Grace That Works

In the gospel of John, we find the famous account of the woman caught in the act of Adultery.  Here is the story from chapter 8:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.  And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.  And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.  Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”

Clearly, this is one of the Ten Commandments etched in tablets of stone from God to Moses (”You shall not commit adultery”).  The proponents of the “two-law” theory (that there is a “law of Moses” and a “law of God”) like to point out that when you find reference in the scripture that God commanded a law, it is a clue that it refers to the Ten Commandment law of God; whereas, if you read something like, “Moses commanded you…”, it must refer to the so-called “law of Moses.”

If so, we have another problem here, as obviously Moses commanded them to stone a woman caught in the breaking of the Ten Commandments.  I know I may be getting technical here, and it could be argued that the grammer is like this for a reason and so on, but I’m just reacting to that argument which I believe strains to keep the law of God partitioned in order to hold on to a preconceived theology.  If that argument is going to be used, it presents a problem in John 8 with the woman caught in adultery.

The scribes and the Pharasees, those who in principle understood the law of God and made it their profession to interpret it, would have to be confused in the minds of the “two-law” theorists because they are using the wrong terminology to disseminate God’s law.

But it gets worse: if their argument is valid; that is, “When Moses commanded, it refers to the ‘law of Moses’, when God commanded, it refers to the ‘law of God’, then Jesus Himself was confused and in error!

We can demonstrate this from two passages in Mark’s gospel.  In Mark chapter 1, verse 44, Jesus tell the leper healed, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded for a testimony to them.” If we stopped here, we would have no problem, for it’s clear that Moses commanded the people to keep a ceremonial portion of the law.  Since Moses commanded them, it must be a “law of Moses”, right?

Now, Mark chapter 7, verses 9-10:

He was also saying to them, “You nicely se aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’.”

Now, true, it’s described as the “commandment of God”, but why didn’t Jesus say, “God said” instead of “For Moses said”?  He seems to be intermixing God’s law, almost as if it should be seen as one unit, not two different types of laws.  Which is what I believe the scripture teaches.

Because the scripture (particularly in the Old Testament) paints a picture of one law given by God to the people, rather than two different laws, each with their own purpose and destiny, I am continually being persuaded that those who “break up” God’s revelation of law to us are doing us a disservice and in effect diluting His law to suit their purposes.  For example, many believe that God’s law is made up of three portions: civil, ceremonial, and moral.

This, I think, helps folks to reconcile the New Testament teachings on law, which seem very confusing and contradictory.  But I have become convinced that there is one “package” of law; and it all goes together.  When the scripture tells us we are not under law, I believe it speaks of all of God’s law, not just civil or ceremonial or what is termed the “law of Moses”.

If we look at some passages in the book of Leviticus, I can point this pattern of “one law” out.

First, Leviticus 19:9-13:

9 Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.  10 Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.  I am the Lord your God.  11 You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.  12 And you shall not swear falsely by my name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.  13 You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him.  The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.

Here, we see another example of God’s law “all jumbled together”; not separated and cleanly portioned as we would expect if Moses is trying to give us two different laws.  The “You shall not steal” is a Ten Commandment.  The rest is considered by the “two-law” theorists as separate; the “law of Moses.”

But it’s presented as one unit by Moses in this passage.  This in not one, isolated passage.  In one of my earlier posts we saw the same thing in the book of Joshua.

Here is another instance in Leviticus.  In chapter 23, the Lord is giving Moses “the Lord’s appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations…”  Rather than quote the entire chapter to make my point, these are the highlights:

• Verse three teaches the Weekly Sabbath as a holy convocation
• In verse 5, the next holy convocation is the passover celebration and the feast of Unleavened bread;
• verse 21 gives the what the Christian would say is a prelude to the day of Pentecost as a day of holy convocation;
• verse 24 speaks of “The seventh month on the first of the month, you shall have a rest, a reminder by blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation…”;
• verse 27 says, “On exactly the tenth day of the seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you…”;
• In verses 34-35, the passage describes the feast of booths as part of a holy convocation.

My point?  The first holy convocation is the fourth commandment; the rest are not one of the Ten Commandments.

