The problem with that interpretation is that it takes 2 Corinthians 3:6–9 out of its full context and then uses Paul to overturn the clear words of Jesus. let me explain and please read the full text, I spent some time to write it for you.
Jesus Himself, One with GOD said:
“If you would enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17
Jesus was speaking to a Jewish man, not a Gentile. He challenged the Jewish man to keep the Commandments. Why? Are they the door into life? Yes and No. The commandments Jesus cites to the rich young ruler really do belong to Israel’s covenant, and in that covenant they promised life—but never as a simple reward for external compliance. Their deeper function, as Paul discovered when the
Tenth Commandment finally exposed his inner coveting, was to uncover the fatal condition beneath even sincere obedience. In that sense the commandments lead to life only by driving the obedient person past the surface of duty into the recognition of profound, inescapable sin. That recognition is precisely what Paul says becomes the doorway to Christ: the Law performs its covenant role by revealing the heart, stripping away illusions of righteousness, and compelling the sinner toward the only source of true life—the
Spirit of God who accomplishes what the commandments could diagnose but never cure.
“If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.” John 14:15
When Jesus says
“keep my commandments” in John 14–15, He is not referring to the Ten Commandments as the covenant code given at Sinai. He is speaking of His own teaching, His own words, the new covenant directives that flow from His identity and mission. In John’s Gospel,
entolai (“commandments”) consistently refers to Jesus’ own revelation—believe in Him, abide in Him, love one another as He has loved, bear witness, keep His word, remain in His teaching. These are not additions to Moses but the fulfillment and replacement of Moses within the new covenant. The contrast is deliberate: Moses’ commandments belonged to Israel’s old covenant; Jesus’ commandments belong to the life of the Son, given through the Spirit. So when Jesus says “keep my commandments,” He is calling His disciples to obey the
words He has spoken, to embody the
new‑covenant love He models, and to remain faithful to the
teaching that reveals the Father—not to return to the Sinai code.
The commandments themselves are not the problem. Sin is the problem.
True, but this doesn't mean that Gentiles are obligated to keep the Ten Commandments.
The Bible explains this very clearly:
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4
John’s statement in 1 John 3:4—“sin is lawlessness”—is not a call to return to the Sinai code but a theological definition of sin within the new‑covenant framework. In context,
lawlessness means rejecting the
revealed will of God, which for John is centered in Christ’s word, Christ’s command to love, and Christ’s pattern of righteousness. John is not saying, “Therefore keep the Ten Commandments,” but rather, “Sin is the refusal to submit to God’s authority as revealed in His Son.” The contrast in the chapter makes this clear: righteousness is defined by
abiding in Christ, keeping
His commandments, and loving the brothers; lawlessness is defined by rejecting Christ’s teaching and living in the darkness He came to expose. So John uses the language of “law” to describe the moral rebellion that Christ unmasks—not to reinstate the Mosaic covenant, but to show that sin is hostility to the
new‑covenant life revealed in Jesus.
Because all people have sinned, the law brings condemnation. That is why it is called a ministry of death: it exposes guilt.
No, it is called a ministry of death because animals died in the process.
Jesus never taught that the commandments were abolished. Instead He said:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17
“Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” Matthew 5:18
Jesus was talking to Jewish people about the Law. He was not quoting Rabbinical midrash. He was teaching as one having his own authority, even though he said that his authority came from the Father. In other words, his teaching did not challenge or contradict the revealed word of God. But his teaching DID contradict much of what the rabbis taught.
The promise of the New Covenant is not that God removes His law, but that He places it within His people.
“I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it.” Jeremiah 31:33
This promise is specific to the House of Judah and the House of Israel.
That is the real contrast Paul is making in 2 Corinthians 3. The old administration was written on stone, revealed sin, and condemned the guilty. The new administration writes God's law on the heart, gives the Holy Spirit, forgives the repentant, and gives the power to obey.
The Holy Spirit does not give anyone the power to obey. That is called Keswick theology and it isn't true.
He is not saying that the Ten Commandments no longer exist or that Christians are free to ignore them.
He does not contradict Jesus when he teaches that his people were under a tutor that leads them to Christ. He DOES teach that once we have Christ, the tutor is no longer necessary.