# Are Christians Still Under the Law ## Intro > **[Download the full paper (PDF, sign-in required)](/codex-api/paper.php?slug=are-christians-still-under-the-law)**  ·  *Are Christians Still Under the Law* by ris3n. Short answer: no, and the reason is not that God relaxed His standards but that the covenant itself changed. The paper follows the biblical story in order. A covenant in Scripture is a blood-sealed binding relationship, not a loose promise, and the covenant God cut with Israel at Sinai placed the nation under the [Mosaic Law](/codex/mosaic-law/): obedience, sacrifice, and priesthood maintained the relationship. That system was real and God-given, but it was built to point beyond itself. It exposed sin without permanently removing it, so it functioned as a tutor leading forward to Christ. When Jesus inaugurated the [New Covenant](/codex/jeremiah-31-33/) in His own blood at the Last Supper, the old covenant became obsolete as a governing system, not repaired and not run in parallel, but replaced. The load-bearing move is priestly: because a covenant and its priesthood stand or fall together, the appointment of a priest after the order of Melchizedek forces a change of law with it. Believers therefore live under grace, where obedience flows from a settled, finished redemption rather than from probationary covenant maintenance. ## In full *Are Christians Still Under the Law* argues a covenantal-supersessionist thesis: the [Mosaic Law](/codex/mosaic-law/) was a temporary, blood-ratified covenant administration whose validity was bound to the Levitical priesthood, and its supersession by the [New Covenant](/codex/jeremiah-31-33/) in Christ removes it as the governing covenant for those in Christ, without licensing antinomianism. The argument is built almost entirely from canonical inter-textual reasoning, with the letter to the Hebrews supplying the logical scaffolding. Its structural pivot is the priesthood-law inseparability of [Hebrews 7:11-12](/codex/hebrews-7-11-12/) ("when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also"), joined to the messianic priesthood of [Psalm 110:4](/codex/psalms-110-4/) and the explicit obsolescence verdict of [Hebrews 8:13](/codex/hebrews-8-13/). The paper distinguishes fulfillment from abolition ([Matthew 5:17](/codex/matthew-5-17/); [Romans 10:4](/codex/romans-10-4/)) and grounds continuity of divine character in the one God who both requires and provides the sacrifice ([Isaiah 43:11](/codex/isaiah-43-11/); [Isaiah 53:4-6](/codex/isaiah-53-4-6/)). ## Covenant, blood, and why the Law existed In Scripture a covenant is a binding relationship that changes a person's standing before God, and it is ratified through blood, which stands for life and for the gravity of the bond. At Sinai the point is made explicit: half the sacrificial blood is dashed on the altar and half sprinkled toward the people as "the blood of the covenant" ([Exodus 24:6-8](/codex/exodus-24-6-8/)). That act placed Israel under the Law as a whole administration, obedience, sacrifice, and priesthood together. The Law did real work. It revealed God's holiness and exposed human sin. What it could not do was permanently remove guilt, which is why the sacrifices repeated and the priests mediated without end. Scripture names the purpose directly: the Law "has become our tutor to lead us to Christ" ([Galatians 3:24-25](/codex/galatians-3-24-25/)), a guide with a destination rather than a permanent terminus. See [Law as Tutor (Paidagogos)](/codex/law-as-tutor-paidagogos/). ## The promised new covenant and the meaning of fulfillment God Himself announced the Law's built-in limitation and pledged a replacement. Through Jeremiah He promised a covenant "not like" the Sinai covenant, one that writes the law within, forgives wrongdoing, and remembers sin no more ([Jeremiah 31:31-34](/codex/jeremiah-31-31-34/)). This is a covenant that addresses sin at the heart level rather than through external rules and repeated offerings. Jesus placed Himself at the center of that promised change while refusing the caricature that He came to cancel the Law. He came "not to abolish but to fulfill" ([Matthew 5:17](/codex/matthew-5-17/)), and to fulfill is to bring a thing to its intended goal. Paul draws out the sense: Christ is "the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes" ([Romans 10:4](/codex/romans-10-4/)). The Greek telos here reads as goal or completion, not mere termination of morality: the Law as the mechanism for obtaining righteousness reaches its terminus in Christ, and righteousness now comes through