Part II: Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

 Part III: The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. Owen viewed the Decalogue as having more than one function. He did not view it as Old Covenant law alone. His understanding of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue can be seen clearly in several places of his Hebrews commentary. For instance, commenting on Heb. 9:5 (referenced above), he says, “The law [the Decalogue], as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.”[1] Later he claims that “what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.”[2] Notice that he views the Decalogue as functioning several ways; first, “as unto the substance of it, …the only law of creation”; second, “the rule of the first covenant of works”; third, that which “was in the tables of stone”; fourth, “a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally”; and fifth, that “which is returned [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”

Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19 (also referenced previously), he says:

Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[3]

Here he views the Decalogue as a unit “so far as it was compacted with the other [ceremonial law] into one body of precepts for the same end.” In other words, he is considering the Decalogue not absolutely or in itself (see below), but relatively or as it was ‘compacted’ with the ceremonial law under the Old Covenant.

While discussing the causes of the Sabbath and arguing for the morality and immutability of the essence of the fourth commandment, he makes this statement concerning the nature and function of the Decalogue under the Old Covenant:

The nature of the decalogue, and the distinction of its precepts from all commands, ceremonial or political, comes now under consideration. The whole decalogue, I acknowledge, as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation, as peculiarly under the rule of God. It had a place also in that economy or dispensation of the covenant which that church was then brought under; wherein, by God’s dealing with them and instructing of them, they were taught to look out after a further and greater good in the promise than they were yet come to the enjoyment of. Hence the Decalogue itself, in that dispensation of it, was a schoolmaster unto Christ.[4]

First, Owen views the Decalogue as the core of the law of the Old Covenant. He says, “The whole decalogue, …as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation.” Second, he makes the point that the Decalogue was “made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government” of Israel under the Old Covenant. This is something that it was not until that time. He viewed it as already in existence, though in a different form and revealed in a different manner, but now being “made” something it was not. It was now “made” to fit the redemptive-historical conditions of the Old Covenant. This seems even more likely, since he goes on to say, “Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan.”[5] Third, he also viewed it as “a schoolmaster unto Christ.”

Next, speaking of the Decalogue “in itself, and materially,” he says:

But in itself, and materially considered, it was wholly, and in all the preceptive parts of it, absolutely moral. Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan; but these especial applications of it unto them change not the nature of its commands or precepts, which are all moral, and, as far as they are esteemed to belong to the Decalogue, are unquestionably acknowledged so to be.[6]

Notice that he has transitioned from viewing the Decalogue in its Old Covenant functions to viewing the Decalogue in itself. We might say that he was considering it relatively speaking, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, but now he is considering it absolutely (or “in itself”), as it functions transcovenantally. First, he distinguishes between the Decalogue “as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their [Old Covenant Israel’s] nation” and “in itself.” Hence, “in itself” and “in all the preceptive parts of it,” the Decalogue is “absolutely moral.” Second, he says that the Decalogue under the Old Covenant had redemptive-historical “prefaces, enlargements, or additions” peculiar to the conditions in which they [the church in the land of Canaan] lived. These are positive, covenantal appendages added to the Decalogue and applicable to Old Covenant Israel in the land of Canaan.

From these statements, the following observations are relevant to our purpose. First, Owen viewed the Decalogue both relatively and absolutely, depending on its function in redemptive history. Second, he viewed the Decalogue (i.e., that which “was in tables of stone… as unto the substance of it”) functioning various ways and in all of the epochs of redemptive history. He saw it functioning in the Garden of Eden. He regarded it as the law of creation, the rule of the Adamic covenant of works, and the law that was written on Adam’s heart. He then saw it functioning in a special manner under the Old Covenant. He also saw it functioning under the New Covenant. He taught that it was this same law, as unto its substance, “which is returned thither [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”[7] He viewed it as the rule of life for all men,[8] because “in all the preceptive parts of it” it is “absolutely moral.” And as stated earlier, he viewed it as related to the active and passive obedience of Christ and hence, connected and essential to the doctrine of justification.[9]

