s why there’s no longer a need for sacrifices, feasts, or priesthood—and no longer a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. Christ did not come to start a Torah movement. He came to create a new creation.

The Law Was a Covenant, Not a Buffet

At the heart of the debate over whether Jesus abolished the Law is a major misunderstanding of what the Law actually is. Many modern readers treat the Mosaic Law like a buffet: take what you like, leave what you don’t. Some want to keep the Ten Commandments but not the sacrifices. Others are fine with festivals and Sabbaths but draw the line at stoning rebellious children. But this approach ignores the most fundamental truth about the Law of Moses—it was a covenant, not a menu of moral options. And as a covenant, it stands or falls as a unit.

This is where both the Continuity and Division views fall apart. The Continuity View claims that parts of the Law—like the sacrificial system, temple rituals, and Levitical priesthood—have ended, but that Sabbath-keeping, feast observance, and dietary laws remain. The Division View says that only the moral law continues, while the civil and ceremonial laws have been set aside. But neither of these views can account for the consistent biblical teaching that the Law is indivisible. As we saw earlier, James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Paul echoes this in Galatians 5:3: “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.”

These are not isolated proof-texts. They reflect the nature of the Law as a covenantal system. In the Old Testament, the Law was the terms of Israel’s national relationship with God. It was given all at once at Sinai, ratified with blood (Exodus 24:7–8), and presented as a total package. Obedience brought blessing, disobedience brought curse—not selectively, but collectively (Deuteronomy 28). To tamper with one part of the covenant was to tamper with the whole.

That’s why when Jesus fulfilled the Law, He didn’t just fulfill its sacrificial requirements. He fulfilled its entire covenantal purpose. He was the true Israelite who kept it perfectly, the final priest who mediated once for all, the final sacrifice who bore the curse. In fulfilling it, He didn’t leave parts of it intact for believers to reconstruct. He brought the entire covenant to its intended end.

This is also why Paul can say in Romans 7:6, “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” The Law of Moses is not our covenant anymore. We are under the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), not the Mosaic code. And you cannot be under both.

So when we talk about abolishing or fulfilling the Law, we have to stop thinking in fragments. Jesus didn’t say, “I came not to abolish parts of the Law.” He said He came to fulfill the Law. Singular. Unified. Complete. And when you fulfill a covenant, you don’t go back and pick out pieces to keep living by. You move forward in the new covenant that was always the Law’s intended goal.

Why the Moral Law Cannot Be Separated from the Mosaic Covenant

One of the strongest appeals made by those who hold to the Division View is the idea that the “moral law”—especially the Ten Commandments—transcends the Mosaic covenant. According to this view, Jesus may have fulfilled and abolished the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law, but the moral commands remain because they reflect God’s unchanging character. And at a surface level, this sounds compelling. After all, isn’t it still wrong to lie, murder, steal, or commit adultery? Didn’t Jesus affirm the command to love God and neighbor as central to His teaching?

But we need to be very careful here. It’s true that God’s moral standards do not change. What’s not true is that the moral law, as given at Mount Sinai, exists apart from the Mosaic covenant. The Ten Commandments were not floated down from heaven as timeless ethics—they were delivered as part of a covenantal package. Exodus 34:28 calls them “the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” Deuteronomy 4:13 says, “He declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.” The Ten Commandments are the covenant—they’re not above it or beside it. They’re embedded within it.

This is why Paul doesn’t treat the moral law as something separable. In 2 Corinthians 3, he calls the Ten Commandments “the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone”—a ministry that was glorious but is now surpassed by something better. If the Ten Commandments were covenantally neutral, Paul wouldn’t call them the fading glory of a former age. He would celebrate them as the continuing rule of life. But he doesn’t. He says that the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now, does this mean morality itself is gone? Of course not. It means that the form in which morality was revealed under Moses has served its purpose. The Law of Christ—not the Mosaic code—is now our guide. When Jesus and the apostles teach about righteousness in the New Testament, they don’t quote the Ten Commandments as covenant obligations. They reissue what overlaps from the moral law in light of the gospel, the Spirit, and the new covenant. So yes, it is still wrong to murder or steal—not because we’re under Sinai, but because those things are inherently unjust, and the apostles reaffirm them under Christ’s lordship.

But even here, there are important changes. The Sabbath command, for example, is not repeated as binding for new covenant believers—not once in the New Testament. Neither are the laws about coveting tied to inheritance systems or land possession like they were for Israel. Even the command to not take the Lord’s name in vain takes on deeper meaning in light of Christ, where honoring God is not merely about speech but about representing His name as His people. The point is this: moral truths endure, but the Mosaic packaging is not permanent.

Those who hold the Division View often end up affirming the permanence of the Ten Commandments as a kind of “moral spine” while treating everything else as temporary scaffolding. But again, that assumes the Law can be neatly dissected—and it can’t. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not just the ceremonial or civil bits. The moral law, the sacrificial law, and the civic law all stood or fell together because they all came from the same covenant.

The Fulfillment-and-Termination View honors that covenantal unity. It doesn’t pit Jesus against Moses or flatten His fulfillment into mere continuation. Instead, it sees Jesus as the one to whom the entire Law pointed—moral, ceremonial, and civil. And now that He has come, the Law has done its job. It was never meant to be eternal. It was meant to prepare the way for Christ.