If anyone wants me to proclaim the weekly Sabbath as a holy convocation in my Christian walk as Leviticus instructs me to, then why am I not keeping the rest of the holy convocations?  More importantly, why is the scripture continuing to frustrate us by “lumping together” what some would argue are two, separate types of laws?

I’m sorry, but the burden is on the “two-law” theorist to show me why God’s law is continually “meshed” within separate aspects of that law.  I want to open-minded; again, I admit that I may be missing something, but so far in my study, the scripture points out one law of God, proclaimed as one unit.

Remember the teaching of “one God, revealed as three entities of equal essence and quality?”  The Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed by scripture as co-equal, co-eternal; we call this teaching the Trinity.  No, the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, but when we extract scripture, we are left with this idea of one God, worshiped as Father, Son, and Spirit.  Well, I believe that God’s word is consistent; there is one law, made up of civil, ceremonial, Mosaic, health, and any other law you can come up with there in the Old Covenant.

Something to think about.

Last time, we saw that the passage in Galatians 3:10 was quoted from Deuteronomy 27:26, and that these references seem to join all of God’s law into one unit, not a series of different laws as some suggest.  In Deut. chapter 27, we find curses that allude to both Ten Commandment law and other aspects of law, like ceremonial and civil portions; but they are spoken as a whole unit.  This evidence is not direct (there is no passage clearly saying that there is one law), but when you build pieces of evidence upon one another from different sections of scripture, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate portions of God’s law because scripture itself seems to be frustrating this attempt (in my opinion).

The quote from Galatians 3:10 is this:

Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.

There are those in the “two-law” camp, who strive to tell us that, “God’s Ten Commandments are ten wonderful promises to us!”  And, by implication, “Unlike the ‘law of Moses’ which tell us to do and perform it, God’s Ten Commandments are promises, not duties.”

This, I believe, is another reason to suppose that the passages talking about the “works of the law” in Galatians chapters 2 and 3 refer to the end of the “law of Moses.”  Because it is reasoned that the TC’s are not burdensome to the believer (only the law of Moses is), Paul is teaching us that the law of Moses is referred to in Galatians 2 and 3.

What’s my point?  Well, this is another way to build a “wall of separation” between what is seen as two different and distinct purposes of two types of laws.  If one can imply that one law is something you do, and another law is a promise, then you can show distinction.

But it is very important to understand from the scriptures that any law is supposed to be done, or performed. This is the very definition of law: something to obey by doing.

Again, Galatians 3:12:

However, the law is not based on faith; on the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them.

This is a crucial truth:

1. No law is based on faith.
2. All faith is based on “hearing with faith” to receive from God, as taught in Gal. 3:1,3; not by “works of the law.”
3. In God’s economy, any promise He gives, is received by believing, not by performing it.  You can’t perform or do a promise—–you just have to believe that what God says is true and act on it.

Now, some proof that the Ten Commandments are to be performed.

Back in Deut. 4:13 we read:

So He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

If anyone puts me under the Ten Commandments as a Christian, I have to perform this law (with God’s help of course).  But the scripture plainly teaches (in the book of Romans for example) that:

1. The Law brings wrath (chapter 4:15);
2. This commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me (chapter 7:10).

I’m sorry, but this is not a promise I want to be part of.  The promise of God is the Holy Spirit, received by faith, to give me the life and Spirit of Christ for abundant living.  It is not, “Trying to live by the Ten Commandments with the Holy Spirit’s help and empowerment.”

Summation?  You can’t separate law by trying to make one based of works, and one on “Ten wonderful promises.”  All law is based on works; all faith is based on receiving the promises of God.  So, if one insists that Galatians 3:10 speaks of a “law of Moses” because they are performed, remember that the Ten Commandments are also to be performed according to scripture.  The Ten Commandments are not promises; they are laws to obey, and any law that is not obeyed is subject to punishment by God.

So, I consider this to be another bit of problem for the “two-law” theorist.  All law is performed according to God; one can’t separate laws by making some promise, and some by works.  Scripture will not allow this.