2. John Calvin. In many places Calvin clearly identified the Decalogue as a special form of the Natural Law.[10] For instance, Calvin said, “Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables.”[11] Calvin “saw the revealed law as given in the ten commandments as a specially accommodated restatement of the law of nature for the Jews.”[12] He clearly held that by nature Gentiles without special revelation possessed the general knowledge of the Decalogue, though that knowledge is obscured by sin.[13] Hesselink says, “There is no denying that for Calvin the content of the moral law is essentially the same as that inscribed on the hearts of humans ‘by nature’.”[14] Wendel says, “One can even say that, for Calvin, the Decalogue is only a special application of the natural law which God came to attest and confirm.”[15] 

Calvin’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue is no secret. It is also evidenced by the fact that he clearly upheld the perpetuity of both tables of the law for New Covenant believers.[16] For instance, he says:

The whole law is contained under two heads. Yet our God, to remove all possibility of excuse, willed to set forth more fully and clearly by the Ten Commandments everything connected with the honor, fear, and love of him, and everything pertaining to the love toward men, which he for his own sake enjoins upon us.[17]

Calvin clearly held that the Decalogue, all Ten Commandments, functioned as the basic, fundamental law of the Bible and as a universal ethical canon for all men based on creation. He also believed in the basic centrality of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant. Similar to Owen, Calvin holds to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

3. Zacharias Ursinus. As stated above, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the question “To What Extent Has Christ Abrogated The Law, And To What Extent Is It Still In Force,” Ursinus says, “The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not.”[18] He continues, “But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[19] Ursinus, like Owen and Calvin, holds to a multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

4. Francis Turretin. While discussing the use of the Moral Law, Turretin says:

A twofold use of the law may be laid down—absolute and relative. The former regards the law in itself; the latter regards the law in relation to the various states of man. The absolute (which obtains in every state of man) is that it may be a unique, full and certain rule of things to be done and avoided by each of us as well towards God as his neighbor. Thus there is no work truly and properly good and acceptable to God which does not agree with the law and is not prescribed by it; and whatsoever is not commanded nor forbidden by it is to be considered in its own nature indifferent and left to the freedom of man, unless this freedom has been restricted by some positive law.[20]

In Turretin, the Moral Law or Decalogue is the inscripturated form of the Natural Law.[21] Notice that Turretin views the Moral Law absolutely and relatively. Viewing it absolutely, it is applicable “in every state of man.” How does he view the Moral Law relatively? He continues:

The relative use is manifold according to the different states of man. (1) In the instituted state of innocence, it was a contract of a covenant of works entered into with man and the means of obtaining life and happiness according to the promise added to the law…

  (2) In the destitute state of sin, the use of the law cannot be “justification” because it was weak in the flesh. …Still there is a threefold use of the law [in man’s destitute state of sin]. (a) For conviction… (b) For restraint… (c) For condemnation…

  (3) In the restored state of grace, it has a varied use with respect to the elect, both before and after their conversions. Antecedently, it serves (a) to convince and humble man… (b) To lead men to Christ…

  It not only antecedently prepares the elect man for Christ, but consequently also directs him already renewed through Christ in the ways of the Lord; serving him as a standard and rule of the most perfect life…[22]

Relatively, or considering the law in its relation ‘to the different states of man,’ the law has various functions as it pertains to the lost and the saved throughout all ages. In other words, there is a multi-functional utility to the law. Its utility transcends covenantal bounds. Due to the nature of the Decalogue, it cannot be eliminated from any era of redemptive history, which includes the New Covenant era. Turretin’s view is that of Owen, Calvin, and Ursinus.