Why Saying “Jesus Fulfilled the Law, But It Still Stands” Is a Contradiction

One of the most common attempts to hold Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15 together is to say something like, “Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law—but that doesn’t mean it no longer applies. Fulfillment doesn’t mean abolition.” At first glance, this sounds like a reasonable way to honor both texts. After all, Jesus said He didn’t come to abolish the Law. And Paul said Jesus abolished the Law. So why not say that Jesus fulfilled it, and now we continue to obey it—not to be saved, but as a guide for living?

But here’s the problem: saying “Jesus fulfilled the Law, but it still stands” is a contradiction. If a thing has been fulfilled in the biblical sense, then its role is complete. To “fulfill” (plēroō) something is not to reinforce it or repackage it—it is to bring it to its intended goal and finish its work. We would never say, “Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah, but they’re still waiting to be fulfilled.” That would make no sense. So why do we say that about the Law?

In every other context where Scripture uses plēroō for fulfillment, it implies completion and movement beyond. Think of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament in the birth narratives. When Jesus is born in Bethlehem, or called out of Egypt, or spoken of by the prophets, Matthew says, “This was to fulfill what was spoken.” Once fulfilled, the thing is no longer future—it has been realized. The same logic applies to the Law. Once Jesus fulfills the Law, He doesn’t reset it or restart it. He completes it. And when something is complete, you don’t go back and live under it again.

This is precisely why Paul says in Galatians 3:24–25, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came… but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” The Law served a preparatory role. It had a job. It led Israel to Christ. But once Christ came, the Law’s guardianship ended. Paul doesn’t say, “We’re still under the Law, just in a different way.” He says, “We are no longer under it.”

This is also why saying “Jesus fulfilled the Law but it still stands” is not only contradictory—it actually undermines what Jesus did. It treats His fulfillment as an add-on rather than a turning point. It makes the cross and resurrection adjacent to the Law, not decisive over it. And that cuts against the whole movement of redemptive history.

The Fulfillment-and-Termination View does justice to both Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15. It takes Jesus at His word that He didn’t come to destroy the Law—but to fulfill it. And it takes Paul at his word that Christ abolished the Law as a covenantal system. These are not in tension. Fulfillment is what makes abolition possible. Jesus didn’t tear down the Law in disrespect; He completed it in obedience. And having fulfilled it, He rendered it inoperative—not because it was bad, but because it was never meant to last forever.

So to say, “Jesus fulfilled the Law, but we’re still under it,” is to misunderstand what fulfillment means. Fulfillment leads to conclusion, not continuation. That’s the whole point. And once we understand that, we can make sense of how Scripture speaks with one voice: the Law had a glorious role, but now that Christ has come, we’re under grace, not the Law (Romans 6:14).

Why This Matters for the Christian Life Today

This isn’t just a theological debate for scholars and seminary students. What we believe about the Law—and what Jesus did with it—has direct implications for how we live the Christian life today. If we misunderstand the nature of the Law, we will misunderstand the nature of grace, the role of obedience, and the foundation of our relationship with God.

If the Law of Moses still stands—even in part—then the Christian life becomes a hybrid system of old and new. Some laws apply, others don’t. Some festivals are optional, others are binding. Some people keep the Sabbath, others don’t—and everyone thinks the others are compromising. But Scripture never calls us to this kind of confusion. Jesus said a house divided cannot stand. And the Law, as we’ve seen, cannot be split up without undoing the whole.

The Continuity View, especially among Torah Observant Christians, tends to put believers back under the yoke of the Sinai covenant. Whether intentionally or not, it reintroduces covenant obligations that Christ has already fulfilled. This creates a burden that the New Testament consistently warns against. Paul asked the Galatians, “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3). And in Acts 15, when some insisted that Gentile believers must be circumcised and obey the Law, Peter responded by calling that a “yoke” which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).

The Division View, which is more common in evangelical circles, may avoid the extremes of Torah observance but still leaves Christians unsure about which laws to follow and why. If the moral law remains but the rest is fulfilled, then how do we determine what counts as “moral”? Who decides that? And why aren’t New Testament writers more consistent in quoting the Ten Commandments if they were meant to remain covenantally binding?

The Transformational View rightly emphasizes the Spirit’s role in sanctification, but often downplays the covenantal logic of fulfillment. It leans toward mysticism and spiritualized continuity, which can obscure the concrete reality that Jesus truly ended the Mosaic covenant.

In contrast, the Fulfillment-and-Termination View offers clarity, consistency, and gospel-centered hope. It doesn’t deny that God’s moral character is unchanging, or that the Law was good and holy. But it recognizes that Jesus did not come merely to add to the Law or rework it. He came to fulfill it—to finish its course. And that means our obedience now flows not from Sinai, but from Calvary. We are not under the Law of Moses. We are under the Law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). And this law is written on our hearts, empowered by the Spirit, and centered on love (Rom. 13:8–10).

This frees us from both legalism and lawlessness. We don’t obey to earn God’s favor—we obey because we already have it in Christ. We don’t return to the shadows of the old covenant—we walk in the light of the new. And we don’t define righteousness by stone tablets—we define it by the risen Savior.

When we understand that Jesus fulfilled the Law and ended its covenantal authority, we can stop living in confusion and start living in freedom. The Law has served its purpose. Christ has come. The veil is torn. The covenant is complete. And now, we follow Jesus—not Moses—as our covenant head.

Resources to Consider

1. “The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology” by Jason C. Meyer

2. “From Shadow to Reality: A Study of the Relationship Between the Old and the New Testament” by Gerald P. Bray

3. "Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies" by Stephen J. Wellum & Brent E. Parker