faith in Him. Consistent with that, Jesus speaks as Lord over the Sabbath ([Mark 2:27-28](/codex/mark-2-27-28/)) and relocates true defilement from food laws to the heart ([Matthew 15:11](/codex/matthew-15-11/)), moving beyond the old administration rather than reinforcing it. ## The priesthood argument (the load-bearing move) The paper's decisive step is priestly, and it is what separates this case from a bare appeal to "we are under grace now." Every covenant carries a priesthood; under the Law the Levitical priests offered sacrifice repeatedly, itself a standing witness that sin was not finally dealt with. Hebrews states the inseparability plainly: perfection did not come through the Levitical priesthood, so another priest arises "according to the order of Melchizedek," and "when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also" ([Hebrews 7:11-12](/codex/hebrews-7-11-12/)). Law and priesthood are one fabric; move one and the other moves. The superiority of that new priesthood is established before the Law ever existed. [Melchizedek](/codex/melchizedek/), "priest of God Most High," blesses Abram and receives a tenth of everything ([Genesis 14:18-20](/codex/genesis-14-18-20/)). Since the greater blesses the lesser, and since the Levitical priests descend from Abraham, Melchizedek's priesthood ranks above the Levitical one. God then fixes this messianically: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" ([Psalm 110:4](/codex/psalms-110-4/)), a priesthood grounded not in tribal lineage or the Law but in permanence. See [Melchizedekian Priesthood](/codex/melchizedekian-priesthood/) and [Levitical Priesthood](/codex/levitical-priesthood/). Jesus sealed the covenant change unmistakably at the Last Supper: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" ([Luke 22:20](/codex/luke-22-20/)). As the old covenant was sealed with animal blood, the new is sealed with His own, and Scripture renders the verdict: "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete" ([Hebrews 8:13](/codex/hebrews-8-13/)). The [Old Covenant](/codex/old-covenant/) is not continued alongside the new; it is superseded. ## God as Redeemer, and life under grace The change in administration is not a change in God. Isaiah insists there is no savior besides the LORD ([Isaiah 43:11](/codex/isaiah-43-11/)) and, in the same breath of prophecy, describes the LORD causing "the iniquity of us all" to fall on the pierced Servant ([Isaiah 53:4-6](/codex/isaiah-53-4-6/)). The one who required sacrifice provides the final sacrifice. What changes is the manner in which a just and merciful God deals with sin, from repeated offering to a completed work. Hence the summary verdict: "you are not under law but under grace" ([Romans 6:14](/codex/romans-6-14/)). The paper is careful that this is not antinomian. Living under grace means living under a finished redemption rather than a probationary system, and if anything it raises the moral bar, since Jesus calls for a righteousness that begins in the heart. Obedience remains; its foundation shifts from maintaining covenant standing through ritual to responding out of a settled relationship. See [Grace vs Law](/codex/grace-vs-law/) and [Christians Not Under Mosaic Law](/codex/christians-not-under-mosaic-law/) for the argument in premise-conclusion form. ## Expected objections The strongest objections are stated in their most forceful form and answered here. Each concession granted is bounded, and each collects a larger concession that the objector's own position must pay. **Objection 1, the tripartite reply: "You collapse a distinction Scripture assumes. The Law divides into moral, civil, and ceremonial parts; only the civil and ceremonial were abrogated, while the moral law (the Decalogue) still binds. Treating 'the Law' as one monolithic covenant is the error."** - Grant that the Law has discernible functions and that the moral content of the Decalogue is not repealed as a description of God's character; the paper does not claim theft and murder became permissible. Stating this plainly is what keeps the argument from any antinomian reading. - The concession collects a larger one. The paper's claim is about the Law as a *covenant administration*, not about the survival of moral content. Hebrews does not reason "the ceremonial law is changed"; it reasons that a change of *priesthood* forces a change of *law* as such ([Hebrews 7:11-12](/codex/hebrews-7-11-12/)), and Jeremiah's "new covenant" is set against the Sinai covenant as a whole, not against a ceremonial subset ([Jeremiah 31:31-34](/codex/jeremiah-31-31-34/)). The tripartite division is a useful post-biblical teaching grid, but the covenantal argument runs at the level Hebrews itself uses. Every moral demand the objector wants to retain is in fact reissued and deepened under the New Covenant on its own authority, which is exactly the paper's point: obedience continues, its covenantal basis changes. **Objection 2, the Sabbatarian reply: "The Sabbath command is moral and perpetual, rooted in creation, not ceremonial. Appealing to Mark 2 and Matthew 15 does not touch it."