5. Protestant Scholasticism. Richard Muller defines Moral Law in Protestant scholastic thought as follows:

[S]pecifically and predominantly, the Decalogus, or Ten Commandments; also called the lex Mosaica …, as distinct from the lex ceremonialis …and the lex civilis, or civil law. The lex moralis, which is primarily intended to regulate morals, is known to the synderesis [the innate habit of understanding basic principles of moral law] and is the basis of the acts of conscientia [conscience–the application of the innate habit above]. In substance, the lex moralis is identical with the lex naturalis …but, unlike the natural law, it is given by revelation in a form which is clearer and fuller than that otherwise known to the reason.[23]

While defining the Mosaic Law, he says:

…the moral law or lex moralis (q.v.) given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. In contrast to the moral law known in an obscure way to all rational creatures, the lex Mosaica is the clear, complete, and perfect rule of human conduct. The Protestant scholastics argue its completeness and perfection from its fulfillment, without addition, by Christ. Since the law does promise life in return for obedience, the Reformed argue that in one sense it holds forth the abrogated foedus operum (q.v.), or covenant of works, if only as the unattainable promise of the righteous God and the now humanly unattainable requirement for salvation apart from grace. In addition, the Reformed can argue that Christ’s perfect obedience did fulfill the covenant of works and render Christ capable of replacing Adam as federal head of humanity. Primarily, however, the Reformed view the law as belonging to the Old Testament dispensatio (q.v.) of the foedus gratiae (q.v.), or covenant of grace. It is the norm of obedience given to God’s faithful people to be followed by them with the help of grace. As a norm of obedience belonging to the foedus gratiae, the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament. Lutheran orthodoxy, which does not follow the covenant schema typical of the Reformed, also views the law as the perfect standard of righteousness and the absolute norm of morals, which requires conformity both in outward conduct and inward obedience of mind, will, and affections.[24]

These definitions of key theological terms and concepts used by Protestant Scholasticism amply display that it held to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

Owen’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue comports with his view of abrogation (see below), Jeremiah 31:33, 2 Co. 3:3, and Matthew 5:17, and also with many of his theological contemporaries. There is a way to understand Owen on abrogation which both eliminates the Decalogue from the New Covenant and preserves it (see below). Relatively speaking, as the Decalogue functioned under the Old Covenant, it has been abrogated. Absolutely speaking, as the Decalogue represents and summarily comprehends the Moral Law as to its substance, it has not and cannot be abrogated. It has more than one function.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[3] Owen, Works,XXI:458.

[4] Owen, Works, XVIII:365, 66.

[5] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.

[6] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.

[7] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[8] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[9] Owen, Works, XXII:89, 90. “But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator.”

[10] Some of the following material comes from Barcellos, IDOTD, 92, 93, and is used with permission from Founders Press.

[11] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), II.viii.1.

[12] I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992), 51.

[13] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.1.

[14] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 10.

[15] Francois Wendel, Calvin, Origins and Developments of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1997), 206.

[16] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.13.

[17] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.12.

[18] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.

[19] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[20] Turretin, Institutes, II:137.

[21] Turretin, Institutes, II:6, 7.

[22] Turretin, Institutes, II:138-140.

[23] Muller, Dictionary, 173-74.

[24] Muller, Dictionary, 174.

I just received the proof copy of RBTR VI:2. The new cover realy looks nice and I think the contents are worth reading.

Articles include:

1. JUDGMENT BEGINS AT THE HOUSE OF GOD: A THEOLOGY OF MALACHI, Robert Gonzales Jr.
2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DECALOGUE, THE BEATITUDES, AND THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT AS ETHICAL STANDARDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, John D. Reuther
3. ANALYSIS OF GEERHARDUS VOS’ NATURE AND METHOD
OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, Richard C. Barcellos
4. PHILOSOPHY, REASON, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE THOUGHT OF MARTIN LUTHER, James E. Dolezal
5. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TIM KELLER’S
THE REASON FOR GOD, Sam Waldron

Book reviews include:

1. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology, T. Desmond Alexander (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008), 208pp, reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos
2. John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11: 49 Sermons Delivered in Geneva between 4 September 1559 and 23 January 1560. Translated By Rob Roy McGregor. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009. 897 pp.), reviewed by David G. Graves
3. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, J. V. Fesko (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008, 461pages), reviewed by James P. Butler

Go here for subscription details.

Here’s something Dr. Waldron asserts and discusses in the interview, “I believe Evangelicals need to be re-taught the doctrine of the Trinity.”

