It amazes me that the written word sits open on the table, clear as daylight, yet people run to TikTok preachers, altered translations, and commentary notes to tell them what God supposedly meant. When the noise gets loud, the truth gets quiet.
I hear what you’re saying, but we’re not actually working from the same biblical framework, and that’s why our conclusions keep missing each other.
Just to clarify a few things from Scripture itself:
1. The Bible never teaches that believers are under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant at the same time.
Hebrews 8.6–13 says the New Covenant is “better,” and in calling it new, Christ “makes the first one obsolete.” Hebrews 9.15 says His death redeems people from the first covenant. That doesn’t leave room for both covenants running side by side.
2. The New Covenant is not waiting for a future throne to begin.
Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22.20; 1 Corinthians 11.25). The covenant began at the cross, not at His future return. Hebrews treats it as a present reality.
3. Passover doesn’t prove Sinai is still binding.
The New Testament uses it to show fulfillment, not continuation.
“Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5.7).
Colossians 2.16–17 calls the feasts “a shadow” pointing to Christ. Shadows aren’t the covenant we live under.
4. The “Torah upgraded into more laws” idea isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture.
Paul says the entire law is fulfilled in one command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5.14; Romans 13.8–10).
And, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5.18).
That is the apostolic teaching.
5. You’re blending the Old Testament writings with the Old Covenant system.
The writings remain Scripture.
The Sinai covenant is not the governing covenant for believers.
Hebrews makes that distinction very clearly.
I’m not learning theology from social media. I’m reading the text directly, and none of the passages above support the idea of two active covenants or an expanded list of 1,000 laws for Christians.
We may just be working from different translations and assumptions, but at least now it’s clear what the actual disagreement is.
Grace is not something a person earns by keeping commandments. Grace is the unearned favor of God given through the finished work of Christ. If a person must first obey the law in order to receive grace, then grace is no longer grace. Paul makes this point very clearly.
Since Matthew 5:17–18 is often misunderstood, here is a clear breakdown of what Jesus actually said and what the passage means in its original context.
First, when Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” He is not saying the Law continues unchanged for all time. He is saying that His mission is not to destroy Scripture, but to complete the purpose it was always pointing toward. The Greek word translated “fulfill” means to bring to completion, to finish, or to carry something to its intended goal. It never means to preserve something unchanged forever.
Second, Jesus speaks of “until heaven and earth disappear.” This is a common Jewish expression that means “until God’s plan reaches its conclusion.” It is an idiom rather than a literal astrophysical timeline. No Jewish listener hearing Jesus speak would interpret this as the Old Covenant remaining in force eternally.
Third, Jesus refers to “the smallest letter” and “the least stroke.” The Greek words here are iota and keraia. These refer to tiny markings within Hebrew letters. Jesus is saying that not even the smallest detail of the Law’s prophetic purpose will fail. He is talking about prophetic accuracy, not the permanent enforcement of the Sinai system.
Fourth, Jesus adds a second “until,” which is the key to understanding the entire passage: “until everything is accomplished.” The Law remains in place until its mission is completed. Jesus declared that mission complete at the Cross when He said “It is finished.” Hebrews teaches the same thing by saying the Old Covenant became obsolete when Christ completed His work (Hebrews 8.13).
This means Matthew 5.17–18 is about the certainty of fulfillment, not the continuation of the Mosaic Covenant for believers in the New Covenant.
One last note to avoid confusion. The wording you quoted, specifically “the least stroke of a pen,” appears in the NIV. The Greek text does not mention a pen. It only refers to tiny strokes inside Hebrew characters. Some modern translations paraphrase the imagery, which can make the verse sound as if Jesus is speaking about written commands remaining unchanged rather than prophetic completion. A more literal translation such as the ESV, NKJV, or NASB preserves the original meaning more accurately.
I am mentioning this only because it is important to build doctrine on what Jesus actually said, not on paraphrased wording that He did not use.
