Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson

January 28, 2009 Posted by Roger Overton

The relationship between biblical laws and the covenants or testaments has been the centered of much debate through church history. Today views range from there being no laws that apply to Christians to the view that every law in the Bible is still enforced. All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson offers a version of the New Covenant Theology view. Gibson contends that “All Old Testament laws are cancelled, and all New Testament laws are for our obedience.” (p7)

In the first part of the book, Gibson entertains nine objections to his thesis that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. These include the notion that the Ten Commandments are the eternal “moral law” of God, that Christ did not come to abolish the law, that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all scripture is God-breathed and useful. The second part of the book provides eight reasons why Gibson believes all Old Testament laws have been cancelled. They include the claim that the Decalogue is the foundational document of the Old Covenant, that the law cannot be divided, that the Jerusalem Council did not require obedience to the law from gentiles, and that the Decalogue had an historical beginning and end.

Part three moves on to the second part of Gibson’s thesis; that all New Testament laws are for our obedience. He responds to antinomian arguments that we’re not under law, but under grace and that the only law is love. He then provides four reasons why Christians must obey the New Testament laws. He cites the mere presence of hundreds of commands given after the cross, points out the sin is lawlessness, and focuses on the praise the Bible has for the law of Christ.

The book’s conclusion centers on the issue of sanctification. Gibson argues that sanctification must by Christ-centered instead of law-centered. At the end of the book are two appendices. One considered that objection that New Covenant Theology allows for beastiallity and incest and the other offers thirteen ways we should still use the Old Testament.

All Old Testament Laws Cancelled makes many good arguments based on the Bible, and these good arguments make the book a worthwhile read for those familiar with the debate. However, I believe there are at least two significant problems with the book, and these are reflected in the title. It really should be “All Old Covenant Laws Fulfilled.”

The first problem is that Gibson is not persuasive that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. In Genesis 9:6 God gives a law against murder to Noah. This law is clearly pre-Sinai and therefore not part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus is the priest of a “better covenant” according to Hebrews, not a better testament. Hebrews tells us that with a new priest there is a change in the law and the old covenant is obsolete. Gibson fails to show how a law (such as Gen 9:6) in the same testament as a particular covenant (such as the old covenant) is subject to the same conditions as laws actually given within that covenant. His logic would lead us to expect God to flood the earth again since His promise to Noah is in the Old Testament and must have been cancelled by Christ.

The second problem has to do with “cancelled.” We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled. Instead, Christ is
described as having fulfilled the law and prophets. Christ being born in Bethlehem did not cancel the prophecy that He would be born there- His birth fulfilled it. Changing the terminology in this way does something to Christ’s vicarious death on our behalf. Christ’s fulfilling the law for us is far more valuable and precious than if He were to simply cancel the law. Cancellation often implies incompleteness, and there is nothing incomplete about Christ’s work on the cross.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology

16 Responses to “Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson”

Brandon Adams said:

January 28th, 2009 at 1:59 am

Roger,
Does he interact at all with the Reformed/Lutheran understanding of “Law vs. Gospel” (imperative vs. indicative)? You mention that he deals with the “unity of the covenant of grace.” What specifically is the concern that comes from this perspective, and how does he deal with it?
Roger N Overotn said:

January 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

No, he didn't deal at all with “Law vs. Gospel.”
He cites the Westminster Confession as an objection to the idea that all OT laws are cancelled- “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” (VII:VI) The Reformed position usually posits both the Old and New Covenants as different administrations of the same covenant of grace.
Gibson argues that God has one plan of grace (Rom 8:28, Eph 1:9-11, 3:11, 2 Tim 1:9) that includes both Jews and Gentiles, but that the Bible puts forward two distinct covenants- the Old and the New (Rom 9:4, 2 Cor 3:6, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12, Heb 8:7, 8:8-13, 12:24). I am in agreement with Gibson on this point. Any effort to say that the Old and New Covenants are actually the same covenant will necessarily distort one (or both) of the covenants.
Brandon Adams said:

January 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Does he address by what law Christ was counted righteous and therefore under what law the Christian is counted righteous?
Also, does he explain what law is written on the hearts of all men?
Roger N Overotn said:

January 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

When he says “Old Covenant” is he referring to Sinai or something else (Adam, Noah, Abraham, all of the above)?
When he says “New Coveant” is he referring simply to the new covenenat that Jesus says He is instituting at the Lord's Supper?
“The Reformed position usually posits both the Old and New Covenants as different administrations of the same covenant of grace.”
That may not actually be the Reformed position, but that might not be relevent to what we're discussing, so I'll hold off on that point for now.
If he doesn't want to use the term “covenant of grace”, what sort of unity is he talking about? Can you give me a better idea of what a “unity of plan” means? And in what way is “one plan, two covenants” different from “one covenant, two dispensations”?
Thanks!
Roger N Overton said:

January 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Gibson never defines these, but I believe he's using generally accepted definitions: Old Covenant refers to the covenant God made with Israel through Moses. New Covenant refers to the covenant God made with the elect through Jesus.
I never used the word unity, so I'm not sure where you got “unity of plan.” Gibson is fine with the term “covenant of grace” to describe the New Covenant (as am I). He is arguing against the Old Covenant being the (or a) covenant of grace.
There are implications for saying “one covenant, two dispensations” instead of “one plan, two covenants”, but I think the most basic reason to reject “one covenant, two dispensations” is that the Bible clearly teaches two (major) covenants. The Bible never teaches one over-arching covenant.
Greg Gibson said:

January 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Hi Roger,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my book. You’ve done a good job of reporting the outline.

May I reply to your 2 concerns about the title? I chose the title very carefully, and I believe it is 100% accurate for the following reasons…

The second problem has to do with “cancelled.” We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled.

“having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” (Col. 2:14).

“by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances” (Eph. 2:15).

“Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end” (2 Cor. 3:7).

The binding authority of the law’s commands has been cancelled/abolished/brought to an end.

Instead, Christ is described as having fulfilled the law and prophets. Christ being born in Bethlehem did not cancel the prophecy that He would be born there- His birth fulfilled it.

Christ’s birth was a prophecy for God to fulfill, not a command for us to obey. And, the law is both cancelled and fulfilled. It’s a both-and, not an either-or.

Mt. 5:17-18 (Gk: kataluo) and Rom. 3:31 (Gk: katargeo) say the Law is not “abolished.” But, Eph. 2:15 (Gk: katargeo) and 1 Cor. 3:7 (Gk. katargeo) say the law is “abolished.” Which verses are true? I harmonized them by explaining that Scripture uses 2 main definitions for the word “law”:

1. Commands
2. Revelation

So, the law is abolished as commands for obedience, but not as revelation for instruction/prophecy. (p. 41).

In chapter 2 “But Christ Did Not Come to Abolish the Law” I explained how He fulfilled the law as revelation eschatologically/prophetically/typologically. So, He cancelled the law as commands for obedience, but He is still fulfilling it eschatologically/prophetically/typologically for revelation. That’s why I say the law is both cancelled and fulfilled.

And, when we use the word “lawS” plural, it refers to commands for obedience, not the law as revelation for fulfillment prophetically. Hence, my title “ALL Old Testament LawS Cancelled.”

The first problem is that Gibson is not persuasive that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. In Genesis 9:6 God gives a law against murder to Noah. This law is clearly pre-Sinai and therefore not part of the Mosaic Covenant…Gibson fails to show how a law (such as Gen 9:6) in the same testament as a particular covenant (such as the old covenant) is subject to the same conditions as laws actually given within that covenant.

Gen. 9:6 is very similar to Mt. 26:52 “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Both are probably prophecies, not imperatives (laws). Even if Gen. 9:6 is a law, then I believe it was cancelled and transferred to the New Covenant canon in Rom 13:4.

Plus, since murder is wrong because we’re created in the image of God, the death penalty may even be written on our consciences (a law that transcends both the O.C and N.C. laws). God can’t hold the heathen living in the Amazon rain forest accountable to obey Gen. 9:6 since He never revealed it to them. But, He can hold them accountable to obey their consciences which may demand the death penalty.