If you haven’t subscribed to our audio podcast already, subscribe HERE to get the audio downloads or you can watch the video version of this podcast below. We hope to post an new episode very Monday.

b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible: That the Hebrew Bible comprised the inspired Scriptures of the first century Jews seems obvious. The Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ was comprised of a three-fold division: I. The Law (Torah) – 5 books; II. The Prophets (Nebiim) – 8 books; and III. The Writings (Ketubim) – 11 books.[1] This simple three-fold division of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, probably compiled by the second century B.C., was recognized by Jesus in Luke 24:44, “…These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Jesus’ Hebrew audience would have understood him to be referring to the Hebrew Bible and its three-fold division.[2] In the words of Shaw:  

[W]e know that the Jews arranged their sacred books into three classes, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography, or holy writings. …The Psalms are here [Lk. 24:44] put for the Hagiography, probably because they were the principal book, or occupied the first place in that division.[3]

Jesus ratified the contents of the Hebrew Bible as Holy Scripture. Reymond agrees with Shaw, when he says:

In New Testament times Jesus Christ–the second Person of the Godhead present with his church as its ultimate “canon”–personally validated for his church the particular Old Testament canon of first-century Palestinian Judaism, namely, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon (see his allusion to the tripartite canon of Palestinian Judaism in Lk. 24:44), which corresponds to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament …[4]

This three-fold division is known as the Tanak, an acronym for

…the Torah, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; the Nevi’im (the Prophets), comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve; and the Ketuvim (the Writings), composed of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.[5]

It is of interest to note Luke 24:45-47.

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures [in context this refers to the Tanak], and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem…”

The Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus is what he explained to his disciples. According to Jesus, the sufferings and third-day resurrection of the Messiah are contained in the Tanak. Jesus also claims that the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations, starting at Jerusalem, is taught in the Tanak.

There has been much recent study on the canonical structure and theology of the Hebrew Bible. Such study has caused John H. Sailhamer to say, “…the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.”[6] In other words, the Hebrew Bible comments upon what it reveals and is assumed to be a single, coherent book. When the Old Testament (and the New Testament) comments upon itself, this is called inter-biblical or inter-textual interpretation/exegesis. The PDBS defines inner-biblical exegesis as:

An approach to the text that seeks to address the re-interpretation and reapplication of earlier biblical texts by later texts. …Direct quotations are the most obvious application of this method, but inner-biblical exegesis looks at glosses in a text, the arrangement of material in its present form, and the use of words, themes and tradtions in texts. For example, a scholar studying inner-biblical exegesis might examine the relationship of Isaiah 2:2-4 to Joel 3:10 and Micah 4:1-3, or the use that Hosea puts to the traditions of Genesis 32 regarding Isaac and Esau. This approach to texts shares features with interpreting “Scripture in the light of Scripture” but focuses more on the literary and historical relationships rather than the theological or spiritual ones.[7]

Sailhamer says:

When the future [from the point of the Hebrew Bible] came at a specific time and place, there were people waiting for it. There were those like Simeon and Anna, who understood it in terms of the OT prophetic vision. In other words, the prophets’s vision was such that it preserved and carried with it a people who both understood the prophets and were there waiting for the fulfillment of their vision. By falling in line with that vision, the NT writers show that they accepted the OT not only as pre-interpreted, but they also were in fundamental agreement with its interpretation. That interpretation, we can see, began long before the time of its fulfillment. Already within the OT itself we can discover clear signs of an ongoing process of inter-Biblical, or (I would prefer to say) inter-textual interpretation.[8]

Stephen Dempster, while discussing explicit signs of textual coherence in the Tanak, says:

As mentioned earlier, within the biblical text itself there was an awareness that the many books were a unity. There is an exceedingly rich intertexuality in which there are many linguistic and conceptual echoes throughout Scripture. Later biblical books consciously echo and imitate events, concepts and language found in earlier books… Creation, exile and (occasionally) return form a recurring pattern that is stitched into the biblical narrative fabric. At the beginning, there is the creation of Adam and Eve, the placing of them in the Garden of Eden and the judgment of exile and death. Cain is soon born, and experiences the judgment of exile for the murder of his brother. The growth of the nations into a great power leads to sin at Babel and to exile as they are condemned to be dispersed throughout the earth. Abram is called into being to go to a land, which he leaves at times because of a lack of faith, only to return later. His descendants experience exile in Egypt and are brought back to the land. Their descendants also undergo exile before returning. Frequently the return is described in terms that echo the original creation and the placing of the first human pair in the Garden of Eden. Creation language often is employed to signal the return.[9]

These themes are not in the Tanak (or our English Old Testament) alone. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inaugurated a new creation, thus signaling that man could now return to God from his exiled state. This new creation (presently enjoyed only by Jesus in his glory and those who are his) will one day expand into “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). The eternal state is depicted as a return to the Edenic state, yet without the possibility of sin (Revelation 22:1ff [“the tree of life,” no longer any curse, “they will reign forever and ever”]). The end of the Bible is the end or goal of the beginning to which Adam failed to attain.

It is also of interest to observe that the Hebrew Bible begins with the Pentateuch (as does our English Old Testament) and ends with Chronicles (unlike our English Old Testament). The Pentateuch, as has been mentioned, is the foundation upon which the entire Old Testament rests. The rest of the Old Testament assumes the Pentateuch as its historical and theological foundation. The prophets apply the theology of the Pentateuch to the contingencies of Old Covenant Israel. The prophets offer both rebuke, in light of covenantal disobedience, and hope, in light of God’s Messianic promises and purpose for creation. Post-pentateuchal revelation assumes, and is based on, that which precedes it. This is inter-textual or inter-biblical exegesis. The Bible itself often builds upon (and is thus explanatory of or a commentary upon) previous revelation.

The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles. Stephen Dempster comments:

It begins with a creation story of humanity in the garden of Eden, continues with their exile from this place of God’s presence because of disobedience, and ends with a nation in exile as a result of disobedience yet called back to the province of Judah to engage in the task of temple restoration – the supreme symbol of God’s presence. This temple is no ordinary temple either, as it has eschatological overtones, resulting in the restoration of Eden. The rivers of Eden will flow again, this time turning even the Dead Sea into a place of teeming life.[10]

When Jesus comes on the scene, he is often depicted as a temple builder (John 1:14; 2:19-22; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16-17; 1 Peter 2:4-6; Matthew 16:18), the end of which turns out being described with many Old Testament creation (Eden) and temple echoes and allusions (cf. Revelation 21 and 22 [new heaven and new earth, holy city, new Jerusalem, bride adorned for her husband, tabernacle of God among men, no death, he will be my son, temple language, water of life, fruit, no curse, etc.]).

This area of study can be very helpful in understanding the overall thrust of the Old Testament. Canonical content and structure reveals to us themes that reoccur in the Old Testament and end up reoccurring in the New Testament as well. This, again, witnesses to the fact that God is in the business of bringing creation to its intended goal.

[2] Sometimes the New Testament refers to the Old Testament as the law and the prophets, the law, or simply Scripture. This does not mean that the New Testament contradicts itself. It simply reflects the fact that the Old Testament can be summarized in various ways.

[3] Shaw, Westminster Confession, 43.

[4] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 61.

[5] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 36.

[6] John H. Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44/1 (March 2001) 13.

[7] PDBS, 63.

[8] Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” 13.

[9] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 31-32.

[10] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 33. Dempster references Genesis 2:10-14; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Joel 3:18; and Zechariah 14:8.