If you would like to continue the discussion, I am happy to do so. The distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is one of the clearest and most important teachings of the New Testament.
I appreciate the passion here, but you’re mixing the covenants in a way the New Testament itself does not.
The New Covenant didn’t begin at Messiah’s return. It began at His death. Jesus said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). Hebrews says the same thing: the covenant comes into force when a death has occurred (Hebrews 9:15–17). So we aren’t “waiting” to enter the New Covenant we’re already in it.
And when you quote Matthew 5, you’ve missed the key word: until. Not one stroke would pass from the Law until all was accomplished. Jesus didn’t leave His mission unfinished. When He said “It is finished,” that wasn’t poetic it was legal. The Old Covenant served its purpose and came to completion. This is why Paul says we are not under the law (Romans 6:14), released from the law (Romans 7:6), and that the law was a guardian until Christ came (Galatians 3:24–25).
If the Law of Moses were still binding, then Paul chosen by Christ to teach the churches would have been wrong every time he said otherwise. I trust Paul over modern interpretations.
And regarding the Ten Commandments: Paul calls the stone-engraved covenant “the ministry of death” and says it is passing away (2 Corinthians 3:7–11). That’s not me “dividing Scripture” that’s Scripture describing itself.
The law written on our hearts is not the Sinai code. Jeremiah says the New Covenant will be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Jeremiah 31:32). The New Covenant has a new law: the law of Christ, lived through the Spirit (Galatians 6:2).
No one is arguing for lawlessness. The issue is which covenant we are under. The early church didn’t return to Moses after receiving the Spirit. And neither should we.
And I say this respectfully, because I can tell you’re sincere in what you believe the way you’re describing the covenants sounds very similar to teachings from the modern Hebrew Roots / Torah-Observant movement. They often blend elements of the Old Covenant back into the New, which is why I’m addressing these distinctions so clearly.
Spot-on Miss. Jane !!! A person is only under grace when they are keeping the commandments and laws of GOD...
It amazes me that the written word sits open on the table, clear as daylight, yet people run to TikTok preachers, altered translations, and commentary notes to tell them what God supposedly meant. When the noise gets loud, the truth gets quiet.
I hear what you’re saying, but we’re not actually working from the same biblical framework, and that’s why our conclusions keep missing each other.
Just to clarify a few things from Scripture itself:
1. The Bible never teaches that believers are under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant at the same time.
Hebrews 8.6–13 says the New Covenant is “better,” and in calling it new, Christ “makes the first one obsolete.” Hebrews 9.15 says His death redeems people from the first covenant. That doesn’t leave room for both covenants running side by side.
2. The New Covenant is not waiting for a future throne to begin.
Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22.20; 1 Corinthians 11.25). The covenant began at the cross, not at His future return. Hebrews treats it as a present reality.
3. Passover doesn’t prove Sinai is still binding.
The New Testament uses it to show fulfillment, not continuation.
“Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5.7).
Colossians 2.16–17 calls the feasts “a shadow” pointing to Christ. Shadows aren’t the covenant we live under.
4. The “Torah upgraded into more laws” idea isn’t taught anywhere in Scripture.
Paul says the entire law is fulfilled in one command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5.14; Romans 13.8–10).
And, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5.18).
That is the apostolic teaching.
5. You’re blending the Old Testament writings with the Old Covenant system.
The writings remain Scripture.
The Sinai covenant is not the governing covenant for believers.
Hebrews makes that distinction very clearly.
I’m not learning theology from social media. I’m reading the text directly, and none of the passages above support the idea of two active covenants or an expanded list of 1,000 laws for Christians.
We may just be working from different translations and assumptions, but at least now it’s clear what the actual disagreement is.
Grace is not something a person earns by keeping commandments. Grace is the unearned favor of God given through the finished work of Christ. If a person must first obey the law in order to receive grace, then grace is no longer grace. Paul makes this point very clearly.
