Video & Outline: “Ten Commandments IS the law of Moses!” April 19, 2026

 

From Fred Lucenecio

“Yung 10 Commandments, hindi yan utos ni Moses. Ang Diyos mismo ang nag-isip, gumawa, at nagsulat sa dalawang tapyas ng bato bago ibinigay kay Moses. Kung utos lang yan ni Moses, Diyos ba siya? Eh sa unang utos pa lang, malinaw na sinabi ng Diyos: ‘Huwag kang magkakaroon ng ibang Diyos liban sa Akin.’ So ang tanong: Diyos ba si Moses?”

Itong argumento ni Fred Lucenecio is a classic example ng category error na nakabalot sa false dichotomy. Pinipilit niyang paghiwalayin yung "God’s Law" at "Moses’ Law" para lang hindi "ma-abolish" yung Ten Commandments (10C) kasama ng Mosaic system. Pero ang tanong: may basis ba talaga sa Bible itong "Two-Law" theory na 'to? 

Yung sikat na distinction sa pagitan ng "ceremonial vs. moral law" ay actually hindi biblical category. Isa lang siyang later theological construct na pinasikat ni Thomas Aquinas noong 13th century. Minana lang 'yan ng SDA movement at ginagamit nila ngayon para maging "selective"—tipong pilit nilang nire-retain yung Sabbath pero dine-dismiss naman nila yung ibang parts ng Mosaic code.

“Therefore the precepts of the Old Law are rightly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial.” Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part (Prima Secundae), Question 99, Article 4, written between 1265–1274.

Summa Theologica, I–II, Q.99, Art.4, corpus:

“Therefore the precepts of the Old Law are rightly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial.”

Aquinas explains:

• Moral precepts: grounded in natural law, universally binding (e.g., Ten Commandments).
• Ceremonial precepts: ordinances of worship, foreshadowing Christ.
• Judicial precepts: civil regulations for Israel’s governance.

The point is, hindi ginagawa ng Bible ang ganitong tripartite division (yung paghahati sa moral, ceremonial, at civil). Sa Scripture, ang Law ay iisang "package deal"—hindi mo pwedeng i-slice at i-dice 'yan para lang bumagay sa tradisyon mo. Under NCT, we see the Law as a whole unit na natupad na kay Kristo.

The Argument Refuted

SDA Claim: The 10C cannot be the "Law of Moses" because God wrote them. If we call them the Law of Moses, we are essentially saying Moses is God.

The Refutation:

Gumagamit si Fred ng Reductio ad Absurdum yung tipong ine-exaggerate niya yung argument para magmukhang nakakatawa o absurd. Ang logic niya kasi, kapag "pag-aari" mo raw yung title, automatic "divine" ka na.

Parang sinabi mo na rin na dahil tinawag mong "Lola’s Sinigang" yung ulam niyo, si Lola na ang nag-imbento ng konsepto ng maasim na sabaw at siya na ang "Goddess ng Sinigang." Medyo stretch, 'di ba?

Sa Bible, yung "Law of Moses" at "Law of the Lord" ay interchangeable. Hindi sila dalawang magkaibang folder sa isang filing cabinet; iisang document lang 'yan na tinitingnan sa dalawang anggulo: yung Author (ang Diyos) at yung Mediator (si Moses).

Eto ang resibo: Tingnan mo sa Nehemiah 8:1, 8, at 18. Sa iisang chapter lang, tinawag siyang "Book of the Law of Moses," tapos naging "Law of God," at bandang huli "Book of the Law." Iisang libro lang talaga 'yan!

"And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the LORD had commanded Israel." Nehemiah 8:1 (ESV)

"They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." Nehemiah 8:8(ESV)

"And day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read from the Book of the Law of God. They kept the feast seven days, and on the eighth day there was a solemn assembly, according to the rule." Nehemiah 8:18(ESV)

Luke 2:22-24: The New Testament does the same. It refers to the "Law of Moses" regarding purification and then quotes the "Law of the Lord" regarding the firstborn.