It is important to ask, what Sabbath does Ex. 20:11 refer to? Does “Sabbath” here refer to God’s rest after creating the world, or to man’s own Sabbath rest? The answer has to be, both. The first sentence of Ex. 20:11 refers to God’s own rest. But “Sabbath” in the second sentence must refer to the same Sabbath as in verse 8, the Sabbath God requires of Israel. Ex. 20:11 sees an identity between these. It teaches that when God took his own rest from his creative labors and rested on the seventh day, which he hallowed and blessed, he also hallowed and blessed a human Sabbath, a Sabbath for man (Mark 2:27). In other words, when God blessed his own Sabbath rest in Gen. 2:3, he blessed it as a model for human imitation. So Israel is to keep the Sabbath, because in Gen. 2:2-3 God hallowed and blessed man’s Sabbath as well as his own. (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, unpublished edition)

This is why elsewhere the Sabbath is called God’s, because He instituted it and owns it (cf. Is. 58:13, “…the Sabbath…My holy day…”; Rev. 1:10, “…the Lord’s Day…”), and it is something that was made for man (Mk. 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man…”). The Sabbath is God’s because of His example and institution of it. The Sabbath is man’s because God made it for him. Surely “the everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary” (Is. 40:28). God did not make the Sabbath for Himself because He was tired and needed rest; He made it for man. His example at creation is imperatival for man and predates the Sabbath as incorporated into Israel’s law.

As far as Ex. 20:8-11 being relevant under the new covenant, I agree with Frame’s interpretation that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and because of this it is relevant for all mankind (see previous posts).

Wells discusses OT prophecy and the Sabbath (i.e., Is. 56:2-5 and 58:13-14). He notes that some Reformed theologians who believe in an abiding Sabbath under the new covenant believe OT prophecy about the Sabbath under the new covenant has to be understood as the prophets utilizing old covenant forms of worship (i.e., Sabbath, new moons, incense, sacrifices, etc.) to describe worship under the new covenant, though not intending it to be understood literally. He says, “Here in the judgment of the men I have cited, they [i.e., old covenant forms of worship in new covenant prophecies] stand for New Covenant realities that would replace the Old Covenant customs in the gospel era” (39). Though I think these men are right, I do not think this necessarily means these texts do not teach that an abiding Sabbath is to be rendered under the new covenant. In other words, I think the prophets utilize old covenant language, but I also think these texts prophecy a Sabbath under the new covenant. I think this for at least two reasons related to OT prophecies of the Sabbath connected to the new covenant. The first reason is because of Jer. 31:33. I think this text implies a Sabbath under the new covenant because the law being referred to is the same law God wrote on stone tablets (I will just assert at this point. Those interested in my exegesis of this text can read my In Defense of the Decalogue).

A second reason comes from my understanding of Isa. 56:1-8. That text says:

Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants — everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant — even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.” (Is. 56:1-8)

Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of a Sabbath under the new covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 is pointing forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the new covenant. It is understood this way by the NT in several places (see Mt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).

Second, Isaiah 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (see esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of “all nations” in verse 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about new covenant days.

Third, in several New Testament texts, the language of Isa. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ’s first and second coming in the motif of fulfillment (Mt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matthew 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” with Isaiah 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Isaiah 56:3-5, which says:

Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. (Is. 56:3-5)

The old covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.” Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions no longer apply.

In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the “household of God” and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called “the house of God…” The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now listen to Isa. 56:7, which says:

Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Is. 56:7)

The NT sees Isaiah’s prophecy as fulfilled under the new covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold here (Isa. 56) are transformed to fit the redemptive-historical conditions brought in by the new covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the new covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the new covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the new covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the new covenant. Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the old covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with the promise of the new covenant. What was promised to “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the new covenant people of God, the transformed/eschatological Israel of old testament prophecy.

With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the old covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., Gentiles) are becoming the Lord’s and frequenting His house, which is His Church, a Sabbath (see Isaiah 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath keeping in new covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, “Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles.”[1]

The essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not the old covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God’s moral law.

Don’t worry, my review of chapters 3-10 will be much shorter.

Too often while reading contemporary authors on the law in the life of believers, I find myself asking the question, “Haven’t these guys read the great minds of the past on this issue?” Sometimes I get the feeling (remember – feelings are “nothing more than feelings”) that much ink has been spilled prior to consulting the giants of church history and, in particular, Reformed theologians of previous eras. This series of posts will provide readers with some quotes from  and my interaction with some statments by a few guys I think are worth listening to on this issue. The reason why John Owen is prominant in the discussion below is becasue I wrote my dissertation on him (and Geerhardus Vos). The analysis below shows that Owen is main-stream Reformed orthodox in his view of the law.

