We have noticed that the Jews, in order to justify the non- consecration as well as their religious fanaticism, attributed to the moral law features of the citizen law. They used to mix justice and righteousness; they replaced the law that was to be written in the very heart of a man with the law speaking about a punishment.

Today many Christians seem to be doing much like this. Tryng to justify their own lack of sanctification and their fanaticism, they also try to contest the demands of the moral law, but this time through attributing to it the features of the ceremonial law.

As the ceremonial law was abolished on the Cross through the fulfillment of the plan of salvation, they assumed the doom of the moral one to be the same, namely - that the Ten commandments were abolished on the cross as well. In their opinion, there is no difference between these two laws. Of course, they are not able to persist completely in this attitude, since, yet, they do hold those of the Ten Commandments in the way that suggests the kind of fanaticism whose formal holding is a fruit of the kind of fanaticism animating them.

If it were that the law was abolished, then the reasons for that should necessarily apply to all ten commandments (You shall not kill! You shall not commit adultery! ...). Jesus would not be consequent to Himself by asking of His disciples to keep a single commandment including the one saying "Love!" in case the whole moral law were abolished by His redeeming blood.

If the blood of the New Testament had abolished all of the law, then it is senseless to re-establish the commandments abolished by that very blood. If the law were abolished, the apostle James wouldn't have had any right to say:

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?" (James 2:10-20)

But if the reasons for abolishing the law applied only to some of the commandments and not to all of them, then those reasons show that there is some difference between commandments and commandments. Again this proves that some of them are eternal while some are temporary. What is the difference between them? Which are the commandments abolished by Jesus?

Let us start with the law which was written in human hearts before the fall into sin.

Man's reasonable consciousness that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden (Genesis 2:16,17) as well as cognition that the seventh day is blessed and sanctified, (Genesis 2:1-3) determined the way and form of expressing man's love for his Creator.

The ceremonial (or the prophetic) law, speaking of the system of sacrifices, did not exist in the moment of the creation because, at the time, there was no need for redemption.

With the appearance of sin God used to give the revelation of His laws through His faithful servants (Genesis 26:3.5).

In the moment of the magnificent revelation on the mount of Sinai, God, in His own voice, pronounced the moral law (Exodus 20:1.22), while the sacrificial law was pronounced by the voice of a man (Leviticus 1:1-3).

The moral law (the Ten commandments) which was to be written in our hearts, was then written on the most durable material (Exodus 31:8, 24:12), while the ceremonial law on a spendable one (Exodus 24:7, Deuteronomy 31:24).

The first was put into the Ark of the Covenant by Moses (Exodus 40:20), and the other was put by the Levities beside the Ark (Deuteronomy. 31:26).

The moral law is eternal (Psalm 111:7.8), and the ceremonial one is for a time (Daniel 9:27, Hebrews. 7:12, Colos. 2:17).

The moral law does not save us (Galatians 5:4), but keeping it is a result of the sanctification (Romans 3:31, Jeremiah 36:26- 28). The ceremonial law was not established in order to provide the salvation through keeping it (Isaiah 1:11-18, Micah 6:6-8, Hebrews 10:1-4), but it points to the Saviour and the plan of salvation (John 1:29).

If it had been possible to change or abolish the moral law (expressed in Ten commandments), Jesus would not have had to die for our salvation, for God would simply have changed this law and the man would no longer be under its condemnation. But, in such a case God would not be just being non-consistent to His own principles. A change of the law would mean a change of His character. Sin would be legalized including its products: misery, slavery, absurdity and death.

The nature of sin is always the same, regardless of the way we call it, by its real name or as we like it. The change of the definition or its abolishment can not change the nature of sin and its fatal consequences.

When we yield to Jesus then He lives in us by His Spirit. Living in us He does not find it hard to keep His law.

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)