So how many of the Ten Commandments did Paul quote?
Short answer: Nine out of Ten. And he didn’t just quote them—he wielded them like a scalpel, exposing sin for what it is and reminding saints that grace isn’t a license to go morally bankrupt. He never once says, “Don’t worry, the law’s old news.” He says, “The law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good” (Rom_7:12)… but don’t try to get justified by it. That’s a dead-end.
No other gods before Me?
Oh yes. Gal_4:8 – “You were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.”
Paul drags idols with theological side-eye in 1Co_8:5 and 1Th_1:9.
Modern version? “Don’t act like Netflix or your emotions are your god.”
No graven images?
Rom_1:22–23 – Exchanging God’s glory for statues? Paul says that’s not spiritual depth, it’s regression.
And in 1Co_10:14, he’s not shy: “Flee from idolatry.”
Greek verb? φεύγετε (pheugete) – present imperative. In other words: “Run. Now.”
Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain?
Not a direct quote, but he’s not letting this slide either.
1Ti_1:20 talks about blasphemers (βλασφημοῦσιν – blasphēmeousin),
and Rom_2:24 hits the Jews hard: “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Paul says, “Don’t make God look bad. Your witness is either a window or a wall.”
Keep the Sabbath?
Nope. The only one Paul skips—and not by accident.
He even tells the Colossians not to let people guilt-trip them over Sabbath days (Col_2:16).
Sabbath is a shadow, Christ is the substance (Col_2:17).
In Rom_14:5, he throws the ball in your court: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”
This is liberty, not lawlessness.
Honor your father and mother?
Eph_6:2–3 – he quotes it word-for-word.
And reminds us it’s the first commandment with a promise.
This ain’t just about kids—Paul knew grownups need to honor, too.
You shall not murder?
Rom_13:9 – “You shall not murder” (οὐ φονεύσεις).
He’s not playing here—this is not just about homicide.
Jesus said hatred counts (Mat_5:21–22), and Paul backs it.
Life is sacred because the image of God is not a suggestion—it’s a birthright.
You shall not commit adultery?
Rom_13:9 and 1Co_6:9 both serve this straight.
The word: μοιχοὶ (moichoi) – masculine plural for “adulterers.”
Paul doesn’t water it down.
Faithfulness in marriage is non-negotiable because covenant still matters.
You shall not steal?
Rom_13:9 again.
Greek: οὐ κλέψεις (ou klepseis) – “You shall not steal.”
And Eph_4:28 goes deeper: “Let the thief no longer steal, but let him labor…”
In other words: “Stop taking. Start building.”
You shall not bear false witness?
Not quoted verbatim, but it’s all over his ethics.
Col_3:9 – “Do not lie to one another.”
Eph_4:25 – “Put away falsehood… speak the truth.”
Greek verb: ψεύδεσθε (pseudesthe) – present middle imperative, “Don’t lie. Period.”
Lying kills trust, and Paul guards truth like it’s the lungs of the Church—because it is.
You shall not covet?
Rom_7:7 – Paul gets personal: “I wouldn’t have known what sin was if the law hadn’t said, ‘You shall not covet.’”
Greek: οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις (ouk epithymēseis) – future active indicative of ἐπιθυμέω, “to crave, to lust after.”
Coveting doesn’t just break contentment—it shreds gratitude and sows bitterness.
It’s not a small sin. Paul says it lit the fuse on his realization of guilt.
Paul ain’t tossing the law out like leftovers. He’s saying, “You’re not justified by it, but don’t act like you’re above it.”
He quotes 9 of the 10, skips the Sabbath on purpose, and uses the law to drive you to Christ, not to legalism.
If you’re using grace as an excuse to sin, Paul’s side-eye is eternal: Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid (Rom_6:1–2).
Don’t play cute with commandments. Christ fulfilled them—not to erase them, but to write them on your heart.
@Rev12_11, Jesus came to abolish the outward, national form of the law, but the inner, motivational, international principles of the law are still in force:
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Mat 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Thus, the inner principles of the two commandments about adultery and murder, lust and anger, carry on, but the outward, national forms with their legal penalties are gone, because Jesus nailed them to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14).
