Mosaic Law vs. the Ten Commandments
This comparison is taken from here. The author seeks to differentiate between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law given to Moses by God, and in doing so, direct verses in the New Testament that release us from the Old Covenant law at the Mosaic law.
The Bible does make certain distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law, so the purpose of this section is not an attempt to prove otherwise. It does not, however, portray that the apostles believed we were set free from one and not the other, as the original author would affirm. Christ’s commandments in the New Covenant fulfill and supercede the Old Covenant commandments.
“Called ‘law contained in ordinances’”, vs “Called ‘the Royal law’”
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.
Ephesians 2:15*
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
James 2:8*
This first comparison asserts the two pieces of law are different because two different verses were found describing the law with different names or descriptions, one being described as abolished and the other upheld. As such, the assumption is, these two must be different pieces of the Old Covenant law.
Considering James 2:8, however, it should be noted that the particular law cited by James is not a law from the Ten Commandments. Rather, it is found in Leviticus 19:18, within what the author has considered Mosaic law. Looking at the next verse confirms that James was not merely considering the Ten Commandments when discussing the law in these verses:
But if you respect persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles in one point has become guilty of all.
James 2:9-10
Here, the law he references as being broken is the respecting of persons, which is not mentioned within the Ten Commandments, but rather found in Deuteronomy 1:17, again, within the so-called Mosaic law:
You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear the face of man, for judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me; and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:17
Also worth nothing within these verses in James is that 2:10 is frequently cited in asserting that all of God’s laws should be considered equal in weight. Here James labels “transgressors” those who respect persons, being “guilty of all”. Those who cite this verse must realize that, in context, James considered all of God’s laws, both the tablets and the book, to be applicable in this verse.
Coming back to loving our neighbor as ourselves in 2:8, one of its other New Testament references is Matthew 22:36-40, and is most notable:
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:36-40
This is yet another example of someone in the New Testament giving significant weight to a commandment given within the so-called Mosaic law, and not explicitly stated as one of the Ten Commandments. This particular instance, however, is special. This becomes the heart of Jesus’ commandment to the New Testament believers.
As we can see here, this first comparison is simply inaccurate in what it describes. The “royal law” is, demonstrably, not merely the Ten Commandments.
An additional comparison from these verses
Another site makes a contrast of the next verse in James with Colossians 2:14-16:
Wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 2:14
For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom.
James 2:11
The argument presented is that, calling the law in Colossians 2:14 a law of “bondage”, we distinguish it from the law in James 2:11, called there the “law of liberty.” Thus, we avoid the Bible contradicting itself, as the same law cannot be both a law of bondage and of liberty.
This is the same narrow reasoning that causes students of the Bible to go to extremes when trying to fit the Trinity into their narrow box of theology. Just as God is one, and at the same time three, so in our experience the law may prove to be both a law of bondage and of liberty, depending on the position of the person. To those who are able to fulfill the law, surely it is a perfect law of liberty. This, however, was not Paul’s experience as he described it in Romans 7, where undeniably the law he speaks of includes the Ten Commandments (see Romans 7:7):
And I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was unto life, this very commandment was found to me to be unto death.
Romans 7:9-10
Furthermore, we have already seen above that the law James described was not exclusive to the Ten Commandments, but included the so-called Mosaic law. Therefore, asserting that the “law of liberty” he mentions here only refers to the Ten Commandments is inaccurate by virtue of its context.
“Written by Moses in a book” vs “Written by God on stone”
And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did they with the oxen.
2 Chronicles 35:12*
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Exodus 31:18*
And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
Exodus 32:16*
This comparison is not inaccurate. It highlights the difference, without misconstruing one as being abolished and the other not.
“Placed in the side of the ark” vs “Placed inside the ark”
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Deuteronomy 31:26
And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:
Exodus 40:20
Same as above.
“Ended at the cross” vs “Will stand forever”
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.
Ephesians 2:15
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 2:15
Here, a few points are worth noting. First, “will stand forever,” as the heading states, is not the same as “is easier for heaven and earth to pass,” especially since we know that heaven and earth will indeed pass.
Secondly, as the law was the Word of God and is according to His holy nature and person, it surely has not failed:
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me vainly, but it will accomplish what I delight in, and it will prosper in the matter to which I have sent it.
Isaiah 55:11
The law has at least two main functions: (1) To testify, or reveal, who God is, as it is called the testimony of God (Exodus 31:18), and (2) to convict man, who does not match God and falls short of His righteousness and glory (Romans 7:7, 3:20, 23). Until today the law continues to accomplish what God set it forth to accomplish.
Finally, the latter verse cited does not make any distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law. It is merely assumed that since it is purported to “stand forever”, it must refer to the portion of God’s law the author intends to keep.
