Our View of the Ten Commandments

The following is a condensed version of an open letter I wrote to the editor of a Christian magazine that openly attacked New Covenant Theology in general, and me among others in particular. The articles in the magazine accused us of being antinomians. I did not receive a reply to my letter. The text of the entire letter is available at http://soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm

Dear Sirs:

For many years, I have benefited from your ministry. Your books present the reality of our sovereign, gracious God and his amazing love for undeserving sinners in clear, biblically accurate language. We have used your videos in Sunday school classes and youth groups and have encour­aged many others to do the same. I was, therefore, greatly disappointed, but given your unreserved commitment to Covenant Theology, not at all surprised by your unjustified attack on New Covenant Theology in general and two other men and me in particular. A recent edition of your magazine carried five articles against ‘antinomianism.’ One of those articles applied the odious label of “theological antinomian” to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology, and to me.

I have no doubt that your sincere concern is for the truth of the gospel. I believe that you, along with my friends and me, are concerned to help the people of God to be more holy in their lives. The articles in your magazine make it clear that we disagree on the specific message that will best reach that goal.

I agree with you that true antinomianism is a heresy and failure by church leaders to label it as such is a sin against Christ and his church. However, to label as antinomian someone who is not even close to an antinomian is also a sin against Christ’s church. I do not at all enjoy writing in a public forum against a fellow believer whom I deeply re­spect. However, since you chose to use that setting to criti­cize me as a proponent of New Covenant Theology, I felt it appropriate to respond in kind.

Let me clearly spell out my view of the Ten Command­ments. I ask you to show me what I believe that deserves your condemnation of me as an antinomian heretic. Please show me where I am anti-law in any sense whatever in my understanding of the Ten Commandments. Apart from viewing the Sabbath as a ceremonial law, I hold the same set of ethical standards, raised to an even higher level, that Covenant Theology holds. At the end of the day, I think the most that can be consistently claimed is that New Covenant Theology, as I understand it, is antinomian only because it presents the Sabbath as a ceremonial and not a moral law. The nature of the Sabbath commandment is the crux of your entire case.

Here is my view of the Ten Commandments, compared with what I think you believe. Please show me where my view is antinomian.

One: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the first commandment—”No other gods”—see Exodus 20:3. I believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an anti­nomian, or ‘be against the first commandment.’ (See also Acts 14:15 and 1 Cor. 8:6.)

Two: Do you believe that a Christian is duty bound to obey the second commandment—”No idols / images”—see Exodus 20:4-6. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an anti­nomian, or ‘be against the second commandment.’ (See also 1 John 5:21 and 1 Cor. 10:7.)

Three: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the third commandment—”Do not take God’s name in vain”—see Exodus 20:7. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the third commandment.’ (See also James 5:12.)

Four: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the fourth commandment—”Keep the Sab­bath”—see Exodus 20:8-11. I believe and teach that Christ himself is our Sabbath and we “keep Sabbath with God” when we truly rest in Christ’s finished work of atonement. See our booklet, The Believer’s Sabbath (Frederick, MD: New Cove­nant Media, 2006). I believe the Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 31:14-18). This is the only point upon which we disagree.

Five: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the fifth commandment—”Honor your parents”—see Exodus 20:12. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that com­mandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possi­bly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the fifth commandment.’ (See also Eph. 6:1-3.)

Six: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the sixth commandment—”No murder”—see Exodus 20:13. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the sixth commandment.’ (See also 1 John 3:11-15 and Rom. 13:9.)

Seven: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the seventh commandment—”No adul­tery”—see Exodus 20:14. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that com­mandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possi­bly be an antinomian, or ‘against the seventh commandment.’ (See also Eph. 5:3-7 and 1 Cor. 6:9, 10.)

Eight: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the eighth commandment—”No stealing”—see Exodus 20:15. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the eighth commandment.’ (See also Eph. 4:28.)

Nine: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the ninth commandment—”Do not bear false witness”—see Exodus 20:16. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the ninth com­mandment.’ (See also Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:25.)