I’m just about finished with this series on the problems I see concerning the position of splitting the law as revealed in the Old Covenant; that is, the proposition that there are two laws (law of Moses, law of God) with two different purposes.  I’m sure that there is more exhaustive evidence than I am providing here, but I’m sharing what I’ve learned about this subject to date.

This piece of evidence will look at a well-known passage in the book of Galatians.  I’d like to quote from chapter 3, verses 10-12:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”  Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.”  However, the law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

There is much that could be said just about this passage, but I will try to “cut to the chase” as best as I can.  Those who espouse the two-law theory say that this passage is obviously speaking of the “law of Moses”, and not the Ten Commandment law of God; for among other things, the “law of God” is not a curse —–and, more importantly, since the passage refers to the phrase “the book of the law”, this qualifies it (in their minds) as the code for the ceremonial, civil, health, and other such laws that belong in the “law of Moses” camp.

For this post, let’s look at verse 10, and see where Paul was quoting from.  The quote is: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”  This comes from Deuteronomy 27:26, where it says, “Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.”  It is the final “Curse” given to the people at Gerizim as a consequence of not keeping the law; it follows a series of such curses Moses promises the people if they do not obey “His commandments and His statutes which I command you today.”

Now, I could quote all the curses given, but in the interest of space, I will summarize (of course, if you don’t believe me on this, read them for yourself).  Verses 15 through 26 in Deuteronomy 26 give these curses.  The first curse talks of, “The man who makes an idol or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.”  The second is, “Cursed is he who dishonors his father and mother.”

The bible student can see that these first two curses sound awfully familiar to two of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 20.  I would be willing to “bet the house” that these references are indeed exactly like the TC’s.  So, in context, it tells us a few things (if we have an open mind).  First, the TC’s are attached to curses.  Second, the TC’s are attached to the phrase “the book of the law” found in the Galatians passage.  Third, if we read on, the curses that continue are (strictly speaking) outside the TC’s as given to us from the Lord on Mount Sinai.

For example, “Cursed is he who moves his neighbor’s boundary mark”; “Cursed is he who strikes his neighbor in secret”; and “Cursed is he who lies with any animal.”

The point?  The two supposed different laws are intermixed within the same context of curses given to the people on this one occasion.  They should not be mixed according to the “two-law” theory.

So, in summary: the “book of the law” passage in Galatians  3:10 points back to the Deut. passage that speaks of curses to both ‘law of Moses’ laws, and ‘Ten Commandment laws’.

As just stated, this presents numerous problems to those of the two-law theorists.  But here is another one: to the “two-law” theorists, a Ten Commandment law is never a “statute” or “ordinance”.  But that is what Moses has just stated in his opening remarks before starting the discussion on “Curses”, and of course I just showed that two of the TC’s seem to be associated with the word “Statutes.”

Next time, more on the Galatian passage.

A passage in Romans 10 is telling, concerning the faith Paul speaks about, but we encounter again a problem for those who espouse the view of two laws in the Old Covenant (a “law of Moses” and a “law of God”).

Here is the passage (verses 5-10):

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is bases on law shall live by that righteousness.  But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring up Christ up from the dead).’  But what does it say?  ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Clearly, this is the faith of the New Covenant.  Believe in Jesus as Lord and be saved.

What’s my point?  Well, to the person who believes that there are two laws (one done away with at the cross, the other in force—-that is, the Ten Commandments) the passage quoted above should not be connected with that law done away at the cross—-the so-called law of Moses that was full of ceremonial and civil laws that Jesus fulfilled in His death.

Further, as stated many times before, a basic premise of the “two-law” theory is that the law of Moses is written in a book or scroll in scripture (indeed, it is said that this gives us a clue as to which law is being spoken of).  The Ten Commandment law of God is always, always, written by God on tablets of stone; never in a book.

We have already seen some holes in that theory (scripturally speaking).

But let’s look up the source for the passage given above.  It comes from the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 30.  I’d like to pick it up from verse 10:

If you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

In verse 10, we see that the passage is speaking about the “book of the law”; a code phrase that unmistakeably marks it as a reference to the “law of Moses” because it is written in a book.  No Ten Commandment law of God will ever be written in a book say the two-law theorists.