²² And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³ (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) ²⁴ and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24 (ESV)

QUESTION#1: 
"Sa Nehemiah 8:1, ang request ng mga tao kay Ezra, ilabas yung 'Book of the Law of Moses.' Pero pagdating sa verse 8, ang sabi, binabasa na nila yung 'Book of the Law of God.' Ngayon, kung magkaibang batas talaga 'yan, 'budol' ba si Ezra? Nag-bait-and-switch ba siya sa harap ng maraming tao? O baka naman gumagawa ka lang ng distinction na wala naman talaga sa Bible?"

QUESTION#2:

"Sa Romans 2:16, tinawag ni Paul yung Ebanghelyo na 'my gospel' o 'aking ebanghelyo.' Ngayon, kung susundin natin yung logic mo na kapag ipinangalan sa tao ang isang kautusan eh automatic na 'Diyos' na siya, ibig sabihin ba nito eh inaangkin ni Paul na siya ang Tagapagligtas? Na siya ang Author ng salvation? O baka naman pwede nating tanggapin na ang isang 'mediator' o tagapamagitan ay pwedeng madikit ang pangalan sa mensahe ng Diyos nang hindi naman siya kailangang maging Diyos?"

"On that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Romans 2:16(ESV)

Historico-Grammatical & Exegetical Analysis

Sa perspective ng New Covenant Theology (NCT), yung 10C talaga ang tinatawag na luhot habberit (Hebrew: לוּחֹת הַבְּרִית) basically, the "Tablets of the Covenant."

1. Pag-usapan natin yung exegesis ng "The Covenant": Sa Exodus 34:28, malinaw na tinawag yung 10C na "the words of the covenant." Kung gagamit tayo ng sound hermeneutics, kapag yung Old Covenant (yung Sinaitic Diathēkē) ay obsolete na (Hebrews 8:13), pati yung specific "words of that covenant" bilang isang legal code ay kailangan na ring i-set aside para bigyang-daan yung Law of Christ.

   
   "So, he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." Exodus 34:28(ESV)
   
   "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13(ESV)
   
   "God speaks of these new promises, of this new agreement, as taking the place of the old one; for the old one is out of date now and has been put aside forever." Hebrews 8:13 (TLB)
   
   

   📖 GREEK EXEGESIS: Hebrews 8:13

   ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινήν πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ (en tō legein Kainēn pepalaiōken tēn prōtēn; to de palaioumenon kai gēraskon engys aphanismou)

   Translation: "In saying 'new,' He has made the first OLD. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is READY TO DISAPPEAR."

   Key words:

   •        πεπαλαίωκεν (pepalaiōken) — perfect active indicative — has already made obsolete

   •        γηράσκον (gēraskon) — present participle — actively growing old right now

   •        ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ (engys aphanismou) — near disappearance, near vanishing

    

📖 HEBREW EXEGESIS: Deuteronomy 4:13 & 5:2-3 "And 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." Deuteronomy 4:13(ESV) Deut 4:13 — וַיַּגֵּד לָכֶם אֶת-בְּרִיתוֹ (wayyagged lakem 'et-berito) — "He declared to you HIS COVENANT" — the word is בְּרִית (berit) — covenant, treaty, binding agreement. What was this covenant? עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ('aseret hadevarim) — the Ten Words/Commandments. The Decalogue IS the covenant document itself. Deut 5:2-3 — "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers — לֹא אֶת-אֲבֹתֵינוּ כָּרַת יְהוָה אֶת-הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת (lo' 'et-'avotenu karat YHWH 'et-habberit hazzo't) — but with US, who are all of us alive here TODAY." Translation implication: Yung Sinai covenant—na ang centerpiece ay yung Ten Commandments—ay malinaw na HINDI ginawa kina Abraham, Isaac, o Jacob. Isa itong national covenant para sa ethnic Israel lang. Hindi ito ginawa para sa buong mundo, at lalong hindi ito ginawa para sa Church. Kumbaga, Sinai-specific talaga ang buong setup na 'yan. Exclusive lang siya para sa kanila nung panahon na 'yun.

