MATTHEW 5:17-20: Did Jesus Really Make the Ten Commandments Eternal?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-20(NIV)

For twenty-four years, I defended the Seventh-day Adventist movement. I was a trained apologist and a traveling evangelist, arguing its doctrines in public debates that you can still find archived on my YouTube channel today. But on September 12, 2019, the Lord Jesus Christ interrupted my path. I did not just meet a new theological argument; I encountered a Person. That single encounter completely dismantled the convictions I had spent over two decades building.

This work is a direct fruit of that shift. I have two goals here. First, I want to equip fellow believers who have never been inside the SDA system, so you can answer its claims with real biblical precision instead of just a vague sense of unease. Second, and this is very close to my heart, I am writing this for my Adventist friends who are honestly wrestling with how they read Scripture. I want to challenge you to test the usual proof-texting methods against the actual text itself: its grammar, its historical setting, and its place in the unfolding story of the whole Bible.

Sabbatarians lean on Matthew 5:17–20 more than any other passage. It is the ultimate anchor text, usually the first one quoted, because on the surface, it seems to settle the debate immediately: Did Christ abolish or preserve the Law?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished..." (Matthew 5:17-18, ESV)

The usual objection goes like this: "Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the Law, and that not one jot or tittle would pass away. If the Ten Commandments were meant to be set aside, why would He say this? Doesn’t this prove the seventh-day Sabbath remains binding?" It sounds airtight, until you look closely at the Greek grammar, Matthew’s consistent vocabulary, and the actual timeline Jesus is talking about. When we do that, this passage stops being Sabbatarian ammunition and becomes a massive monument to the supremacy of Christ.

Reading Matthew 5 on Its Own Terms

If we want to understand the text, we have to read it the way a first-century Jew would have understood it, completely dropping the 19th-century American Sabbatarian habit of splitting the law into "moral" and "ceremonial" categories, a division the original Jewish audience knew nothing about.

Here is what the text actually reveals when we let Matthew speak for himself:

• "The Law or the Prophets" means the entire Old Testament: This phrase (ho nomos ē hoi prophētai) is a fixed Jewish idiom for the whole Hebrew canon (the Tanakh). Jesus uses it this way everywhere else (Matt. 7:12; 22:40; Luke 24:44).
  
  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12(NIV)
  
  "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:40(NIV)
  
  "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44(NIV)
  
  You cannot carve out just the Ten Commandments from this phrase. If Jesus didn't abolish "the Law," He is talking about the whole Old Covenant system.

• Jesus chose "Fulfill" (plēroō), not "Observe" (tēreō): Matthew uses the word plēroō sixteen times in his Gospel. Every single time, it is a technical term meaning a prophetic shadow or type has reached its ultimate goal in Jesus Christ (e.g., the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt). If Jesus just meant "I came to keep the law perpetually," He would have used the Greek word tēreō (to keep/observe). Instead, He says He is the destination the Old Testament was pointing toward. You cannot suddenly change the definition of plēroō in chapter 5 just to protect a Sabbath doctrine.
  
  
• The "Until" clauses point to a covenantal shift, not the end of the universe: Jesus says the Law stands until "all is accomplished" (ginōmai - taking place/happening). He uses this exact phrase in Matthew 24:34 regarding the fall of Jerusalem.
  
  "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matthew 24:34(NIV)
  
  In Jewish prophetic language (Isaiah 13, Haggai 2), "heaven and earth" shaking or passing away describes the collapse of a nation or a covenant order. Jesus is saying the Old Covenant system would not lose a single stroke until He accomplished His redemptive work, a work vindicated visibly in AD 70 when the physical Temple was destroyed, permanently ending the Old Covenant sacrificial system.
  
  
• "These Commandments" refer to His own teachings: In verse 19, Jesus warns against relaxing "these commandments." In Greek narrative, the word "these" (toutōn) points to what is immediately at hand. He is pointing forward to His own six antitheses in the very next verses (Matt 5:21–48), where He takes the Law and upgrades it into the New Covenant Law of Christ. Noticeably, the Sabbath is the one commandment Jesus completely leaves out of His kingdom ethic here.

Dismantling the Common Defenses

When faced with this textual reality, Adventist apologetics usually rely on a few predictable fallacies. We need to address them head-on.