Finally, I wrote 3 chapters explaining why all O.T. commands (including Gen. 1 – Ex. 19) are cancelled:

13. Since Genesis Is Part of the Law, the Commands From Genesis – Sinai Are Cancelled
(Genesis is part of the law as revelation, not as covenant which started later at Sinai.)

16. The Church Is Built on the Foundation of New Testament Apostles and Prophets’ Teaching
(Eph. 2:19-20ff., cf. 3:5, 4:11)

17. Archaeology Testifies That the Bible Contains 2 Separate Canons (Rules)
(The Old Covenant’s structure has several parallels to ancient, near-Eastern treaties, which included historical introductions. Genesis appears to be the historical introduction to the Old Covenant law of Moses.) http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2008/10/06/all-old-testament-laws-or-old-covenant-laws-cancelled/

If the pre-Sinai laws are still binding, then remember those include having lots of babies (Gen. 9:1), circumcision (Gen. 17), Passover (Ex. 12), Consecration of the Firstborn (Ex. 13), Sabbath (Ex. 16), etc.

Roger, does that answer some of your concerns?

Greg Gibson
David N said:

January 29th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

I agree that the NT clearly speaks of two covenants, New and Old, but the reason I asked what Gibson thinks “Old” is referring to is that there seems to be a major difference between the covenant God makes with Abraham and the covenant made at Sinai. I agree that “old covenant” refers to Sinai, but that doesn't negate the possibility of there being an administration of the covenant of grace in the OT, namely the covenant with Abraham. This is why I mentioned in my last comment that the Reformed position is actually not that the “old” and “new” covenants are the same, because the Reformed recognize the temporary and provisional nature of Sinai and fully agree that Sinai was rescinded because it was a conditional covenant and Israel failed to perfectly meet the conditions. When the Reformed speak of the unity of the covenant of grace, then, they are saying (minimally) that Abraham was justified and attained salvation in the exact same way as the elect do under the new covenant. More specifically, the Reformed believe that the covenant of works and the covenant of grace run parallel throughout redemptive history as the outworking of the “covenant of redemption” that the Father made with the Son and the Spirit in eternity past. ….Such is my horribly simplistic summary of covenant theology! Haha.
Greg Gibson said:

January 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Hi Brandon
Does he address by what law Christ was counted righteous and therefore under what law the Christian is counted righteous?
Are you referring to the imputation of Christ's active obedience? If so, no I didn't go into that. The book is more about which commands to obey.
Also, does he explain what law is written on the hearts of all men?
Yes, I wrote 2 chapters about the law written on the heart.
9 Objections to All OT Laws Are Cancelled:
Chapter 3. “But, the Law Is Written on the Heart in the New Covenant”
(I attempted to refute Covenant Theology's view that this law is the Decalogue.)
3 Objections to All NT Laws Are for Our Obedience:
Chapter 20.
Greg Gibson said:

January 30th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Hi David,
If he doesn't want to use the term “covenant of grace”, what sort of unity is he talking about? Can you give me a better idea of what a “unity of plan” means? And in what way is “one plan, two covenants” different from “one covenant, two dispensations”?
I believe the unity of the Scriptures is seen in 2 ways:
1. One unified purpose/plan of grace in eternity past (contra Dispensationalism's 2 purposes: One for Israel and one for the Church).
2. One unified way of salvation for all time (by grace, through faith in Messiah).
Here is a quote from the book:
“Do you mean there's one covenant of grace, or one purpose of grace?…So, the unity of God's purpose (and the unity of the Scriptures) are true. But, there is diversity in God's 2 major covenants.” See “Is There a Covenant of Grace?” by Jon Zens here: http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/zens/covenant.htm
Brandon Adams said:

February 13th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Thanks Greg. My question was more directed towards the law that is written on the hearts of all men (Rom 2:15), not just members of the New Covenant. Which law would you say that is, and would you say that law has ever changed?
Greg Gibson said:

February 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

Brandon,
I'm sorry I misunderstood your question.
I call the law that all humans are responsible to obey “conscience law,” instead of “moral law.” And, I see it defined in the sin lists for all humans (including the Gentiles), not the Decalogue (Lev. 18:1-30; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, 22:15; etc.)
You can see this explained in more detail in the 3, free chapters excerpted on my website, especially pp. 14-20. If that doesn't answer your questions, let me know…
P.S. Roger, does my explanation of the title qualify for a re-rating of that 6 out of 10?
Roger N Overton said:

February 15th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Hi Greg,

I apologize for the amount of time it’s taken me to reply to you. I haven’t had time available to give to the blog lately (apparently none of us have).

First, I think I should clarify that my criticisms are not of the title of the book per se. I wouldn’t knock points off a review simply for a poor title. However, I think the title does a good job summing up two significant points of the book that I disagree with, which is why I pointed to it in my criticism.

Second, I stand by my points. While I appreciate the arguments you’ve made here (which from what I can tell are the same as are in your book), I remain unconvinced of your conclusions for using the word “cancelled” and that it is applied to all Old Testament laws.

We do agree that all Old Covenant laws have been brought to an end in Christ and they no longer bear any authority over Christians. While I think your interpretation of Matt 5:17/Rom 3:31/Eph 2:15/1 Cor. 3:7 has some warrant, I’m not completely convinced. We should at least be able to agree that scripture does not explicitly teach your interpretation. However, it does explicitly teach that Christ fulfilled the law. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to me, as well as safer, to primarily refer to the law as fulfilled. As far as I know, there is no contention about whether or not Christ fulfilled the law. The problem for me is the ambiguity of the word cancelled (since it can imply incompleteness).

Gen 9:6 seems to clearly be a command against murder, in my opinion. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the Noahic Covenant applies to all of Noah’s descendents, and since everyone is under Noah’s genealogy, the terms of that covenant apply to both Jew and Gentile. God is therefore just to hold the “heathen” to Gen 9:6 as they are under that covenant like the rest of us.

Regarding chapter 13, I think most of your points are insufficient grounds for concluding that Genesis is part of the Old Covenant law that was fulfilled. The one point that would be sufficient is that “covenant produces canon.” I’m not convinced this is the case, because if it were so, God’s covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses would have produced multiple canons. However, I have yet to read Kline’s argument for this apart from your summary of it.

I think you make an interesting argument in chapter 16 regarding the foundation of the apostles and prophets for the church. However, I don’t see it results in all of the Old Testament laws being cancelled. As you argue, there is a law written on the conscience of man that transcends OC and NC laws. If your argument in chapter 16 applies to all OT laws, then I do not see why it would not also apply to the law written on the conscience of men.

In response to the list of “pre-Sinai” laws you cited:
I have no reason to doubt that Gen 9:1 still applies today.

Circumcision of the flesh clearly is not law for today (ex. Acts 15, 1 Cor 7, Gal 5)
I think it’s safe to infer that the Passover foreshadowed the Lord’s Supper
I haven’t considered the consecration of the firstborn- I’ll have to give that more thought
The Sabbath in Ex. 16 appears to be part of the OC.

I do appreciate you taking the time to interact here, Greg. We do agree about far more than we disagree, and though we arrive at our practice from some different interpretations, it seems to me that we end up at the same place for how Christians ought to live.
Greg Gibson said:

February 18th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled…We should at least be able to agree that scripture does not explicitly teach your interpretation.
I don't understand, why you don't the law was explicitly “cancelled” in these 4 verses?

1. “…having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2:14).
2. “…by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances” (Eph. 2:15).
3. “Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end…For if what was being brought to an end came with glory…” (2 Cor. 3:7, 11).
4. “…there is an annuling of the former commandment…” (Heb. 7:18, NKJV).

