CybeRanger alerted me to a blog post by Rev Kong Hee entitled "Do We Need The 10 Commandments?", and I posted a comment there and got a reply from Roy Jr whom I in turn replied. I shall share the exchange with you here but first let me say that I am thankful that Rev Kong Hee has confirmed something which I know deep in my heart but of which I did not have proof.
In my article "Questionable 'Questionable Teachings' #2-Part 1" which addresses the QT of "Being Taught The 10 Commandments Is Like Taking Poison!", I said the following:
I agree with Rev Kong Hee that the Law is not just the 10 commandments and consists of three portions which we have conveniently categorized as civil,ceremonial and moral BUT I disagree that these portions can be individually separated and replaced. There is only ONE LAW and ONE COVENANT and either the WHOLE LAW applies or it doesn't. We, mere man, are the ones who divided the Law into 3 portions, not God.
Rev Kong Hee has kindly, perhaps unwittingly, confirmed for me that it is "We, mere man, are the ones who divided the Law into 3 portions, not God." In his post, Rev Kong Hee wrote the following:
The law consists of various parts. The most important portion is the Ten Commandments, also known as the “moral law,” as they express the morality, values and character of God. The commandments were engraved on stone tablets and are recorded in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21. Because there are ten of them, they are also commonly called the “Decalogue” (Gr. dekalogos), which means the “ten words” or “ten pronouncements.”
Apart from these commandments, God gave Moses further instructions that governed the ethics and rituals of the Israelites. Augustine (354-430) divided the law of Moses into two parts: the moral and symbolical. For example, “you shall not covet” is a moral law; “you shall circumcise every male on the eighth day” is a symbolical law. To Augustine and the early Church fathers, the moral law of the Ten Commandments is still binding while the symbolical law is no longer binding. Besides circumcision and the sacrifices, Augustine categorizes as symbolical law the tabernacle regulations, the dietary laws, the feasts, etc. Because they are non-binding, he interprets the rules against blended clothing (wool and linen) and the mixed yoke (ox and ass) allegorically.
As always, Scripture must be compared with Scripture to avoid misinterpretation. It is clear that Jesus brought to an end the observance of the symbolical laws by His redemptive accomplishment. The entire sacrificial system and ceremonial washings were “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Heb. 9:10). These symbolical or topological law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Heb. 10:1), its regulations were set aside once the realities had arrived in Christ (Heb. 7:18-19, 22). Jesus ushered in the new order that made the ceremonial rituals redundant: “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13).
This moral/symbolical distinction eventually gave way to the more precise three-part analysis first worked out in detail by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas says that the law of Moses is made up of moral, ceremonial and civil precepts. From the days of Aquinas to the Reformation, to our time, the Church has been consistent in teaching that only the moral law is still binding, all ceremonial and civil laws are no longer applicable to believers.
(emphasis in bold mine)
I shall now share my exchange with Roy Jr below and welcome comments from all of you:
Me:
I am not a theologian but I am just wondering, did any of those eleven historical church documents listed in the article explain how Rom 6:14 - “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” - fits in with obeying the 10 commandments?
Roy Jr:
@ Stanley Wong
quote: “Rom 6:14 - “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” - fits in with obeying the 10 commandments?”
You are completely taking this verse out of its intended context. Paul is speaking in this chapter to antinomians, licentious people who consider that the law is not necessary. Let’s read a little bit of this chapter.
Romans 6:1-2 “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? Certainly not! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”
Here, Paul candidly mentions that sinning is simply NOT one of the things God wants us to do. What is sinning, breaking a law of the Ten Commandments!
Romans 6:18″ You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”
The above verse proceeds the verse you attempted to use to defend your argument. In the original context, to be a “slave to righteousness” is to be an individual that adheres to the laws that God has set in one’s life. The paradox of being a slave to righteousness, is that you are also liberated from your slavery to sin. God’s grace does, indeed, exist, and is indeed great, however, without following the laws of our God, it is impossible to be a “slave of righteousness” as Paul succinctly calls us to become.
ME:
Dear Roy Jr,
You said “In the original context, to be a “slave to righteousness” is to be an individual that adheres to the laws that God has set in one’s life.”
To REALLY put a “slave to righteousness” in the PROPER CONTEXT, let’s take a look at what Paul says about righteousness in the book of Romans:
Romans 1:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from FAITH to FAITH; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” (emphasis in caps mine)
Romans 3:21-22 (NKJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through FAITH in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. (emphasis in caps mine)
Romans 4:8-9 (NKJV)
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that FAITH was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. (emphasis in caps mine)
Romans 9:30-31 (NKJV)
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. (emphasis in caps mine)
It is obvious from the above verses in Romans that Paul was preaching about a righteousness that is by faith and NOT by adhering “to the laws that God has set in one’s life”.
Therefore Paul was saying in Rom 6:18 that we have become slaves to “righteousness of faith”, and no longer need to pursue “the law of righteousness”, which explains why Paul said in Rom 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are NOT UNDER LAW but under grace.” (emphasis in caps mine)
By the way, what about the question of Paul calling the 10 commandments “the ministry of death”?

Did those historical documents explain why the 10 commandments, which were “written and engraved on stones”, were called “the ministry of death” by Paul in 2 Cor 3:7?