Objection:
It is sometimes taught that the Bible presents two separate laws: the “law of God,” meaning the Ten Commandments, and the “law of Moses,” meaning a separate ceremonial law that was later abolished.
The objection argues that this distinction cannot be sustained from Scripture. The Bible sometimes calls what Moses wrote “the law of the LORD.” Luke 2 moves from “the law of Moses” to “the law of the Lord” while discussing the same general body of Mosaic requirements. Moral commands such as loving God and loving one’s neighbor are found in the writings of Moses. Paul continued quoting the law of Moses after the cross. James calls “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” the “royal law,” then speaks of the “whole law.” Even the argument that one law was written on stone while another was written in a book is challenged by Deuteronomy 27, where Israel was commanded to write “all the words of this law” upon stones.
So is the distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments artificial? There is a legitimate correction to make here.
The Bible does not present Moses as the author of one law competing with God as the author of another.
What Moses taught came from God. But that does not mean Scripture treats every command within the Mosaic law as identical in purpose or function. Nor does it erase the distinctive place Scripture itself gives the Ten Commandments. Both truths have to be kept together.
Short Answer
The expressions “law of Moses” and “law of God” should not be treated as technical names for two completely separate legal systems. The law of Moses was God’s law given through Moses. Scripture says this plainly:
“Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.”
— 2 Chronicles 34:14
That one verse brings the two ideas together: it is the law of the LORD, and it was given by Moses.
Scripture also gives the Ten Commandments a distinctive place within that larger body of divine instruction. God spoke them directly to Israel, wrote them Himself upon stone, identified them as the “ten commandments,” and placed those tables within the ark. Moses then received and wrote additional statutes, judgments, and instructions from the same God.
A better biblical formulation is:
God gave His law to Israel, much of it through Moses, while giving the Ten Commandments a distinctive place within that larger revelation.
Once that is clear, we can ask which commands express enduring moral principles, which belonged to Israel’s national life, which served the sanctuary and priesthood, and which Scripture identifies as shadows pointing to Christ. The Bible itself must answer those questions.
Biblical Answer
1. “The Law of Moses” Was God’s Law Given Through Moses
This point should be conceded immediately. Moses was not inventing legislation independently of God.
Nehemiah says:
“they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.”
— Nehemiah 8:1
A few verses later, the same book is described this way:
“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”
— Nehemiah 8:8
It is called “the law of Moses” because Moses was the servant through whom it was given. It is called “the law of God” because God was its source.
Second Chronicles says it even more directly:
“a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.”
— 2 Chronicles 34:14
So any argument that depends upon saying:
God gave the Ten Commandments, but Moses independently gave another law
should be abandoned. That is not what Scripture teaches.
2. Luke 2 Makes the Same Point
The objection is right to call attention to Luke 2.
Luke says:
“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished…”
— Luke 2:22
Then immediately:
“As it is written in the law of the Lord…”
— Luke 2:23
And again:
“And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord…”
— Luke 2:24
Luke moves naturally between “the law of Moses” and “the law of the Lord” while discussing Mosaic requirements concerning purification, dedication of the firstborn, and sacrifice. That means we should not argue that anything called “the law of the Lord” must refer to the Ten Commandments, while anything called “the law of Moses” must refer to ceremonies. Scripture does not use the expressions that way.
The question that remains is whether Scripture gives the Ten Commandments a distinctive place within the law God gave through Moses. For that, we can let Moses speak for himself.
3. Moses Himself Distinguishes the Ten Commandments From Additional Statutes and Judgments
Moses says:
“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.”
— Deuteronomy 4:13–14
Notice the order: God declared the Ten Commandments and wrote them upon stone; then Moses says that God commanded him to teach Israel additional statutes and judgments.
Both came from God. The distinction is in the way God gave them and the place Scripture assigns them.
Deuteronomy 5 says:
“These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.”
— Deuteronomy 5:22
Scripture does not present the Decalogue as merely ten more regulations among hundreds. God Himself sets it apart.
4. The Ten Commandments Were Written by God Himself
At Sinai we read:
“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
After Moses broke the first tables, God said:
“Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount…”
— Exodus 34:2
Deuteronomy tells us what happened next:
“And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire…”
— Deuteronomy 10:4
Moses certainly wrote other laws. Exodus says:
“And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD…”
— Exodus 24:4
Later:
“And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests…”
— Deuteronomy 31:9
Both came from God, but there is still a real difference between God speaking and writing the Ten Commandments Himself and God giving further instruction through Moses, who then wrote it. That distinction comes directly from Scripture.