** - Grant that the Sabbath has creational roots and that rest remains a genuine good. The argument need not deny the goodness of rhythmed rest to make its covenantal point. - The larger concession: the objection must still explain the Lord who declares Himself "Lord even of the Sabbath" ([Mark 2:27-28](/codex/mark-2-27-28/)), which subordinates the institution to the person of Christ rather than the reverse. If the Son is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath's meaning is defined by Him and fulfilled in Him, which is precisely a covenantal-administration claim. The Sabbatarian reply, pressed, ends up conceding a Christological authority over the command that the paper's thesis already assumes. **Objection 3, the Torah-observant reply: "Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, and that not one stroke would pass until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17 refutes supersession outright."** - Grant the verse fully and refuse to soften it: Christ did not abolish the Law ([Matthew 5:17](/codex/matthew-5-17/)). Abolition and fulfillment are different verbs, and the paper affirms the one Jesus affirmed. - The concession collects the decisive one. "Fulfill" (plēroō) means to bring to intended completion, and Paul reads the same event as Christ being "the end of the Law for righteousness" ([Romans 10:4](/codex/romans-10-4/)), where telos carries goal and completion together. A thing brought to its goal is not thereby still in force as the means; the tutor's authority ends precisely when the pupil reaches the destination it was leading toward ([Galatians 3:24-25](/codex/galatians-3-24-25/)). Non-abolition and supersession-by-fulfillment are not in tension; they are the two halves of the same claim, and the Torah-observant reading has to suppress the fulfillment half to generate a contradiction. **Objection 4, the load-bearing-inference reply: "Everything hangs on reading Hebrews 7:12 as a change of the whole Law. A narrower reading, that only the priestly and ceremonial law changes while the moral law continues, blocks the supersessionist conclusion."** - Grant that Hebrews 7 arises in a discussion of priesthood and sacrifice, and that its immediate frame is priestly. A careful case should not overstate the reach of a single verse. - The larger concession comes from the surrounding chain, not from that verse alone. Hebrews does not isolate the priestly law; it pronounces the "first" covenant obsolete as such ([Hebrews 8:13](/codex/hebrews-8-13/)) and grounds the new order in a priesthood that predates and outranks the entire Levitical system ([Genesis 14:18-20](/codex/genesis-14-18-20/); [Psalm 110:4](/codex/psalms-110-4/)). A Melchizedekian priesthood is not a reformed Levitical one; it is a different order entirely, so the covenant attached to it is a different covenant, not an edited version of the old. The narrower reading has to treat "obsolete" as "partly retained," which is what the text declines to say. **Objection 5, "this is replacement theology that erases Israel."** - Grant the pastoral concern and refuse triumphalism: the paper's claim is covenantal and Christological, that the Law-covenant reaches its goal in Christ, not that ethnic Israel is written out of God's purposes. Distinguishing covenant-administration from ethnic identity is fair and necessary. - The larger point: the same Scriptures that promise the new covenant address it first to "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" ([Jeremiah 31:31-34](/codex/jeremiah-31-31-34/)). The paper's supersession is of a covenant *system* by its own promised successor, announced by Israel's own prophets, not a supersession of a people. The objection lands against a cruder claim than the one made. ## Notes - This page presents ris3n's paper *Are Christians Still Under the Law* in codex form; the full text is available above (sign-in required to download). - The fuller premise-conclusion treatment lives at [Christians Not Under Mosaic Law](/codex/christians-not-under-mosaic-law/); this page is the reader-facing synthesis of the paper's argument and its expected objections. - In live use, lead with the priesthood inseparability ([Hebrews 7:11-12](/codex/hebrews-7-11-12/)) joined to the obsolescence verdict ([Hebrews 8:13](/codex/hebrews-8-13/)); these are the two hardest steps to resist and they carry the covenantal conclusion together.