Ten: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the tenth commandment—”No coveting”—see Exodus 20:17. I also believe and teach exactly the same thing. I believe and teach that breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the tenth commandment.’ (See Eph. 5:3-7.)

Can my view, expressed above, in any sense whatso­ever, be considered as against law in general or against the Ten Commandments in particular? On what grounds can anyone charge me with being an antinomian or against law?

The catch question often posed is this: “Do you believe that the Ten Commandments written with the finger of God upon the Tables of Stone are the rule of life for a Christian today?” Our reply is this: “We believe that the Ten Commandments, as they are interpreted and applied by our Lord and his apostles in the New Testament Scrip­tures, are a real and essential part of our rule of life.” The entire Bible, all sixty-six books, is our rule of life. We differ with you only in that we insist that everything in the Old Testament Scriptures be filtered through the lens of the New Testament Scriptures. The very most that I can be called is a one-tenth antinomian. The heart of your issue with New Covenant Theology and me concerning the Ten Commandments boils down to whether the fourth com­mandment, the Sabbath, is an eternal, unchanging, moral law, or the ceremonial sign of the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai (Ex. 31:14-17). As I understand it, the Sabbath alone is your real point of difference with New Covenant Theology’s view of the Ten Commandments. We agree on the other nine.

We feel we have much biblical evidence for our view. Exodus 31:16 specifically states that to keep the Sabbath was to actually keep ‘the covenant.’ The sign of a covenant stood for the entire covenant. “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant,” and both verses 11 and 17 state that the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. It is vital that we recognize that the Sabbath, like circumcision, the ceremo­nial sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was indeed the cere­monial covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant. To violate the ceremonial sign of a covenant was to disown the entire covenant. This is why both signs, circumcision and the Sabbath, even though ceremonial in nature, carried the death penalty for violation. The nature of the Sabbath commandment is the crux of the entire case. To be consis­tent with the basic charge against me, you would also have to charge Luther, Calvin, John MacArthur and men such as the late James Montgomery Boice with antinomianism, since none of them were Sabbatarians.

Within the context of marriage, the worst thing I could do would be to take off my wedding ring, throw it at my wife, and walk out. That one act would be a deliberate and total rejection of our entire covenant relationship. That is exactly what the man did who ‘merely’ picked up a few sticks on the Sabbath. He threw the wedding ring in God’s face. That is what Moses was doing by not having his son circumcised. He was refusing to wear the wedding ring (Compare Gen. 17:9-11 and Ex. 4:24-26).

A particular day of the week cannot be intrinsically holy, in the sense of moral purity, any more than a spoon, an article of furniture, certain clothing, or a piece of land can be holy. The Most Holy Place ceased to be holy the moment the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom. Every­thing that God in any way associates with worshipping him was always prefixed with the word holy. However, in most cases, the connotation of the word holy is “separated unto God” and not “morally pure.” Holy days, including the seventh-day Sabbath, are in the same category as the Holy Place, holy garments, holy ceremonies, holy altars, holy furniture, etc. None of these things reflects the eternal, ‘moral’ character of God.

Please explain why your magazine labels New Covenant Theologians as antinomian when we not only affirm just as strongly as you that the Christian is not only under clear objective ethical commandments in the New Covenant, but we also insist those New Covenant laws are even higher than those written on stone. How is it possible for our belief in a higher law to be turned into anti law? You con­demn us as heretics simply because we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is a true lawgiver in his own right and, as such, gives higher and more spiritual laws than anything Moses ever gave. Why do we deserve the odious label of antinomian simply because we believe that Christ replaces Moses as the new lawgiver in exactly the same way he replaces Aaron as High Priest? Our view is completely consistent with the teaching of Hebrews 3:1-6.