Since Matthew 5:17–18 is often misunderstood, here is a clear breakdown of what Jesus actually said and what the passage means in its original context.
First, when Jesus says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” He is not saying the Law continues unchanged for all time. He is saying that His mission is not to destroy Scripture, but to complete the purpose it was always pointing toward. The Greek word translated “fulfill” means to bring to completion, to finish, or to carry something to its intended goal. It never means to preserve something unchanged forever.
Second, Jesus speaks of “until heaven and earth disappear.” This is a common Jewish expression that means “until God’s plan reaches its conclusion.” It is an idiom rather than a literal astrophysical timeline. No Jewish listener hearing Jesus speak would interpret this as the Old Covenant remaining in force eternally.
Third, Jesus refers to “the smallest letter” and “the least stroke.” The Greek words here are iota and keraia. These refer to tiny markings within Hebrew letters. Jesus is saying that not even the smallest detail of the Law’s prophetic purpose will fail. He is talking about prophetic accuracy, not the permanent enforcement of the Sinai system.
Fourth, Jesus adds a second “until,” which is the key to understanding the entire passage: “until everything is accomplished.” The Law remains in place until its mission is completed. Jesus declared that mission complete at the Cross when He said “It is finished.” Hebrews teaches the same thing by saying the Old Covenant became obsolete when Christ completed His work (Hebrews 8.13).
This means Matthew 5.17–18 is about the certainty of fulfillment, not the continuation of the Mosaic Covenant for believers in the New Covenant.
One last note to avoid confusion. The wording you quoted, specifically “the least stroke of a pen,” appears in the NIV. The Greek text does not mention a pen. It only refers to tiny strokes inside Hebrew characters. Some modern translations paraphrase the imagery, which can make the verse sound as if Jesus is speaking about written commands remaining unchanged rather than prophetic completion. A more literal translation such as the ESV, NKJV, or NASB preserves the original meaning more accurately.
I am mentioning this only because it is important to build doctrine on what Jesus actually said, not on paraphrased wording that He did not use.
If you would like to continue the discussion, I am happy to do so. The distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is one of the clearest and most important teachings of the New Testament.
I appreciate the passion here, but you’re mixing the covenants in a way the New Testament itself does not.
The New Covenant didn’t begin at Messiah’s return. It began at His death. Jesus said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). Hebrews says the same thing: the covenant comes into force when a death has occurred (Hebrews 9:15–17). So we aren’t “waiting” to enter the New Covenant we’re already in it.
And when you quote Matthew 5, you’ve missed the key word: until. Not one stroke would pass from the Law until all was accomplished. Jesus didn’t leave His mission unfinished. When He said “It is finished,” that wasn’t poetic it was legal. The Old Covenant served its purpose and came to completion. This is why Paul says we are not under the law (Romans 6:14), released from the law (Romans 7:6), and that the law was a guardian until Christ came (Galatians 3:24–25).
If the Law of Moses were still binding, then Paul chosen by Christ to teach the churches would have been wrong every time he said otherwise. I trust Paul over modern interpretations.
And regarding the Ten Commandments: Paul calls the stone-engraved covenant “the ministry of death” and says it is passing away (2 Corinthians 3:7–11). That’s not me “dividing Scripture” that’s Scripture describing itself.
The law written on our hearts is not the Sinai code. Jeremiah says the New Covenant will be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Jeremiah 31:32). The New Covenant has a new law: the law of Christ, lived through the Spirit (Galatians 6:2).
No one is arguing for lawlessness. The issue is which covenant we are under. The early church didn’t return to Moses after receiving the Spirit. And neither should we.
And I say this respectfully, because I can tell you’re sincere in what you believe the way you’re describing the covenants sounds very similar to teachings from the modern Hebrew Roots / Torah-Observant movement. They often blend elements of the Old Covenant back into the New, which is why I’m addressing these distinctions so clearly.
—The Iron Quill