Post I considered The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others.

This time we will look at: 

Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says: 

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8]

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

Really good stuff here by Pastor Brian Croft

An approach that seeks to interpret the biblical books with respect to their authoritative status and theological context within the Bible. Canonical criticism thus focuses on the final form of the biblical texts rather than their earlier stages of composition or transmission (though recognition of the stages plays an integral role in some uses of this approach). Furthermore, canonical critics argue that the object of biblical interpretation is theological reflection within a community of faith. For example, Torah and the Gospels have a special function in the canon. They are set apart as first and foundational; hence the Prophets in the OT and Paul in the NT should be read in the light of the Torah and the Gospels respectively, even though the Prophets and Paul’s letters may predate the present form of the Torah and Gospels. Canonical criticism sees the Bible as “Scripture,” as authoritative writings of the community of faith,[1] and incorporates theological reflection as part of the reading of a text.[2]

Any text under consideration must be interpreted in light of its place and function within the entire canon of Scripture. Some books are theologically foundational to others and the latter must be understood in light of the former and the former is often explained by the latter.

1.      Canonical structure of the Old Testament:  We will consider the canonical structure of our English Bibles then the canonical structure of the ancient Hebrew Bible.

a.      Canonical structure of the English Bible: Our English Bibles are comprised of 39 Old Testament books. They follow the basic order and number of the Septuagint (LXX) – Genesis – Malachi. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated by “Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria from the third to the second century B.C.”[3] LXX (Roman numeral for 70) stands for a tradition that says 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 72 days. It is an interesting phenomenon of history that the LXX changed the order of the Hebrew canon (see below) and number of books, though not the content, and added the Apocrypha. Why do our English Bibles have 39 books instead of the 24 books of the ancient Hebrew canon? The reason for this is due to the fact that the first English Bibles followed the order of the Latin Vulgate, which followed the order of the LXX[4] though Jerome translated into Latin from the Hebrew text.

Our English Old Testaments reflect a four-fold division of its 39 books considered from the standpoint of genre: I. The Law (Pentateuch) – 5 books; II. Historical Books (Joshua-Esther) – 12 books; III. Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon) – 5 books; and IV. Prophets (A. Major Prophets [Isaiah-Daniel] – 5 books; B. Minor Prophets [Hosea-Malachi] – 12 books) – 17 books.[5] The Pentateuch is the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament. The historical books trace ancient Old Covenant Israel’s history immediately subsequent to the death of Moses through the period of the judges and to the establishment of the monarchy and return from exile. The poetical books cover diverse issues related to Job, worship, and wisdom. The prophets are God’s prosecuting attorneys who both look to the past (i.e., the Pentateuch) and promise deliverance in the future.

b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible (in the next post)

[2] PDBS, 23.

[3] PDBS, 105.

[4] Cf. David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations: A General Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 34, for a brief discussion of the order of the English Bible.

[5] This analysis of the division of the English Old Testament is found in Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 34.

On one level, I can agree with these statements. The Pentateuch was written by Moses for Israel just prior to his death and their entrance into the Promised Land. It is not a moral manual for mankind, per se. It was a covenantal document for a single nation in covenant with God. On another level, however, I find Wells’ statements at least potentially troublesome. I say potentially because it all depends on what he means. If he means that the Pentateuch was written for Israel just prior to entering the Promised Land and it focuses primarily upon them and their vocation as God’s covenant nation in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and new covenant, I am fine with that. However, if he means, since texts in the Pentateuch address only “what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26), therefore utilizing them as containing or applying laws or commands which are relevant for all mankind is very dangerous and simply wrong, then I disagree. My hunch is that the latter is what Tom means. In other words, the Sabbath command, in any and all conceivable senses, is for God’s ancient covenant people while in the Promised Land and for them (and those in their land) exclusively.