First, there is the issue of selective obedience. The Greek word nomos in the first century meant all 613 laws of Moses, civil, dietary, and sacrificial. If Matthew 5:18 guarantees the perpetual obligation of the Law, then consistency demands keeping all 613 commands. To claim that "not one stroke" applies to the Sabbath but quietly ignore the Levitical priesthood and civil penalties is textbook special pleading. Even the SDA-published Andrews Study Bible admits that in verse 17, Jesus is not making a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, but is "affirming all of God’s will as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures."

"5:17 Law … Prophets. The first five books of the OT and all the rest of the ancient Scripture. Jesus is not here making a distinction between ceremonial, civil, or moral laws. He is affirming all of God’s will as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, and showing its continuity. Though the will of God as defined in the OT Scriptures continues, Jesus takes it a step further: He fulfills it; i.e., He “fills it up.” He gives the Scriptures their fuller meaning." (Andrews Study Bible Notes. Andrews University Press, 2010, p. 1254)

Then comes the classic fear-based objection: "If we don't have the Ten Commandments, does that mean we can just kill, steal, and commit adultery?" This is a false dichotomy that completely ignores the reality of the New Covenant. We do not avoid murder because a stone tablet tells us not to; we avoid it because the Holy Spirit writes the Law of Christ on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33, 1 Cor 9:21). Paul explicitly calls the law "chiseled in letters on stones," a "ministry of death," and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7-9). God retired the Sinai covenant for our benefit, replacing an external code with the internal, life-giving presence of the Spirit.

Finally, Adventists often argue, "But Jesus kept the Sabbath, so we must too." Jesus also kept the Passover, was circumcised, and paid the temple tax. He kept the entire Old Covenant perfectly because He was "born under the law, to redeem those under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5). He fulfilled Israel's broken obligations as our substitute. He was not establishing a permanent template for the Church; He was finishing the work so the New Covenant could begin.

Three Questions to Move the Conversation Forward

The Law and the Prophets were never meant to be the final destination; they were signposts pointing to Christ. If you are still holding onto Matthew 5 as a proof text for Sabbath keeping, I ask you to sincerely consider these three questions:

1. The Context Test: Matthew uses the word plēroō (fulfill) around sixteen times, always to show that an Old Testament prophecy or shadow has become a reality in Christ. On what biblical basis do you insist that this one time in Matthew 5:17, the word suddenly changes its meaning to "ongoing legal obedience"?

2. The Consistency Test: If you agree that "the Law" in verse 17 means the whole Old Testament, and that not one dot will pass away, why do you not also keep the Passover and practice circumcision? Why extract the Sabbath while ignoring the rest of the identical nomos?

3. The Missing Command Test: If Jesus is issuing His new Kingdom ethic in the following verses (His six antitheses on anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and enemy-love), why is the Sabbath the one commandment He completely leaves behind?

Where to read more: Consider D.A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew's fulfillment formulas, and R.T. France's analysis of "heaven and earth" as a covenantal idiom for a deeper dive into the Greek syntax.

Romans 3:31: What Paul Meant by “We Uphold the Law”

Romans 3:31: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” 

If you’ve ever had a deep theological conversation with a Seventh‑day Adventist friend, you know their entire doctrinal structure leans on one central pillar: the Ten Commandments, especially the seventh‑day Sabbath, remain binding on Christians today.

Whenever you point out Paul’s clear teaching that believers are no longer under the law (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25), they often reach for their favorite proof‑text, Romans 3:31, as if it were the ultimate trump card.

They read, “We uphold the law,” and instantly conclude that Paul is commanding Christians to keep the Decalogue. But once we strip away denominational bias and examine the context, Greek language, and New Covenant theology, that argument collapses completely.

1. The Context: What Is Paul Actually Talking About?

SDA interpreters often isolate verse 31 from its surrounding argument, treating it as a defense of the Sinai code. But Paul’s logic from Romans 1–3 builds toward one sweeping conclusion: no one is justified by law‑keeping.

The law functions like an MRI scan; it exposes the disease of sin but has no power to cure it. Its purpose is diagnostic, not therapeutic.

Then comes Paul’s turning point in Romans 3:21:

“But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.”

Notice that phrase, “Law and Prophets.” In Jewish usage, that means the entire Hebrew Scriptures, not just the Ten Commandments. So when Paul asks, “Do we then nullify the law through faith?” he’s not asking, “Do we stop keeping the Ten Commandments?” He’s anticipating an objection: “Does faith in Jesus cancel the Old Testament witness?” His emphatic answer, “By no means!”, means faith confirms what the Old Testament predicted all along.