“Added because of sin” vs “Points out sin”
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:19
What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Romans 7:7
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20
It is unclear what the argument of the author is here. One might interpret it as meaning, the Ten Commandments point out sin that already existed, whereas the Mosaic law was given later because of sin still being committed after the giving of the Ten Commandments.
There is also no indication in the context that the first verse only refers to the Mosaic law. Paul in this chapter is contrasting receiving the promise of Abraham by faith, with the giving of the Old Covenant law, which cannot deliver us the promise, but rather guarded God’s people until the promise was fulfilled.
“Contrary to us, against us” vs “Not grievous”
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
Colossians 2:14
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3*
Addressing the latter reference, first note that in context of this epistle, we know that when John references the commandments, he refers generally to the commandments given in the New Testament by the Lord Jesus, and specifically to believing in Him, and loving one another (1 John 3:23). This is explicitly stated in the cited verse, and is made repeatedly clear throughout the rest of the epistle (1 John 3:11, 14, 4:16, 21, 5:2). We certainly do not have any indication that it refers to either the Ten Commandments or the so-called Mosaic law, since they are not mentioned anywhere in the epistle.
Returning to the former, if we think that the Ten Commandments were not “against us” as the verse states, we are inexperienced and/or simply do not know ourselves in our fallen, sinful nature. We do not match God’s glory nor His righteousness (Romans 3:10, 23), and at some point are transgressors of the law and condemned to death (Romans 6:23). We should also remember Paul’s experience of the law being “contrary” to him as detailed in Romans 7. If Paul’s experience as the top Pharisee (Phillipians 3:4-6) was that he stood condemned, how much more we?
“Judges no man” vs “Judges all men”
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:14-16*
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:10-12*
This is simply a malformed argument. In the former verse, it is not the law that judges, but rather men that judge. This verse simply does not apply, and appears to have been used here simply because it speaks of the law being removed. Thus, it was immediately applied to the so-called Mosaic law.
The latter reference makes sense, except that it does not merely refer to the Ten Commandments as the text suggests. As a matter of fact, it supports my critique of the previous claim, and seems to contradict the author’s point, there. The claim was that the Ten Commandments are “not grievous,” yet here they “judge all men.”
And of course, as discussed much earlier, it is clear that the latter verse in context is not referring to merely the Ten Commandments. Thus, this comparison is, again, off.
“Carnal” vs “Spiritual”
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:16*
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Romans 7:14*
Here the contexts of these verses, in light of the attempted contrast, is not considered. In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul is comparing the law, which deals with matters on the earth and in much part regards our acts in the flesh (hence, “a carnal commandment”), with Christ, the fulfillment of the law and the reality of the things described therein. However, in the latter verse, Paul calls the law “spiritual” because it was the word of God, and is “the same in essence, nature, and substance as God, who is Spirit (John 4:24).” (Footnote 2 in Romans 7:14, Holy Bible Recovery Version) The law (the whole law) reflects the Person of God, and tells who God is, while spontaneously exposing us for who we are, and revealing to us that we do not match God.
Continuing from Romans 7 in discussing the “spiritual” law, which we know includes the Ten Commandments, Paul goes on in Romans 8:3 to describe that same law as “weak through the flesh,” and counsels us to walk “according to the spirit,” not minding the things of the flesh, i.e., the keeping of the law through the flesh as described in the previous chapter. The description of the law as “weak” in its context in Romans 7 and 8 corresponds with the rest of the context of the former verse in Hebrews 7:
…the setting aside of the preceding commmandment because of its weakness…
Hebrews 7:18
For the law perfected nothing…
Hebrews 7:19
Thus it becomes clear that the Scriptures do not regard only one part of the law as being weak (or, unable to perfect), but rather, the entire law. Yes, the law is indeed spiritual, as all Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16); yet, in and of itself, was of no use to man in making him acceptable to God. The law, rather, serves to convict and condemn us, so that we might realize who God is and who we are not, and might repent and turn to Him, that He might show mercy to us (Romans 11:32).
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of the things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, perfect those who draw near.
Hebrews 10:1
For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.
Romans 11:32
“Made nothing perfect” vs “Perfect”
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hebrews 7:19*
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalms 19:7*
Lastly, this argument is either negligent or intellectually dishonest. One verse says the law made nothing perfect, and the other says the law is perfect. I am sure we can agree that being perfect and being able to perfect are not the same thing.
I reiterate the main point here: the Bible does describe the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law differently, in the Scriptures. It does not support the argument, however, that one was done away with and the other remains. It is not accurate, therefore, to, in a blanketed way, apply any verse that speaks negatively of the law to only one portion of the law, and those that speak favorably, to the other. The entire law is good, holy, and spiritual; simply reading through it, one can easily agree. The law, however, is not, and never was, enough to carry out God’s purpose for man.
