When A Strong Argument Turns to Dust: Why the Ten Commandments Are Not the Christian’s Covenant Law? by Ptr. Ely Sembrano

INTRODUCTION 

Some arguments appear solid until you pick them up. Then suddenly, they crumble like sand. One of the most common claims goes like this: “Jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments. Since Jesus followed the Ten Commandments, we must follow them too.” Others add a second layer of confidence: “The law has categories types, shadows, ceremonial, and moral. The Ten Commandments are not types or shadows, so even if Jesus fulfilled them, they remain the moral law binding on Christians.” It sounds sharp. Clean. Even airtight. But the moment you touch it, the entire structure collapses. Not because Christianity is anti-law. Not because holiness no longer matters. But because this argument misunderstands covenants, law, fulfillment, and Christ Himself. What follows is not a partial rebuttal. 

It is a complete dismantling. Once seen, this argument cannot be rescued because it was never built on the foundation of Scripture to begin with.
 

1. THE FIRST CRACK: CONFUSING OBEDIENCE WITH COVENANT MEMBERSHIP 

The argument assumes this logic: Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments → therefore Christians must obey the Ten Commandments. That sounds reasonable until you ask one simple question: Why did Jesus obey the Law? Scripture answers clearly: “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4–5). Jesus obeyed the Law because He was born under the Mosaic Covenant. Christ did not come as a Christian living under grace. He came as an Israelite living in Sinai. To say, “Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments, therefore Christians must,” is like saying: · Jesus was circumcised, therefore Christians must be · Jesus kept the feasts, therefore Christians must · Jesus lived under the temple system, therefore Christians must Yet Scripture explicitly rejects this reasoning (Acts 15:5–11; Galatians 5:1–6). Analogy: This is like insisting that because a citizen obeyed the laws of a country before emigrating, his children, born under a new citizenship, must obey the old country’s laws too. Obedience proves where Jesus lived covenantally, not where we live now. 

2. A FATAL ASSUMPTION: REDEFINING “FULFILL.” 

The entire argument is built on a false definition: Fulfill = only “type → antitype.” This is simply not how Scripture uses the word. The Bible uses fulfill broadly: 

• Fulfill prophecy (Matt. 1:22)
• Fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15)
• Fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17)
• Fulfill the sacrificial system (Heb. 9–10)
• Fulfill the priesthood (Heb. 7)
• Fulfill ritual shadows (Col. 2:17)
• Fulfill covenantal obligation (Rom. 10:4).

None of these requires typology. Not one. The argument collapses instantly because its foundation is wrong. It tried to build a skyscraper on a pebble. 

3. JESUS FULFILLED THE ENTIRE LAW, NOT JUST “THE TYPE.S” 

Jesus said, “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Notice what He did not say:

• “I came to fulfill only the ceremonial law.” 
• “I came to fulfill only the shadows.”
• “I came to fulfill everything except the Ten Commandments,” He said: “The Law and the Prophets.” 

That phrase refers to the entire Mosaic covenant, including the Ten Commandments that formed its foundation. To carve out the Decalogue is not exegesis. It is theological surgery without biblical consent. 

4. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NEVER A UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE 

Scripture is explicit: “He declared to you His covenant… the Ten Commandments… He made them known to Israel” (Deut. 4:13; Ps. 147:19–20). And again: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Exod. 34:28). This is decisive. The Ten Commandments are not merely part of the Mosaic Covenant. They are the covenant document. Remove them from the covenant, and you tear the treaty in half. Contrast:

• Moral truth existed before Sinai (Gen. 4; Gen. 39) 
• The Ten Commandments did not consider murder to be sinful before Moses. Adultery was sinful before Moses. But “You shall not murder” engraved on stone belonged to Sinai alone. God’s morality is eternal. The covenantal form expressing it is not. 