What is anti-law about binding a Christian’s conscience to obey the higher demands of grace found in the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles? How do we in any way demean either Moses or the holy law of God by insisting that the law of God under the New Covenant demands a higher and deeper spiritual response than that given through Moses? Does progressive revelation not in any way apply to ethical behavior? Do you really believe that Christ cannot, and does not, demand more from his disci­ples under grace than the Law of Moses demanded? Why must the highest, fullest, unchanging standard of moral conduct that God ever gave be those laws written on the stone tablets of the Covenant (Deut. 9:9-15 and Heb. 9:4) that God made with Israel? Why do you insist that Moses must be the greatest lawgiver: the giver of the ‘eternal, unchanging, moral law of God,’ and Christ merely be the greatest exegete of that law that God gave Moses? If the Sermon on the Mount is really no more than the greatest rabbi’s true exposition of the Ten Commandments, then would it not be correct to call that sermon “the Talmud of Jesus?” How is it unbiblical for us to insist that Christ is a greater lawgiver than Moses? How are we in anyway de­meaning either Moses or the holy law of God by exalting Christ over Moses as the new lawgiver?

Your position grows out of your unconditional com­mitment to the perpetuity of the Decalogue or Tables of the Covenant, which you call, with no textual authority, “the moral law.” To change in any way the words of the cove­nant, the Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28), written on the Tables of the Covenant, the Decalogue (Deut. 9:9) is, in your eyes, to be antinomian. It does not matter if ‘changing the law’ means raising it to a higher and more spiritual level, it is still antinomianism. It does not matter that our Lord himself raised the standards. Even that is immaterial; it is still antinomianism. In other words, the actual content of the law we preach may be built upon and go past the laws written on the Stone Tables, but that makes no differ­ence, we are still antinomian!

The fact that we believe that Christ changed, even by raising to a higher level, the “unchanging moral law of God” justifies you in accusing us of being worse than the worst of antinomians. It does not matter what law we used to replace the law of Moses, even if we use the very law of Christ himself, we are still antinomian. Our teaching that Jesus Christ has raised the law of Moses to a higher level is heresy simply because we have dared to believe and teach that the Sermon on the Mount makes higher and deeper demands upon the children of grace than the Decalogue makes. We have dared to say that the law of Moses is not the highest law that God ever gave. We insist that our Lord’s law is higher than the law given to Moses.

You are dogmatic that the Decalogue gives us the high­est revelation of the moral character of God that has ever been given. We reply, no, our blessed New Covenant prophet goes past Moses and gives us a higher revelation of God’s moral character. You seem not to care if we re­place the laws written on stone with the very laws given us by our Lord himself; we are still more dangerous than explicit antinomians such as Agricola. If believing that the sovereign grace of God and the authority of Jesus Christ our new lawgiver demand a higher and deeper spiritual response than the law of Moses demanded, then we plead guilty to the charge of antinomianism. In the name of Christ our New Covenant prophet, and, we trust to the glory of God and the good of his church, we will continue to insist that our Lord replaces Moses as God’s lawgiver over the church in exactly the same way he replaced Aaron as High Priest. We only ask that those who condemn us realize the true grounds upon which we are being con­demned. We are being labeled and condemned as ‘against law,’ not because we are at all opposed to any law, but solely because we believe the higher law of Christ replaces the law of Moses.

Let me say again, I am grateful that your magazine has clarified the issues. The bottom line has nothing to do whether we believe in clear, objective, moral absolutes. We preach those as clearly as you do. The question concerns whether Jesus Christ is merely a true, full, and final inter­preter of Moses or whether he is a new lawgiver who re­places Moses in exactly the same way he replaces Aaron as High Priest. Is he only a scribe, even the greatest of all scribes, or is he a true prophet who gives new and higher laws? That is the real issue.

Your magazine quotes Ernest Kevan from The Grace of Law:

The main object of the moderate Antinomians was to glo­rify Christ; but, failing to understand the true relationship between ‘law’ and ‘grace,’ they extolled the latter at the ex­pense of the former.

I am sure there were some people who may have been guilty of Kevan’s charge. However, I also think that some others, including you, have attempted to glorify Moses and his revelation of law at the expense of the greater glory of Christ and his new and higher revelation of law.