“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.