## Common questions this page answers **Q: Are Christians still under the Law of Moses?** No. The paper argues that the Mosaic Law was a temporary covenant administration sealed with blood at Sinai and bound to the Levitical priesthood. When Jesus inaugurated the new covenant in His blood, the old covenant became obsolete as a governing system ([Hebrews 8:13](/codex/hebrews-8-13/)), and believers now live under grace ([Romans 6:14](/codex/romans-6-14/)). This is not a lowering of God's moral standards but a change in how sin is dealt with, from repeated sacrifice to the finished work of Christ. **Q: If Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, how can Christians not be under it?** Because abolition and fulfillment are different things. Jesus said He came "not to abolish but to fulfill" ([Matthew 5:17](/codex/matthew-5-17/)), and to fulfill means to bring to intended completion. Paul says Christ is "the end of the Law for righteousness" ([Romans 10:4](/codex/romans-10-4/)), the goal the Law was pointing toward. A tutor's authority ends when the pupil reaches the destination it was leading to ([Galatians 3:24-25](/codex/galatians-3-24-25/)), so non-abolition and supersession-by-fulfillment are two halves of one claim, not a contradiction. **Q: What does the priesthood have to do with whether the Law still applies?** Everything, in this argument. Scripture ties a covenant and its priesthood together, so "when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also" ([Hebrews 7:11-12](/codex/hebrews-7-11-12/)). Because Christ is appointed a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" ([Psalm 110:4](/codex/psalms-110-4/)), a priesthood that predates and outranks the Levitical line ([Genesis 14:18-20](/codex/genesis-14-18-20/)), the Law-system attached to the Levites is superseded along with it. See [Melchizedekian Priesthood](/codex/melchizedekian-priesthood/). **Q: Does being "under grace" mean Christians can ignore God's commands?** No. Living under grace means living under a completed redemption rather than a probationary covenant system, and the paper argues it raises the moral bar rather than lowering it. Jesus calls for a righteousness that begins in the heart ([Matthew 15:11](/codex/matthew-15-11/)). Obedience continues; what changes is its foundation, from maintaining covenant standing through ritual and sacrifice to responding out of a settled relationship with God. See [Grace vs Law](/codex/grace-vs-law/). **Q: Doesn't this argument collapse the moral, civil, and ceremonial divisions of the Law?** The paper works at the level Hebrews itself uses: the Law as a whole covenant administration bound to a priesthood. It does not claim the moral content of God's character was repealed; theft and murder do not become permissible. Rather, every moral demand worth keeping is reissued and deepened under the new covenant on its own authority. The tripartite division is a useful teaching grid, but the covenantal argument runs at the administration level, where a change of priesthood entails a change of law.
## See also - [Ris3n Originals](/codex/ris3n-originals/), the index of ris3n's original papers and arguments - [Christians Not Under Mosaic Law](/codex/christians-not-under-mosaic-law/), the same case in structured premise-conclusion form - [Mosaic Law](/codex/mosaic-law/), the covenant administration this paper argues has been superseded - [New Covenant](/codex/jeremiah-31-33/), the covenant inaugurated in Christ's blood that replaces it - [Old Covenant](/codex/old-covenant/), the Sinai administration declared obsolete as a governing covenant - [Melchizedekian Priesthood](/codex/melchizedekian-priesthood/), the priestly order that forces the change of law - [Levitical Priesthood](/codex/levitical-priesthood/), the order superseded, and why its repeated sacrifices testify against permanence - [Law as Tutor (Paidagogos)](/codex/law-as-tutor-paidagogos/), the Galatians 3 image of the Law as a guide with a destination - [Grace vs Law](/codex/grace-vs-law/), the life-under-grace framing and its answer to antinomianism - [Melchizedek](/codex/melchizedek/) and [Moses](/codex/moses/), the two priest-mediators whose orders the paper contrasts