5. Scripture Also Distinguishes Where the Two Records Were Placed
Moses says concerning the stone tables:
“And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made.”
— Deuteronomy 10:5
Later, when Moses finished writing the book of the law:
“Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God…”
— Deuteronomy 31:25–26
The point should not be exaggerated. The location by itself does not prove that everything on the tables is moral and everything in the book is ceremonial. We already know that the book contained moral commands.
The different treatment is still significant. The tables were placed in the ark, while the book was placed at the side of the ark as a witness.
When Solomon’s temple was dedicated, Scripture says:
“There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb.”
— 1 Kings 8:9
Once again, Scripture gives the Decalogue a distinctive place.
6. But What About Deuteronomy 27? Wasn’t the Whole Law Written on Stone?
Yes.
Israel was commanded:
“thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister:
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law…”
— Deuteronomy 27:2–3
That does not erase the distinction we have just seen. The point has never been that anything written on stone must be the Ten Commandments. That would be false.
The difference is what happened at Sinai. The Ten Commandments were written by God Himself upon stone tablets and placed inside the ark. The stones in Deuteronomy 27 were erected by Israel, covered with plaster, and inscribed by the people as a public witness when they entered the land:
“And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.”
— Deuteronomy 27:8
The material is not the point. The authorship, setting, purpose, and placement are.
So Deuteronomy 27 corrects an overly simple “stone versus book” argument, but it does not erase the unique way God gave and preserved the Decalogue.
7. The Ten Commandments Are Distinctive, but They Are Not the Entirety of God’s Moral Instruction
This is another place where the older argument can become too rigid. Moral commands appear throughout the writings of Moses.
Jesus says:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
— Matthew 22:37
He is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5.
Then:
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
— Matthew 22:39
That comes from Leviticus 19:18.
Neither statement appears verbatim in the Ten Commandments. Yet Jesus says:
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
— Matthew 22:40
These two commands summarize the principles expressed in the Decalogue: love toward God and love toward our fellow man.
So the fact that a command appears in “the law of Moses” does not make it ceremonial. And the fact that moral truth exists outside the Decalogue does not make the Decalogue indistinguishable from every other Mosaic regulation. Both truths have to remain in view.
8. Daniel 9 Does Not Present Two Competing Laws
Daniel says:
“Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.”
— Daniel 9:10
Then:
“Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law… therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God…”
— Daniel 9:11
And again:
“As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us…”
— Daniel 9:13
Daniel moves from “thy law” to “the law of Moses” without suggesting two competing authorities. The law written by Moses was God’s law.
Daniel 9 therefore should not be used to prove that “God’s law” and “Moses’ law” must always mean two completely separate legal codes. Correcting that argument, however, does not erase the distinctions Moses himself makes in Deuteronomy 4.
9. Quoting the Law of Moses After the Cross Does Not Mean Every Mosaic Requirement Remains Binding
The objection also points out, correctly, that Paul continued quoting Moses.
For example:
“For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.”
— 1 Corinthians 9:9
Paul takes Deuteronomy 25:4 and applies its principle to the support of gospel workers. That use of Moses does not mean every requirement within the Mosaic covenant remains binding in the same way.
Paul’s own words show this. Later in the same chapter he says:
“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”
— 1 Corinthians 9:20–21
Paul can draw moral instruction from Moses without describing himself simply as being “under the law.” At the same time, he is clear that he is not lawless toward God. He is “under the law to Christ.”
That gives us a more careful position than either extreme. The Old Testament remains inspired Scripture, and its moral principles continue to instruct us. Quoting Moses, however, does not automatically place the Christian under every requirement of the Sinai covenant.
10. First Corinthians 5 Shows the Same Principle
The objection points out that Paul condemns a sexual relationship forbidden in the law of Moses:
“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”
— 1 Corinthians 5:1
That conduct is condemned in Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11.
Does Paul’s use of the same moral standard mean Christians are therefore bound to every Mosaic regulation?
No.
In the very same chapter, Paul says:
“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.”
— 1 Corinthians 5:7
Then he applies unleavened-bread imagery spiritually:
“not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
— 1 Corinthians 5:8
Paul treats the sexual prohibition as a continuing moral requirement. He treats Passover and unleavened bread typologically in relation to Christ and Christian life.
The fact that both come from the Torah does not mean both function identically after Christ. That is the point.
11. What About James and the “Royal Law”?
James says:
“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.”
— James 2:8
That quotation comes from Leviticus 19:18.
Then James says:
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
— James 2:10
It is argued from this that the law must be treated as an indivisible whole: if Leviticus 19 remains, then the entire Mosaic law remains.