Let’s go on:

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’  Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’  But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

As one can see, a clear parallel to the Romans passage in chapter 10.  The joy of knowing Christ is that He (as the law personified in one’s heart) is very near to the one calling by faith; and He (Christ) will fulfill the law in that person who by faith asks for the righteousness of God.

But, we have a problem again with this “two-law” theory.  If the context of Deuteronomy that we cited demands the law of Moses, then what is it doing in Romans as instruction for the believer; if it has passed away in Jesus’ death?

Do you see the conflict?  Romans 10 points back to an Old Covenant passage talking about an obsolete law, but wants us to use that same law in our faith walk with Christ.

No!  Enough is enough!  It is a more graceful flow if you come to understand that the Deut. passage is looking forward to the law written in our hearts as God promises in the Old Testament, fulfilled the the Spirit of Christ now within our spirits.

If one tries to make the Deut. passage isolating the Ten Commandment law of God, it looks problematic in that the reference pointed to a book of the law, not letters written on tablets of stone.  It one then tries to make the Deut. passage talk about the law of Moses, then why does that same idea show up in the law of Christ of the New Covenant?

It does work if you hold to one law of God, now finding its Amen in Christ as the lawgiver to the believer who by faith appropriates the living God and law in their spirits.

As these “cracks” accumulate in the posts concerning this “two-law” practice, I do sense that the theory itself is teetering.

Of course, I could be wrong.  But what the scripture is showing me is what I’m showing here: there is one law of God; eternal, and yet out of the jurisdiction of the Christian, which I’ll explain further as I continue to post on this subject.

I’m doing a series on the “two-law” theory; a position for some that says that there are two types of laws given within the Old Covenant: the “law of Moses”, and the “law of God.” If this position can be proved to be true, then it’s quite obvious that Christ took one law away at the cross, but another remains for the Christian to perform, or practice.  The Ten Commandments, according to this view, remains and must be kept.

If it can be shown that this belief in two laws is flawed, then it (in a way) dismantles the position of those who would have you keep the law as a Christian.  In this study, I’ve been demonstrating some problems with this theory within the scriptures.  I’m giving it my best shot, trying to give the best evidence I see for the flaw of having two laws in God’s economy with the people Israel.  I’m doing this because I believe the error is serious enough to have us believers walking “in the flesh” and producing fruit that leads to death.  I also believe it represents some who would put me in unnecessary bondage, tweaking the power of the gospel away from the simplicity of union with God in Christ.

In the book of Joshua, we have more circumstantial evidence that there is really one law as a unit, not portions of laws that make up what is termed “the Old Covenant.”

First, Joshua 22:5.

“Only be very careful to observe the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord your God and walk in all His ways and keep His commandments and hold fast to Him and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Here, the “two-law” proponents would argue that this verse speaks of “the law which the servant of the Lord commanded you“—-clearly a reference to the ‘law of Moses.’ Yet, the argument could be made that this sounds pretty close to a portion of the second commandment (…“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me…”).

Or, you could argue that most everyone agrees that the Ten Commandments are summarized in two: love God, and love your neighbor.  The verse above is speaking of “loving God.”

What am I getting at?  The two-law folks go out of their way to keep what they consider two laws separate, but here a “law which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you” implies following the summation of the Ten Commandments.

Not convinced?  Look at Joshua 23:6.  It says,

“Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left…”

Clearly again, a reference to one type of law—the law of Moses.  Only the law of Moses, say the two-law proponents, is written in a book.  The “law of God” is only, ever written by the finger of God on tablets of stone.  So, when you read of a book or scroll in connection with God’s law, it must refer to this law of Moses, according to people holding this view.

Now, verse 7:

“In order that you may not associate with these nations, these which remain among you, or mention the name of their gods, or make anyone swear by them, or serve them, or bow down to them.”

We are to keep the law of Moses written in a book to get the result that sounds very parallel to the first two Commandments of the “law of God.”  One may argue that the people are receiving the law of Moses with its ceremonial components; that is, the uncleanness of the heathen amongst the nation Israel.  But if the language is hinting strongly about two of the Ten Commandments within a law of Moses commanded, I argue for one, unified law at work—-not two distinct ones.

Still not convinced?  One more passage in Joshua for this post.

Joshua 24:25-26 say,

“So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.  And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God…”

A little problem: the law of God was not written in a book—-ever! This again according to the two-law theorists.  But here, the language suggests strongly that the “law of Moses” and the “law of God” are both written in a book.  I argue the same book, not two separate books!  As I showed above, why do we have reference to the Ten Commandments in a book written by Moses?  Based on this verse, you must either believe that the “two laws” were in “two books”; or that it’s really one book that holds the totality of all of God’s laws.

These accumulating pieces of evidences are very damaging (in my humble opinion) to this flawed theory.  It is my belief that the scripture teaches us about one law of God, not multiple laws for multiple reasons.

The next piece of evidence that casts doubt on those who say there is a “law of Moses” and a “law of God” (each different from each other, and having different purposes) is found in 1Chronicles 16, verses 37-40.  It reads:

37 So he left Asaph and his relatives there before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to minister before the ark continually, as every day’s work required;

38 and Obed-edom with his 68 relatives; Obed-edom, also the son of Jeduthum, and Hosah as gatekeepers.

39 And he left Zadok the priest and his relatives the priests before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place which was at Gibeon,

40 to offer burnt offerings tho the Lord on the altar of burnt offering continually morning and evening, even according to all that is written in the law of the Lord, which He commanded Israel.

Here, it is very much implied that “burnt offerings” is associated with the Law of the Lord, which again is a term or phrase that according to the two-law theorists can only mean the Ten Commandment law of God.  In other words, the Ten Commandments don’t talk about burnt offerings; these types of offerings would be attached to the so-called law of Moses since they represent a ceremonial practice.

So, we should have seen the term “law of Moses” here in this passage, then it would fit with a distinct law apart from the Ten Commandments.

But the passage is joining a ceremonial practice with what is theorized to be Ten Commandmant law by the use of  the term “law of the Lord.”

Conclusion: maybe the two different terms seem together because they are seen as one unit.  I believe this further points out (not directly of course) the fallacy of trying to partition God’s law into sections like ceremonial, civil, and moral; or in this case, two partitions: law of God and law of Moses.

A ceremonial practice attached to Ten Commandment law?  Not a problem if you take the law as one unit.  But a bundlel of trouble if you split God’s law into however many pieces satisfy you to “make the subject of law and grace understandable.”

Again, if this were the only scripture I could come up with for my argument, I would be on shaky footing.  But this is the eleventh piece of evidence, and there are more coming up in the next posts.  Stay tuned.

In the book of Ezra, we have another piece of evidence that shakes the foundation of the “two-law theory”.

In Chapter 7, it says that Ezra (verse 6):

According to those holding to a “law of Moses” vs. a “Law of God” belief, this citation in Ezra is obviously speaking of one type of law that Ezra was skilled in: the law of Moses.

Now, verse 10:

Of course, you can conclude a couple of things by what I just quoted from scripture.  First, that Ezra knew about two types of laws (he was skilled, and studied both the law of Moses and the law of the Lord).  Second, that these two terms mean the same, one law (two different ways of describing the same law).

You really only have two choices from what I can gather.  Either this is a great argument for being persuaded that there are two laws, and here is a case in point; or, this is proof that Ezra understood the law described in the Old Testament as one—-expressed two different ways.  But from what I cited in a previous post (Nehemiah 8), which point makes more sense?

Read Nehemiah 8, verses 1-8.  You decide if its from the same book they’re reading from or not.  But based on these verses, the weight is surely in favor of the terms “law of Moses”, “Law of the Lord”, “Law of God”, “book of the law”, and “book of the covenant” describing one and the same law.

Maybe not a clear-cut and obvious piece of evidence, but nevertheless a further crack in the foundation of the “two-law” theory.

One important thrust of the “two-law” proponents is the argument that mankind from Adam on knew about the Ten Commandments.  Thus, when we read in Genesis about God calling for the death of Abimelech (the king who takes Abraham’s wife Sarah as his wife without knowing that she belongs to another), the text says in Genesis 20, verse 3:

this reinforces the point that all creation knew about adultery, found in the Ten Commandments.