5. THE LAW WAS NEVER DIVIDED THE WAY THIS ARGUMENT REQUIRES. 

The claim: “The law has moral, ceremonial, and civil parts.” Sounds neat. But Scripture never says this. The Bible treats the Law as one unified covenant package: “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point is guilty of all” (James 2:10). “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the Book of the Law” (Gal. 3:10). You cannot discard “ceremonial” law and keep “moral” law without doing violence to the text. Analogy: The Law is not a buffet. It is a marriage covenant—break one vow, you break the marriage. 

6. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE CALLED A “MINISTRY OF DEATH.” 

Paul does not leave room for ambiguity: “The ministry of death, engraved in letters on stone” (2 Corinthians 3:7). That phrase can refer to only one thing: the Ten Commandments. Paul continues: 

• “What was fading away came with glory” (v. 11). 
• “We are ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit” (v. 6). 
• Contrast: · Stone tablets → condemnation → fading · Living Spirit → righteousness → permanent. 

If the Ten Commandments remain binding, Paul’s argument collapses. But Paul’s argument stands because Sinai does not. 

7. YES, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS CONTAIN A TYPE. 

The claim: “The Ten Commandments contain no types.” Scripture itself refutes this. The Sabbath is a shadow. “Let no one judge you… regarding a Sabbath day these are a shadow… but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:16–17). Hebrews 4 explains:

• God’s creation rest ≠ Israel’s Sabbath · Israel’s Sabbath = shadow
• Christ = true rest. Shadows are never creation ordinances. Creation ordinances are universal and permanent. 

Paul calls the Sabbath a shadow; therefore, it belongs to the old covenant system. One typological command destroys the entire claim. 

8. WHAT “FULFILLMENT” ACTUALLY MEANS 

Fulfillment does not mean “continue unchanged.”

• Fulfilled prophecy ends
• Fulfilled contracts expire
• Fulfilled debts are paid. 

Paul says it plainly: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness” (Romans 10:4). Not the end of the types. Not the end of the ceremonial law. The end of the law. Period. The Law was a guardian, not a life sentence (Gal. 3:24–25). Analogy: Scaffolding is essential during construction. Once the building stands, leaving it up is not faithfulness; it’s a misunderstanding. 

9. THE NEW COVENANT IS EXPLICITLY NOT SINAI 

Jeremiah prophesied: “I will make a new covenant… not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Jer. 31:31–32). Hebrews applies it directly: “In speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). The law written on the heart is not the old covenant engraved internally. It is Christ’s law, flowing from:

• Union with Christ
• Indwelling of the Spirit
• New-covenant authority 

10. THE LAW CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY LIVE UNDER 

The New Testament is explicit:

• “You are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14) 
• “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) 
• “I am not under the law, but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). 

Every moral command except the Sabbath reappears in the New Testament, not because Sinai continues, but because morality flows from God Himself, now expressed through Christ. 

FINAL SUMMARY: WHY THE ARGUMENT CANNOT SURVIVE 

This argument collapses because: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Jesus obeyed the Law as an Israelite not as a Christian model The Ten Commandments are explicitly called the Mosaic Covenant Scripture never divides the Law into moral vs ceremonial categories The Ten Commandments are labeled a fading ministry of death Fulfillment ends covenants it does not extend them The New Covenant is fundamentally not like Sinai Christians live under the law of Christ, not Moses Trying to place Christians under the Ten Commandments is not devotion it is covenant confusion. It rebuilds what God has torn down. It resurrects what Scripture declares obsolete. It replaces Christ’s living authority with engraved stone. 

CONCLUSION: THE DEBATE ENDS HERE. 

When you see the whole picture, it becomes breathtakingly clear: Christ did not come to patch the old covenant. He came to complete it, fulfill it perfectly, and replace its form with something far greater: Himself. The shadows have served their purpose. The covenant has reached its goal. The tablets of stone have given way to hearts of flesh. The law’s story leads to one destination, and that destination stands before us with nail-scarred hands: “Come to Me, and I will give you rest.” The debate ends here. Because the Law ends here. In Christ. Amen!

Former Adventists Philippines

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc
SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03