2. The Word “Law” (Nomos)

To sustain their Sabbath theology, SDA apologists insist that the Greek word nomos (“law”) in Romans 3:31 refers exclusively to the Ten Commandments. But that’s a forced reading, an attempt to make Paul’s language fit a doctrinal mold rather than letting the text speak for itself.

In reality, nomos is a flexible term in the New Testament. Its meaning shifts depending on context:

So when Paul says, “Do we then nullify the law through faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31), he’s not talking about re‑enforcing the Sinai code. The immediate context, Romans 3:21–31, shows he’s referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as a prophetic witness that pointed to Christ. Faith “upholds” the law because it confirms what the Law and the Prophets foretold: that righteousness comes by faith, not by works.

Linguistic and Scholarly Insights

• Greek nuance: Nomos in Paul’s writings often functions as a metonym, representing the entire covenantal system, not just the Decalogue.
  
  
• Paul’s contrast: In Romans 7–8, he distinguishes between nomos hamartias (law of sin) and nomos tou pneumatos (law of the Spirit). Clearly, nomos can mean a principle, not a code.
  
  
• Scholarly consensus: Even Adventist scholars like Richard Davidson and Ekkehardt Mueller acknowledge in academic commentaries that nomos in Romans 3:31 likely refers to the Scriptures as a whole, not merely the Ten Commandments, though popular SDA materials avoid this admission to preserve the Sabbath argument.

If nomos in Romans 3:31 means the entire Old Testament witness, then “upholding the law” means affirming its prophetic truth, not re‑imposing its legal demands. Faith doesn’t resurrect Sinai; it vindicates the Law’s testimony that salvation would come through the promised Messiah.

Paul didn’t say faith upholds the Ten Commandments; he said faith upholds the Law’s testimony that righteousness comes by faith alone.

3. What Does It Really Mean to “Uphold” the Law?

SDA apologetics often claim that “upholding” the law means continuing to obey the entire Sinai code: Sabbath, dietary rules, ceremonial distinctions, and all. But that interpretation misses Paul’s entire point in Romans 3:31. The gospel doesn’t abolish the law; it fulfills and transcends it. Faith in Christ upholds the law in three profound dimensions:

1) Judicially: The Law’s Demand Is Met, Not Ignored

The law demands flawless obedience and pronounces death on every transgressor. Faith doesn’t erase that demand; it acknowledges it.

Romans 8:3–4 shows that Christ fulfilled the law’s righteous requirement by dying in our place.

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:3-4(NIV)

The believer’s faith “upholds” the law because it affirms that God’s justice was satisfied, not bypassed, at the cross. In other words, grace doesn’t cheapen the law; it honors it by recognizing that only Christ could meet its impossible standard.

2) Prophetically: The Law’s Message Is Proven True

The Mosaic code was never an end in itself; it was a shadow pointing forward to the Messiah (Colossians 2:17).

"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Colossians 2:17(NIV)

Every sacrifice, every ritual, every Sabbath rest whispered of Christ’s coming work. When we trust in Jesus, we validate that the law’s prophetic voice was accurate; it was always pointing to Him. Faith, therefore, “upholds” the law by confirming its truthfulness, not by re‑enacting its ceremonies.

3) Historically: The Law’s Role Has Been Completed

Paul calls the law a paidagōgos, a tutor or guardian (Galatians 3:24–25). Its purpose was to expose sin and lead us to Christ.

"So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." Galatians 3:24-25(NIV)

Once faith has come, the tutor’s job is done. Returning to the Sinai code after Christ is like re‑enrolling in kindergarten after graduation; it misunderstands the timeline of redemption. The law was temporary; the promise is eternal.

• Covenantal Shift: Hebrews 8:13 declares the old covenant obsolete and replaced by a better one. Upholding the law now means embracing its fulfillment in Christ, not clinging to its expired form.

"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13(NIV)

• Paul’s Logic: Romans 10:4: “Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness.” Telos means goal or completion, not termination. Faith upholds the law by reaching its intended goal.
  
  "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." Romans 10:4(NIV)
  
  
• Early Church Witness: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) explicitly rejected imposing Mosaic law on Gentile believers. That decision itself was an act of “upholding” the law’s prophetic purpose, recognizing its completion in Christ.
  
  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. . . It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." Acts 15:10-11, 28-29(NIV)
  

To ‘uphold’ the law isn’t to resurrect Sinai; it’s to honor the cross where the law’s demands were perfectly met.”

4. The Timeline Problem

Paul deliberately uses Abraham as the model of justification by faith in Romans 4. SDA theology, however, tries to retro‑inject the Ten Commandments into Abraham’s life to argue that the Sabbath predates Sinai. This maneuver is necessary for their claim that the Sabbath is a “Creation Ordinance” binding on all humanity.

But Paul dismantles this retroactive timeline in Galatians 3:17:

“The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God…”

That’s a chronological death blow to the SDA argument. Abraham’s covenant was unconditional and promise‑based, while the Sinai covenant was conditional and law‑based. The two are not the same, nor are they simultaneous. Abraham lived centuries before Sinai. Paul’s 430‑year marker is precise: the Mosaic Law came long after Abraham’s justification. If Abraham was justified without the Law, then the Law is not essential for salvation.

The Sinai covenant was a temporary guardian (Gal. 3:24) until Christ came. Abraham’s covenant was permanent and unconditional, pointing directly to Christ (Gal. 3:16). SDA theology confuses the shadow (Sinai) with the substance (Christ).

Romans 4:13: “It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise…”

Abraham’s righteousness was credited by faith, not by Sabbath‑keeping or Torah observance. This undercuts the SDA attempt to universalize Sabbath law. If the “father of faith” himself was justified outside the Law, how can New Covenant believers be bound to it? To impose Sinai’s code on Christians is to regress from promise to contract, from freedom to slavery.

Exodus 16 vs. Exodus 20: The Sabbath command first appears in the manna narrative (Exodus 16), not in Genesis. That’s pre‑Sinai but still Mosaic, not Abrahamic.

Hebrews 7:12: “When the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” The Law was tied to the Levitical system, not to Abraham’s faith.

John 8:39: Jesus says, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did.” What did Abraham do? He believed God’s promise, not keeping the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16‑17: Paul explicitly calls the Sabbath a shadow pointing to Christ, not a timeless ordinance.

If Abraham was justified by faith 430 years before Sinai, why are SDAs trying to drag Christians back under a contract even Abraham never signed?

5. From the Ministry of Death to the Spirit of Life

SDA defenders often warn that abandoning the Ten Commandments leads to moral chaos. They treat the New Covenant as if it were just a software upgrade, the same operating system, just with better performance. But Paul’s argument in Romans 7–8 reveals something far more radical: not an update, but a complete system replacement.

In Romans 7, Paul quotes directly from the Decalogue, “Do not covet”, to illustrate how the written code, though holy, actually provokes sinful passions. The law exposes sin but cannot transform the heart. It’s like a mirror that shows the dirt but offers no water to wash it away.

Paul’s marriage analogy drives the point home:

“You died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead.” (Romans 7:4)

To remain legally bound to Moses while being joined to Christ is spiritual adultery. The believer’s death to the law is not rebellion; it’s liberation into a new covenant relationship.

Then comes the triumphant shift in Romans 8, the dawn of the Law of the Spirit of Life.

“The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:2)

We no longer need the external stones of Sinai because the indwelling Holy Spirit writes God’s moral truth directly on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3). The Spirit empowers believers to walk in self‑renouncing love, which Paul calls the true fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10).

This isn’t lawlessness; it’s Spirit‑led righteousness. The old ministry engraved on stone brought condemnation; the new ministry written by the Spirit brings transformation. The difference is not in moral standard but in source of power.

6. The Logical Flaws and Mic‑Drop Dilemmas

When you examine SDA defenses of the law closely, they often rely on logical fallacies rather than exegesis:

Circular Reasoning: They assume the Sabbath is eternal, then use that assumption to “prove” Romans 3:31 refers to the Sabbath, a self‑reinforcing loop with no scriptural foundation.

Red Herrings: When confronted with Colossians 2:16–17, which clearly calls the Sabbath a shadow fulfilled in Christ, the argument often shifts to unrelated claims like “the Pope changed the day of worship.” That’s historical deflection, not biblical defense.

The Ministry of Death: Paul explicitly calls the law engraved on stones, unmistakably the Ten Commandments, a “ministry of death and condemnation” (2 Corinthians 3:7–9). If that ministry has been surpassed by the glory of the Spirit, why would God command New Covenant believers to re‑submit to it? To do so would be to trade resurrection life for a tombstone covenant.

The Indivisible Law: The New Testament never divides the law into “moral” and “ceremonial” categories. That distinction is a later theological invention. James 2:10 says, “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of all.” Paul echoes this in Galatians 5:3: if you bind yourself to one part (like the Sabbath), you’re obligated to keep the entire system: sacrifices, festivals, dietary codes, and civil penalties. The law is a package deal, not a buffet.

The Final Assessment

The SDA attempt to use Romans 3:31 to enforce Sabbatarianism requires ignoring context, redefining Greek terms, and rewriting history.

When Paul says we “uphold the law,” he’s not sending believers back to Moses; he’s celebrating that the Old Testament was right all along. The law was a diagnostic scalpel, revealing humanity’s fatal disease of sin, but it was never the cure.

Under the New Covenant, we are not lawless; we are Spirit‑led. We operate under the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which fulfills the moral essence of God’s will through love. To return to Sinai for sanctification is to deny the sufficiency of the cross and the power of the Spirit.

The gospel stands supreme. The law’s prophetic job is finished. We are no longer bound by stone; we are anchored in grace.

“The ministry of death was written on stone; the ministry of life is written on hearts. The cross didn’t upgrade Sinai; it replaced it.”

FAP Tanong at Sagot: "Ligtas ba sa pagsunod sa utos ayon sa Mateo 19:16-17?"

"At narito, lumapit sa kaniya ang isa, at nagsabi, “Guro, ano ang mabuting bagay na gagawin ko upang ako'y magkaroon ng buhay na walang hanggan? At sinabi niya sa kaniya, "Bakit mo itinatanong sa akin ang tungkol sa mabuti? May isa, na siyang mabuti: datapuwa't kung ibig mong pumasok sa buhay, ingatan mo ang mga utos." (Mat 19:16-17 Tagalog AB)

Maganda yung point ng post. Tama sila: ang biyaya (grace) ng Diyos ang nagliligtas sa atin, hindi ang sarili nating kabutihan. We totally agree with Ephesians 2:8-9.

Pero yung conclusion na, “Ligtas na tayo kaya tayo sumusunod sa 10 utos”? That’s classic SDA teaching, but it completely misses the shift that happened at the cross under the New Covenant.

Balikan natin yung Matthew 19. Jesus wasn’t giving the rich young ruler a blueprint for Christian living. Kausap Niya doon ay isang self-righteous na lalaki na nasa ilalim pa ng Old Covenant, someone who thought he could earn his way to heaven. Kaya nung sinabi ni Jesus na "sundin mo ang mga utos," He was weaponizing the Law to expose the guy's pride. Akala ng lalaki, perfect siya. Pero nung sinabi ni Jesus na ibebenta niya lahat ng ari-arian niya, lumabas yung totoo: nilabag niya ang pinakaunang utos. Pera ang naging diyos niya. Jesus used the Law exactly as it was meant to be used, para ipakita sa tao na hindi niya kayang iligtas ang sarili niya.

So, tayo ba ngayon ay kailangan pang sumunod sa 10 Utos dahil ligtas na tayo? Actually, hindi.

Paul explicitly says in Romans 7:4-6 that we died to the Law through the body of Christ. In fact, sa 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, tinawag ni Pablo yung kautusang nakaukit sa bato, which specifically points to the 10 Commandments, bilang isang "ministry of death" na lumipas na (fading away).

Does this mean we can just live recklessly and sin? Of course not.

Bilang mga believers sa Bagong Tipan, we operate on a much higher standard. Wala na tayo sa ilalim ng covenant ng Mount Sinai. Nasa ilalim na tayo ng "Kautusan ni Kristo" (1 Corinthians 9:21). The Holy Spirit now lives in us, giving us a new heart. We don’t avoid sin because we’re afraid of breaking a rule written on stone. We obey and do good because Christ's love compels us, and the Spirit empowers us.

Stop measuring your faith using the shadows of Mount Sinai. Fix your eyes on Jesus. Surrender your daily walk to the Holy Spirit and let His grace naturally produce the fruit of obedience in your life today. If you know someone struggling with legalism, share this freedom with them!