But keep reading.
James explains the law he has in view:
“For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.”
— James 2:11
Then:
“So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”
— James 2:12
James brings together Leviticus 19 and commandments from the Decalogue because both express our moral obligation toward our neighbor. His point in verse 10 is not that every sacrifice, purification law, priestly regulation, and national statute must remain binding forever because one moral command remains.
His point is that we cannot pick and choose among God’s moral requirements while claiming obedience to the Lawgiver. The context is partiality, love of neighbor, adultery, murder, mercy, and judgment. The context shows the kind of transgression James is addressing.
12. Paul Uses “The Whole Law” to Warn Against Taking on the Mosaic Covenant as a Package
Galatians gives us an important comparison.
Paul says:
“For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”
— Galatians 5:3
Here Paul does use an all-or-nothing argument. If someone accepts circumcision as a covenant requirement, he takes on the obligation of the whole law.
Paul is warning the Galatians against doing that.
So “the law is a whole” cannot simply mean:
Every command found anywhere in Moses continues unchanged for Christians.
Paul uses the unity of the Mosaic covenant in precisely the opposite direction: if you take circumcision upon yourself as a covenant obligation, you are taking on the whole package.
That is very different from recognizing that the Old Testament continues to teach moral truth.
13. The Sabbath Is in the Law of Moses—and It Is Still Distinctive
There is no reason to deny that the Sabbath is found in the law of Moses. Of course it is. Moses records the fourth commandment and also records Sabbath regulations elsewhere in the Torah.
The Sabbath, however, does not begin with the later sanctuary legislation.
Genesis says:
“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”
— Genesis 2:3
Before Sinai, Israel was already being tested concerning the seventh day in Exodus 16.
Then the Sabbath appears within the Ten Commandments, where its reason is explicitly grounded in creation:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day.”
— Exodus 20:11
So saying:
“The Sabbath appears in the law of Moses”
does not answer the question of its nature or duration.
Neither does saying:
“The feasts appear in the law of Moses.”
Each institution still has to be examined according to its origin, the purpose Scripture gives it, its relationship to the covenant, whether Scripture identifies it as a shadow, and the way the New Testament treats it after Christ. Those are the questions that matter.
14. The Weekly Sabbath and the Feast Sabbaths Should Not Simply Be Treated as the Same Institution
The principles we have already established become important here.
The weekly seventh-day Sabbath and the annual feast days both appear in the law given through Moses. That fact alone does not make them the same kind of institution.
The weekly Sabbath begins before Sinai, before the sanctuary, and before there was an Israelite nation. At creation:
“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”
— Genesis 2:3
When the Sabbath is later placed within the Ten Commandments, its stated basis is still creation:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
— Exodus 20:11
The annual feasts are introduced within Israel’s covenant life and are connected with appointed seasons, sacrifices, sanctuary worship, agricultural cycles, and events in Israel’s redemptive history.
Leviticus 23 brings the weekly Sabbath and the annual feasts into the same chapter, but it does not treat them as though they are simply interchangeable. After describing the annual appointments, the chapter says:
“These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations…”
“Beside the sabbaths of the LORD…”
— Leviticus 23:37–38
The weekly Sabbath is therefore part of God’s sacred calendar, while Scripture still distinguishes it from the annual feast observances.
Numbers 28–29 gives us another example. Special sacrifices were offered on the weekly Sabbath, on the new moons, and during the annual feasts. These observances could be grouped together because they all had a place in Israel’s worship, but grouping them together did not make them identical in origin or purpose.
That matters because the fact that the weekly Sabbath and the feast days are both found in the law of Moses does not mean that whatever happens to one must happen to the other. Different commands within the same law can have different origins, purposes, and functions.
The weekly Sabbath must therefore be examined according to what Scripture says about the weekly Sabbath, and the feast days according to what Scripture says about the feast days. Their appearance together does not prove that they began together, served the same purpose, or must have the same duration.
That question will be taken up more fully when we examine whether the annual feasts remain binding under the New Covenant.
15. The Ten Commandments Are the Covenant Words, but They Are Not the Entire Sinai Covenant Administration
One more distinction is necessary.
Deuteronomy says:
“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments…”
— Deuteronomy 4:13
That gives the Decalogue a central place in the covenant.
But Exodus also speaks of:
“the book of the covenant”
— Exodus 24:7
That book included additional laws God had given Israel.
We should therefore avoid saying that the Ten Commandments were the entire Sinai covenant while everything else was completely separate from it. Scripture is more careful.
The Ten Commandments stand at the heart of the covenant as the words God Himself spoke and wrote, while the covenant made with Israel also included additional statutes, judgments, sacrifices, priestly arrangements, and national provisions.
That becomes especially important when we come to the New Covenant. God plainly has a moral law under the New Covenant. The question is what happens to the various elements of the Sinai covenant when Christ establishes the new.
Hebrews will have much to say about that.
Key Distinctions
Source and Mediator Are Not the Same Thing
The law of Moses came from God. “Moses” identifies the servant through whom much of the law was given, not a rival lawgiver competing with God.
Overlapping Names Do Not Eliminate Real Distinctions
“Law of Moses” and “law of the Lord” can refer to the same Mosaic legislation without erasing the special way Scripture presents the Ten Commandments within it.
Distinct Does Not Mean Unrelated
The Decalogue is distinct within the Torah without being detached from it.
Moral Truth Is Not Confined to the Ten Commandments
Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 make that clear. This is why it is too simplistic to say that everything outside the Decalogue is ceremonial.
Continued Use of Moses Does Not Mean Continued Obligation to the Entire Mosaic Covenant
The apostles continue quoting Moses because Moses is Scripture, while also distinguishing how different Mosaic commands function in light of Christ.
Common Misunderstandings
“If the Law of Moses Is the Law of God, Then There Cannot Be Any Distinction”
All of it came from God, yet God Himself distinguished the Ten Commandments in how He spoke them, wrote them, and preserved them. The source is the same; the function and presentation are not necessarily the same.
“If Moral Commands Appear in Moses, Then the Ten Commandments Cannot Be a Distinct Moral Law”
The Ten Commandments do not contain every possible expression or application of morality. Moral principles are applied and expanded throughout Scripture.
Jesus Himself summarized the law using two commands outside the Decalogue. That does not erase the distinctive place of the Decalogue.
“Deuteronomy 27 Proves the Stone/Book Distinction Is False”
It proves that writing on stone by itself does not make something the Decalogue. The real distinction is that God Himself spoke and wrote the Ten Commandments upon the covenant tablets and placed them inside the ark.
The Deuteronomy 27 stones were a later public copy written by Israel upon plastered stones. Those are not the same event.
“James Says ‘The Whole Law,’ So It Is All or Nothing”
James should be read in context. He is speaking about partiality, love of neighbor, adultery, murder, mercy, and the law of liberty.
Paul does speak of taking on “the whole law” in Galatians 5:3, but he uses that point to warn those accepting circumcision as a covenant requirement. Neither passage proves that every Mosaic ritual remains binding upon Christians.
“Paul Quoted Moses After the Cross, So the Mosaic Law Must Still Be Binding as a Whole”
Paul uses Moses as inspired Scripture. He also says that he is not simply “under the law,” while making clear that he is not lawless toward God but is “under the law to Christ.”
Quoting Moses and remaining under every provision of the Sinai covenant are not the same thing.
Summary
The Bible does not support the idea of two competing laws, one from God and another from Moses. The law of Moses was the law of God given through Moses. Luke 2, Nehemiah 8, and 2 Chronicles 34 make that plain.
So if “God’s law” and “Moses’ law” have been presented as though one were divine while the other were merely human, that formulation should be corrected. The opposite conclusion goes too far as well.
Scripture gives the Ten Commandments a distinctive place by the way God delivered and preserved them: He spoke them directly, wrote them upon the covenant tablets, identified them specifically as the Ten Commandments, and placed those tables within the ark. Moses then received and wrote additional statutes, judgments, and instructions from the same God.
Those additional laws were not all ceremonial. Some contain enduring moral instruction, some governed Israel’s national life, some regulated the sanctuary and priesthood, and others functioned as figures and shadows pointing forward to Christ.
The same principle applies when we compare the weekly Sabbath with the annual feast days. Both appear within the law given through Moses, but that does not make them identical. The weekly Sabbath is rooted in creation and placed within the Decalogue, while the annual feasts arise within Israel’s covenant worship and are tied to appointed seasons, sacrifices, and redemptive events. Scripture itself can place them together while still distinguishing between them.
The best biblical conclusion, then, is this:
All of Scripture’s law comes from God, but Scripture itself distinguishes among those laws according to the way they were given, the purpose they served, and the way they relate to Christ and the covenants.
That prepares us for the final question in this series:
Part 4 — Are the Feasts Still Binding Under the New Covenant?
Once we stop arguing from labels alone, the feast question has to be settled where it belongs: by examining what Scripture says about the feasts themselves, the New Covenant, Israel, the priesthood, the sanctuary, and the fulfillment accomplished in Christ.