Yes, absolutely — I have no doubt about it.
God’s commandments reflect His heart and holiness, and they still guide us today as we walk in love and obedience through Christ.
@Johann@SincereSeeker
The Ten Commandments as revealed in Exodus 20:1-7 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21 are not merely a set of moral injunctions but a covenantal framework emanating from the divine will of YHWH, the transcendent source of being.
Divine Ontology and Covenant
The commandments originate from God’s self-disclosure at Sinai, where the eternal intersects the temporal. Theologically, God’s immutability as seen in Malachi 3:6 suggests that the principles underlying the commandments rooted in God’s holy nature are not contingent upon historical or cultural flux. They reflect divine intentionality:
to order human existence toward communion with the divine and harmony within creation. The question of their applicability, is not about temporal relevance but about whether humanity remains bound to a covenantal relationship with God. In Christian theology, the new Covenant does not abrogate the Law, but fulfills its deeper intent, transforming its eternal observance into an internal disposition of love.
Distinction between Moral and Ceremonial Law
Theologians like Thomas Aquinas (one of the greatest theologians to walk on the Earth) distinguish moral law from ceremonial and judicial laws specific to ancient Israel. The moral law, grounded in natural law and the imago Dei, is universally binding because it reflects the eternal structure of human nature and divine order. For example, prohibitions against murder or idolatry align with the intrinsic dignity of human life and the exclusivity of divine worship. Even in dispensationalist frameworks, which emphasise shifts in divine economy, the moral law remians normative, as it expresses God’s unchanging character.
Eschatological Continuity
The Commandments point to an eschatological reality where human flourishing aligns with divine justice. In Revelation 21-22, the restored creation reflects the principles of the Decalogue, no false gods, no murder, no covetousness, indicating their teleological permanence. Their applicability today is thus tied to their role in orienting humanity towards this ultimate end, even as grace empowers obedience through the Holy Spirit. The Critics might argue that the Commandments are culturally conditioned, rooted in a nomadic, theocratic society. However, their universal principles like sanctity of life, truth and covenantal fidelity transcend context. Theologically, their divine origin precludes obsolescence, as God’s will is not subject to human relativism. Yet, applying them requires hermeneutical care:
The Sabbath, for instance, may be reinterpreted in light of Christ’s rest (Heb 4:9-10), but its principle of rest and worship endures. Ethical Universality and Natural Law
From a philosophical standpoint, the Commandments align with the natural law traditions (Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke), which posit that moral truths are discernible through reason as inherent to human nature. Prohibitions against murder, theft and false witness, for example, correspond to rational principles of justice and social order. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative that “act only according to that maxim, whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” echoes the Decalogue’s universalisable norms. Metaphysical Grounding
The Commandments presuppose a metaphysical framework in which moral obligations derive from a transcendent source. In a Platonic sense, they reflect the Good as an eternal form, instantiated in human conduct. For existentialists like Kierkegaard, the Commandments confront the individual with the “absolute” (God) demanding a leap of faith that transcends rational ethics. Their applicability depends on whether one accepts a theistic metaphyscis or reduces them to pragmatic social contracts as in Hobbes or Rousseau, which risks diluting their authority. Existential and Phenomenological Dimensions
The Commandments engage the human condition at an existential level, addressing desires, identity, and ultimate allegiance. Martin Heidegger’s concept of Being-toward-death illuminates their call to live authentically, in light of finitude and divine accountability. Phenomenologically, they structure human experience by delineating boundaries that foster freedom within limits, countering nihilism of unbounded choice (Sartre). Their relevance persists as long as humans grapple with meaning, community and transcendence. Postmodern philosophers like Foucault might challenge the Commandments as power structures embedded in religious discourse, arguing they suppress individual autonomy. Yet, their countercultural force like resisting idolatry in a consumerist age, offers a critque of modernity’s relativism. The Commandments’ insistence on objective moral truths challenges the fragmentation of contemporary ethics, making them philosophically potent even in secular contexts.