There is a problem with the idea that the ten words given to covenant Israel, are binding on the Gentile nations.
The question I asked AI.
Where did the idea that the law of Mt Sinai become divided into the ten commandments and and the ceremonial law? The Catholic Church states the ten are binding on Christians. The Reformers and Protestants believe the law is divided into commandments and ceremonial. A further division in the law is moral and ceremonial. I see the law as only given to Israel and not to the Gentiles. The ceremonial law contains moral law.
AI replied.
Below is a concise, historically grounded explanation of
where the idea of dividing the Law of Moses arose, how it developed in
Judaism, the early Church, the Catholic tradition, and the Protestant Reformers, and how to situate your own view within those trajectories.
1. Judaism did not divide the Law into “moral vs. ceremonial”
In ancient Judaism, the Torah was
one unified covenant, given specifically to Israel.
Jewish sources treat the 613 commandments as
a single, indivisible law, even though rabbinic writers do sometimes distinguish between:
- mishpatim (judgments, more rational moral commands)
- chukkim (statutes, ritual or seemingly irrational)
But this is
not the later Christian “moral vs. ceremonial” distinction and
never meant “the moral laws apply forever and the ceremonial do not.”
For Jews, the
whole Torah is covenantal and binding upon Israel.
So the idea of a hard
division in the law
did not come from Judaism.
2. Early Christians did not use the later Protestant categories
New Testament
The NT repeatedly says the Mosaic Law as a covenant was binding on Israel, not the nations (Acts 15; Gal 3–4; Rom 6–7; Eph 2).
The apostles never break the Law into “moral vs ceremonial.” Instead, they contrast:
- the Law of Moses
- the Law of Christ / Law of the Spirit
Jesus
quotes the Ten Commandments but the NT does not teach that the Ten remain as a separate binding code while the rest is abolished.
Paul explicitly includes the
Ten Commandments in what he calls “the ministry of death carved in letters on stone” (2 Cor 3:7).
Early Church Fathers
The Fathers generally saw:
- the Law of Moses as fulfilled in Christ,
- moral teachings reaffirmed by Christ as binding,
- Jewish rituals as completed and ended.
They
did not formalize the later Protestant “moral / ceremonial / civil” categories.
The “Ten Commandments vs. ceremonial law” distinction began slowly to appear but
was not systematic.
3. Augustine is the earliest major figure to separate the Ten Commandments
St. Augustine (4th–5th century) is the first major theologian to:
- Treat the Decalogue as having a unique, permanent moral character
- Treat the rest of the Mosaic legislation as temporary, typological, and fulfilled.
This is the seed of the
later Catholic and Protestant distinction, though not yet fully developed.
4. Medieval Catholic Theology solidified the distinction
Medieval Scholastics (Aquinas especially) formalized the categorization:
Thomas Aquinas divided the Law into:
- Moral law – universal, grounded in natural law; includes the Ten Commandments.
- Ceremonial law – rituals, sacrifices, clean/unclean; fulfilled and abolished in Christ.
- Judicial (civil) law – Israel’s civil statutes; expired with the nation of Israel.
This is the classic
triple division of the law, adopted officially in Catholic theology.
Thus, the Catholic view you mention (the Ten Commandments remain binding) comes from
Aquinas' moral-law category, not from Reformers.
5. The Reformers inherited Aquinas’ distinctions
Luther and Calvin accepted the Catholic threefold division almost wholesale.
The Reformers differed mainly in
how the Ten Commandments apply, not
whether they remain.
Luther:
- Affirmed the moral law (incl. the Ten) still applies.
- Ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ.
- Judicial law expired.
Calvin:
- Same tripartite division.
- Strong emphasis on the abiding validity of the Decalogue.
So the popular Protestant idea that:
“The moral law (Ten Commandments) remains, the ceremonial law was abolished”
is essentially Christianized Thomism rather than something found in the NT itself.
6. Your position—“The law was only for Israel; ceremonial contains moral”—has strong biblical basis
Your view aligns closely with a
New Covenant reading:
- The Law of Moses was a covenant with Israel alone (Deut 5:3; Ps 147:19–20).
- Gentiles were never under that covenant (Rom 2:14; Eph 2:11–12).
- The Law is a single covenant unit (Gal 5:3).
- The Ten Commandments are part of that unit (Ex 34:28).
- The NT treats the entire law, including the stone tablets, as a ministry that has faded (2 Cor 3:7–11).
This view is held by many modern biblical scholars and by most “New Covenant Theology” frameworks.
You’re also correct that:
- The ceremonial law contains moral obligations (e.g., the sacrificial system requiring repentance, care for the poor, love of neighbor embedded in festivals and rituals).
Thus dividing the law into moral vs ceremonial is conceptually messy.
7. Summary of where the idea came from
Not Judaism.
Not the early NT church.
Not the apostles.
Instead:
Era Development Augustine (4th–5th c.)First major distinction between the Decalogue and the rest
Aquinas (13th c.)Codified the moral / ceremonial / judicial division
Reformers (16th c.)Adopted Aquinas’ categories and popularized them
So the idea that:
“The Ten Commandments are binding but the ceremonial law is not”
originates mainly from
Augustine → Aquinas → Reformers, not from Moses, the apostles, or the early Church.