DIVINE COMMAND	DIRECT DIVINE AUTHORSHIP?	FRED'S LOGIC DEMANDS...
Circumcision (Gen 17:9-14; berit olam — בְּרִית עוֹלָם, "everlasting covenant")	✅ Yes — God personally commanded it to Abraham	All Christian males must be circumcised today?
Dietary Laws (Lev 11; Deut 14) — God personally delineated clean and unclean animals	✅ Yes — Divinely authored, not by Moses alone	No bacon, no shrimp, forever? (Even SDAs don't fully follow this!)
Animal Sacrifices (Lev 1-7) — ordained by God, described in detail by divine instruction	✅ Yes — God authored the entire sacrificial system	Should we be slaughtering bulls and goats on Sunday? SDAs say no. But why not, by their own logic?

 

1. Ang "Writing" Fallacy

   Sabi ni Fred, ang daliri mismo ng Diyos ang sumulat sa 10C. True naman 'yan, no doubt! Pero, wait lang yung "mode of delivery" ba ang magsasabi kung hanggang kailan valid ang isang utos?

   Parang ganito lang 'yan: Ang Diyos din mismo ang "nag-damit" kina Adam at Eve gamit ang balat ng hayop (Genesis 3:21), pero hindi naman tayo naka-leather skins na parang caveman pag pumupunta sa church ngayon, 'di ba? Ang "finger of God" ay simbolo ng authority at divine origin ng Sinai administration hindi nito ibig sabihin na forever nang magiging legal code ang 10C para sa ating mga Christians.
   
   

   "FINGER OF GOD" IN THE OT (Exod 31:18)	"FINGER OF GOD" IN THE NT (Luke 11:20)
   Exod 31:18: בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים (be'etsba' 'Elohim) — God wrote the tablets 'with the finger of God' — emphasized as proof of divine origin	Luke 11:20: ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ (en daktylō theou) — Jesus casts out demons 'by the finger of God' — same expression, entirely different context and purpose
   If 'finger of God' = eternal binding obligation...	...then every demon Jesus cast out is permanently bound forever by divine decree. Absurd, right? That's how Fred's argument works.

2. Ang Greek Context

   Sa Greek Context naman tayo: Sa 2 Corinthians 3:7, ni-refer ni Paul yung ministry na "engraved in letters on stone" and let's be clear, yung 10C ang tinutukoy niya dyan. Pansinin mo ha, hindi niya sinabing, "Ito yung eternal moral law."

   Sa halip, ang tindi ng tawag niya dyan "ministry of death." At sabi pa niya, ito ay "being brought to an end" (o katargeitai sa Greek). Kumbaga, tapos na ang validity niyan bilang governing code para sa atin dahil dinala na tayo sa mas superior na ministry ng Espiritu.

   "Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end." 2 Corinthians 3:7(ESV)
   
   (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament)
   καταργέω fut. καταργήσω; 1aor. κατήργησα; pf. κατήργηκα; pf. pass. κατήργημαι; 1aor. pass. κατηργήθην; 1fut. pass. καταργηθήσομαι; from the basic sense cause to be idle or useless, the term always denotes a nonphysical destruction by means of a superior force coming in to replace the force previously in effect, as, e.g. light destroys darkness;
   (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament)

📖 GREEK EXEGESIS: 2 Corinthians 3:7-11

Paul writes: ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις (hē diakonia tou thanatou en grammasin entetupōmenē lithois) — "the ministry OF DEATH, in LETTERS ENGRAVED ON STONES."

Note what Paul is describing here: γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις — letters engraved on stones. This is NOT the ceremonial law. This is NOT the book of Leviticus. Paul is talking specifically about what was written on stone — the Decalogue — the very tablets Fred is defending!

And Paul calls it: διακονία τοῦ θανάτου (diakonia tou thanatou) — the ministry of DEATH — and says it is καταργουμένην (katargoumenēn) — present passive participle — "being abolished, nullified, done away with" (v.11: τὸ καταργούμενον — to katargoumenon).