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that the law was merely fulfilled, but not also cancelled? If so, most scholars, including some Covenant Theologians, believe it was also cancelled (bold added below)…

“…Paul can claim in Eph. 2:15 that Christ has abolished 'in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations [dogmasin]'…'Abolish' (katargeo)…mean…it has been 'rendered powerless,' this is, ceases to stand as an immediate authority for God's people. Somewhat parallel is Col. 2:14 where Paul speaks of Christ 'having canceled the written code [cheirographon], with its regulations…'” (Doug Moo, Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 367)
“…'canceled the written code, with it regulations…Col. 2:14. That Paul here refers to the Mosaic law is probable [cf. the word dogmata, used also in Eph. 2:14]…Christ's cross cancels the debt…” (Moo, p. 85)
“The whole Law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments” (Barcellos, Defense of the Decalogue, p. 6).
“…the Old Covenant and its law, as Old Covenant law, has been annulled by Christ's death” (Barcellos, p. 67).
“The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant…” (Barcellos, p. 68).
“How can the apostle declare that Christ abolished the law when Christ himself in the Sermon on the Mount specifically declared the opposite…” (Stott, Ephesians, p. 99)
“The debt was impossible to pay, but God dealt with it; he had blotted it out and cancelled the bond by nailing it to the cross” (Peter O'Brien, New Bible Commentary, p. 1271).
“The earlier commandments in regard to sacrifice were abrogated…” (New Dict. of Biblical Theology, p. 636)
“Through His death, Christ abolished OT ceremonial laws, feasts, and sacrifices…” (MacArthur Bible Comm., p. 1687)

The problem for me is the ambiguity of the word cancelled (since it can imply incompleteness).
What do you mean by “incompleteness?” Are you assuming that the words “fulfilled” and “cancelled” must be synonyms? I see them as 2 different truths about the law. The law's contractual authority to bind us to obedience was cancelled. But, since what the law teaches is true, it's truths are still being fulfilled prophetically/typologically/eschatologically.
However, it does explicitly teach that Christ fulfilled the law.
Notice when the law is completely fulfilled, not until the end of time: “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.” (Mt. 5:18; cf. Lk. 16:17). So, parts of the law were/are/will be fulfilled past, present, and future. Parts of the law…

1. Were fulfilled in the past by Christ's 1st coming (Mt. 1:22, 2:15, etc.).
2. Are being fulfilled presently by the advance of His kingdom. (Lk. 24:44-49; Acts 2:16-21, 15:15-18, and all the OT prophecies about the Gentiles worshipping the Lord)
3. Will be fulfilled in the future by His 2nd coming and the restoration. (Is. 65:17 – 66:24; Ezek. 40-48; Dan. 12; etc.)

So, the fulfillment of the law is a gradual process throughout church history, not a one-time event in ~30 A.D.
Therefore, I don't think that fulfillment can fully release us from obligation to obey Moses. Cancellation releases us from Moses. The law was cancelled in ~30 A.D. as a covenant/contract so that it's obligations are no longer binding. However, all that it teaches is still true, so that it is still being fulfilled prophetically/eschatologically today until heaven and earth pass away.
the Noahic Covenant applies to all of Noah
Greg Gibson said:

February 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

P.S. Roger, sorry I forgot to write an intro. to my last post.
P.P.S. There are verses stating that individual prophecies of the law have been (past tense) fulfilled (Mt. 1:22, 2:15, etc.) But, I can't find one verse stating that the (whole) law is/was/has been (past tense) fulfilled. Can you?
Roger Overton said:

February 21st, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Hi Greg,
While I think Col 2:14 speaking of our debt being canceled is a different matter from the law being canceled, I would say you’ve convinced me that “canceled” is an appropriate way to refer to OC law. I would agree that it was both fulfilled and canceled. I would say that fulfillment entails that we are fully released from OC law, and part of that entailment is cancellation. I think the rest we will have to agree to disagree about…
I’ve revised the review score to 8, since I think you’ve defended yourself well here. Thank you for the charitable interaction.
Greg Gibson said:

February 21st, 2009 at 11:39 pm

Roger, praise God for your honesty and humility.