Or, in Genesis 39 when Joseph is tempted by Potiphar’s wife, he says to her

This response from Joseph implies that there was a law against adultery, and this law was from God; therefore, the Ten Commandments were in force long before they came to Moses at Mount Sinai.

What is the point with regard to the “two-law theory”?  If it can be thus demonstrated that the Ten Commandments were known from the beginning of creation, then it is much easier to conclude that the TC’s are eternal and separate from the laws given to Moses in a different time period for a different purpose.

This would be acceptable to me, except that in a few places scripture hints strongly that the Ten Commandments were made known at Mount Sinai.  For example, in Deuteronomy chapter 4, in the recounting of Israels history, Moses tells the people in verse 13, “So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.”

Here we see that the covenant with the people was the Ten Commandments.

Great, so what?

In the next chapter, it says (starting in verse 2), “The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.  The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”

What the text implies is that a covenant of the Ten Commandments was made starting at Mount Horeb that was not made with anyone before them.

It also tells us that the covenant (what we refer to as the Old Covenant) is and was the Ten Commandments!

This is damaging the those who hold to the “two-law” theory because the scripture plainly teaches (in the book of Hebrews for example) that one covenant was done away with so that a new covenant could be introduced.

Before I close, another instance in scripture of the Ten Commandments bundled with the laws Moses gave to the people, thus reinforcing the idea that two laws are really one package.

In Nehemiah chapter 9, another telling of Israel’s history is given, and verses 13 and 14 tell us that at Mount Sinai (the same as Mount Horeb for our purposes here) the holy Sabbath was made known to the people.  How was it made known if the Ten Commandments were already supposed to be known to mankind?

The cracks continue to widen in this study of the Law of God.  More next time.

P.S.  I could be in error here.  If anyone can show me that another covenant was made with Moses than the covenant of the Ten Commandments (and text plainly infers that), I’d like to hear about it.  Thanks.

In Nehemiah chapter 8, we have a problem passage for those holding to the “two-law” theory.  Those in that camp are usually insistent that the way a phrase is used demonstrates and under girds the validity that there was a “law of Moses” written on the scroll of a book, and a “law of God” that was engraved by God on tablets of stone.  Under this theory, we cannot be speaking of the phrase “book of the law” and connect the Ten Commandment law to it; nor can we see in scripture “tablets of stone” and associate the law of Moses to it.  They each go in their separate compartment.  It is anathema to connect the Ten Commandment law of God to a book or scroll because, among other things, it would destroy the theory of two laws with two different purposes and two different destinies.

In other words, whenever it speaks of the law bringing a curse, or the law bringing condemnation or death, it must mean the law of Moses, for the law of God found in the Ten Commandments could never do such things.

But here in Nehemiah 8, we have a passage that downright contradicts that premise.  It’s a passage concerning the Jews who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.  Here, they want Ezra the scribe to “bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel.” Clearly, in the mind of the “two-law” proponent, this is Moses’ law, which is a curse and was done away with at the cross of Christ.  The phrase just used demands it: the Ten Commandments could never be associated with a book, because then you could associate it elsewhere in the scriptures, where it makes it embarrassing to keep this theory afloat (for example in Galatians 3 where it connects the book of the law to a curse).

If we keep the context here in Nehemiah, we must conclude that this is the law of Moses; the passage has already described it as such.  Verse 5 of Nehemiah chapter 8 says that Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people.  Clearly again, this must be the law of Moses, right?

Here is my problem: verse 8 says, “And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

It we want to be technical (and the two-law camp is), this is a significant crack in their theory.  Simply because they read from a book, but it is described as the law of God.  This implies that the Ten Commandments were to be found in a book.  I guess the other camp could argue that by this time in history, the Ten Commandments were recorded in a book for usability, and in this way they could keep their theory alive.

Maybe.

But we just saw the text start in verse one with the term “law of Moses” and end in verse 8 with “law of God”; speaking of the same event.  Why does the text do that?  Maybe because the law was seen as one law, termed in different ways?

In any event, I find it hard to be persuaded by those who hold to the two-law theory when the scripture keeps hinting that there are not two laws but one.  Certainly, this passage does not help me to see their argument.  Quite the contrary.