Commandments vs. Law

[Once4all]

I was just having a discussion about circumcision on a Jewish FB friend's page and two of the scriptures I posted, on reflection, appear to either (a) be contradictory or (b) prove that there is a distinct difference between the "Law" and the "Commandments."

Many of us, I know (myself included), do recognize that the (Ten) Commandments are often referred to separately from the entire Law of Moses. But there are those who refuse to make that separation. These two texts seem to clearly separate them:

(Galatians 5:3) And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

(1 Corinthians 7:19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

[Morris]

That's an interesting pair of verses. . They seem to touch on the same illustration that where you started from when called is not what's important, or of not undoing what was in the past. Corinthians speaks of remaining circumcised if circumcised, or remaining uncircumcised if uncircumcised, and says that this regulation is not what ultimately matters. Paul also uses the example of if you were a slave or a free man when you came to Christ; if a slave to man, then you are free in Christ, or if free to man, then a slave in Christ.

This is similar to circumcision. If previously circumcised then you were "a debtor to keep the whole law", though now in Christ you keep the whole law through Christ, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself"", "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:14 & 6). Interestingly, this is the only way in which circumcision is spoken of in Deuteronomy; circumcision of the heart.

However, if previously uncircumcised then "keeping the commandments of God is what matters" which again is "fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself"". Notice how Paul closes out the letter to the Galatians:

"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." (Galatians 6:12-15).

In other words, if you were a slave to the law (and thus were circumcised) you are now free to Christ. If you were free to the law (uncircumcised) you are now a slave to Christ). Where you began from doesn't really matter because they were both insufficient (neither one avails anything). What's important is where you are now, in Christ through faith. That is what matters.

So, back to the two possibilities of either (a) or (b), I think I agree more with the latter one, but not because of these two verses. I believe it is much more than simply being distinct, but also inherently intertwined. For example, Matthew 22:36, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" and then Matthew 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets". Commandments are "in" the law and the "whole" law hangs "on" commandments. There is at the same time a distinction and a dependency.

[Once4all]

Sheldon, awesome commentary. Thanks!

[Morris]

Thanks for the compliment, Bev!. I hope it was on topic enough.

Another facet to consider when speaking about this to your friend is that the term 'the Law' could refer to different specific things, such as a particular grouping of Old Testament books, the greater Law of God which is His inherent nature, or even a specific collection of commandments listed separate from the context of the scripture in which they are found.