Let’s assume that position (though not attributing it to Tom Wells). Let’s also extend it to other laws in the Pentateuch, even all pentateuchal laws. Here’s how that position would be formulated: Since Moses wrote the Pentateuch for Israel to be obeyed in the Promised Land, it contains laws exclusively applicable to them while in Canaan. Again, on one level I think this is right. Israel was God’s people under a national covenant with a distinct land for a distinct period of time and distinct purpose. However, it is one thing to affirm this and another to deny that at least some of Israel’s laws transcend her as God’s covenant nation and transcend her land. In other words, could it be that some of Israel’s laws transcend Israel and are actually laws applicable to all men that pre-dated Israel’s covenantal status and were incorporated into Israel’s law and are still applicable to all men? Or we could put it this way: Though Israel had a unique law for a unique vocation in the history of redemption, individual Israelites were considered by God on two levels – citizens of a covenantal nation and creatures created in His image. This would mean that God incorporated into Israel’s law some laws applicable to all men because all men are created in the image of God with the work of the law written on their hearts and accountable to God for the same essential things. To further clarify, this means that God incorporated into Israel’s national law some laws that all men are under because all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.

I can think of at least three ways that Israel’s law is used in the Bible which proves that, on one level, it contained at least some laws that transcended old covenant boundaries. First, pagan nations were indicted for breaking some of Israel’s laws. Leviticus 18:24 says, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things [the laws dealing with sexually immoral relationships stated in Lev. 1:1-23]; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” At some level, the pagan nations mentioned were under the laws of Lev. 18:1ff.. If they weren’t, how could God punish them for violating laws they were not under and still be just? Though they did not break the old covenant by violating these laws, they still broke God’s law as His creatures. We are not told by Moses how they came into contact with these laws, but what we are told is that they were guilty of violating them.

There is a second way which shows that at least some of the laws of the old covenant transcended the national and geographic boundaries of the old covenant. New covenant believers are commanded to obey some of the very same laws as published in the Mosaic writings (cf. Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:4). These commandments first found in Moses’ writings are subsequently incorporated into the new covenant Scriptures. This further illustrates the fact that at least some laws first promulgated in the Pentateuch specifically for old covenant Israel in the land of Canaan transcend the old covenant both nationally and geographically.

And third (and very importantly), Christ is said to have died for Jews and Gentiles, redeeming them from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Galatians 3:14 goes on to say that Christ redeemed us (Jew and Gentile) from the curse of the law “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” So here, on one level, the law of the Jews is the law that cursed Gentiles (as well as Jews) and under which curse Christ died. Elsewhere Paul argues forcefully that Jew and Greek are both “under sin” (Rom. 3:9) and “under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). The “Law” must be the law of the Old Testament, at least on some level. This, again, goes to show that the old covenant law as national law for Israel is only one of its functions, but not its only function. At least some of the laws of ancient Israel are common to all men because, once again, all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.

Other nations were indicted for breaking laws promulgated by Moses (actually by God via Moses) in the Pentateuch.[1] New covenant citizens are called to obey at least some of the very same laws as Moses penned for ancient Israel. And Gentiles, never under Israel’s law as a national covenant, were yet under the curse of the law, on some level. And our Lord Jesus bore the curse of the law for both Jew and Gentile. I think these factors lead us to this conclusion: At least some of the law of Israel is common to all men. Therefore, God incorporated moral law (i.e., law common to all men) into old covenant Israel’s national law as positive law for Israel under the old covenant.

I’ll close with this question: Could it be that the Sabbath law is part of God’s law common to all men? If it is, it would have to be connected to creation imago Dei and general revelation. It would need biblical links to both creation and to the work of the law written on the heart. As for me, I think those links are clear in the Bible.

[2] In one sense, canonical structure and hermeneutics is an historical issue. It is a consideration of the theology behind the shape of the canon, which itself is outside of the canon. But in another sense, it is inner-canonical and so very much a theological issue because we possess the Bible in the form it comes to us. Again, we are discussing the final shape of the canon not its process.