QUESTION#3:

Dito sa 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, diretsahang sinabi ni Paul na yung 'ministry na nakasulat at nakaukit sa mga bato' at alam nating 10 Commandments 'yan ay 'lumilipas na' o nag-fe-fade away na para mapalitan ng ministry ng Espiritu. Ngayon, kung ipipilit mo na yung 10 Commandments ay isang 'Eternal Moral Law' na hiwalay sa Law of Moses, bakit ganoon? Bakit yung Holy Spirit mismo, sa pamamagitan ni Paul, ang nag-label sa kanila bilang 'ministryo ng kamatayan' (ministry of death) na 'tinapos na' (brought to an end) para sa mga mananampalataya?

The Analogy

Imagine a Principal writing a set of School Rules and handing them to a Teacher to give to a specific Grade 4 class.

• The students call it "Teacher Moses’ Rules."

• Does that mean the Teacher thinks he's the Principal? No.

• Does it mean the rules apply to the alumni who have already graduated? No.

• The rules are authoritative because of the Principal, but they are localized to that class through that Teacher.

📋 SUMMARY: ARGUMENT MAP & VERDICTS

SDA CLAIM	FALLACY	VERDICT
"Moses didn't write the 10 Commandments"	Straw Man	✅ Agree naman ako—at irrelevant din 'yan. Wala namang evangelical na nagke-claim na si Moses ang sumulat ng Decalogue.
"God wrote it = eternally binding"	Non Sequitur + Reductio ad Absurdum	❌ Fail 'yan. Kasi isipin mo, pati circumcision at yung mga sacrifices, ang Diyos din naman ang nag-author nun, 'di ba? Hindi porket Divine ang origin ng isang utos, eh yun na agad ang magde-determine ng scope o validity ng isang covenant.
"Finger of God = permanent seal"	Equivocation + Hasty Generalization	❌ Fail pa rin ang logic na 'yan. Kasi sa Luke 11:20, ginamit din yung mismong expression na 'yan para sa mga exorcism—isang non-permanent act. Isipin mo, hindi naman dahil "finger of God" ang nagpalayas ng mga demonyo eh magiging "eternal binding law" na yung mismong act na 'yun, 'di ba? Ang "Finger of God" ay code lang para sa divine agency o yung direktang pagkilos ng kapangyarihan ng Diyos. Hindi ito ginamit para sabihing forever na ang isang legal code. Ipinapakita lang nito kung Sino ang gumagawa, hindi kung gaano katagal dapat sundin yung utos.
"Is Moses God?" (rhetorical trap)	False Dilemma + Red Herring	❌ Fail pa rin 'yan. Bakit? Kasi may third option na hindi nila napapansin: Ang Diyos mismo ang nag-author ng covenant para sa Israel, pero yung covenant na 'yun ay natupad na at napalitan (superseded) na ni Kristo. Simple lang naman ang point dito: Hindi mo kailangang gawing "divine" si Moses para lang ma-explain kung bakit wala na tayo sa ilalim ng lumang batas. Ginamit lang ng Diyos si Moses bilang mediator para sa isang specific na panahon at layunin, pero kay Kristo na ang ating final destination.
Decalogue = eternal "moral law" separate from Mosaic law	Begging the Question + False Dichotomy	❌ail pa rin ang logic na 'to. Isipin mo, yung sikat na "ceremonial vs. moral law" tripartition—yung paghahati-hati sa Law—actually hindi biblical category 'yan. Wala kang mababasa sa Bible na nagsasabing, "Ito ay moral kaya stay, ito ay ceremonial kaya go." Human-made categories lang 'yan para subukang i-save yung Ten Commandments. Pero tingnan mo yung sinabi ni Paul sa 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. Malinaw ang resibo niya rito: mismong yung mga stone tablets (na kinatatalaan ng 10C) ang tinawag niyang "fading away." Hindi lang yung "ceremonial" practices ang lumilipas, kundi yung buong administration na nakasulat sa bato. Para kay Paul, yung glory ng lumang tipan ay natatapos na para bigyang-daan ang mas maningning at permanenteng glory ng New Covenant.

FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc 

SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03 

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph 

Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.

• GCash: 0969-514-3944

• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph

• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos