The time has come to insist that discussions of biblical subjects be based on the Bible itself and not on rigid theology and creeds. If our creeds and theology are truly biblical, then all we need to do is examine the Bible verses from which we originally established the tenets we are now defending. If there are texts in the Bible that clearly teach the truths that our fathers put into the creeds, then those verses are still in the Bible and they still teach the same truth. A sincere Bible teacher should welcome the opportunity to take the Bible and textually prove the biblical accuracy of his creed. If he either cannot, or simply will not, attempt to prove his doctrines with the Bible itself, but insists that ‘the creeds have already settled all these issues,’ then he has clearly revealed his real attitude to both the Word of God and to the creeds. And it is obvious which one is his final authority! It may also suggest that the people who formulated the creed in the first place used logic and prejudice at some points when they lacked actual Scripture texts. It is unsettling to contemplate the possibility that what one has believed to be God’s will may not be biblical after all. If one’s identity as a Christian is wrapped up in theological and creedal distinctions, then to question those systems and creeds is to call into question one’s very perception of himself as a Christian. Perhaps this is one of the reasons some men choose to hide behind creeds today and refuse to discuss the Word of God itself. 

When asked if the ‘moral law,’ meaning the tables of the covenant, is the rule of life for a Christian today, the answer should be, “the entire Word of God is the Christian’s rule of life (2 Tim. 3:16); the whole revealed will of God in all sixty-six books of Scripture is the Christian’s rule of life.” The questioner uses a non-biblical term (moral law) that has been loaded with a theological meaning that was not drawn from texts of Scripture. It does not matter how ancient and venerable the term is, or how beneficial and acceptable its use has been to theologians, it is not the Word of God. The person is not asking a biblical question. He is asking a theological question. He is also defining the terms used in the question by his own theological system and not with Scripture. Whether it is intentional or not, this becomes a trap, with the wrong answer resulting in the appellation of the odious label ‘antinomian.’ All of this is the consequence of using non-biblical terminology as if it were a biblical text. Worse yet, the terminology is loaded with a theological bias that was not developed from texts of Scripture, but has evolved from its use as one of the ‘good and necessary consequences’ of a particular system of theology. The questioner accuses, tries and convicts as heretics all those with whom he differs. The inquisitor does this totally on the basis of his own theological terms and not with Scripture. This question does not reflect an interest in whether those so questioned believe the Bible. Its focus is on whether they believe the interpretation of the Bible as expressed in the creed. John Newton described well the situation where various groups are all convinced that they, and they alone, have the ‘true church’.

In essentials I agree with them all, and in circumstantials I differ no more from any of them than they differ among themselves. They all confess they are fallible, yet they all decide with an air of infallibility; for they all in their turn expect me to unite with them, if I have any regard to the authority and honor of the Lord Jesus as Head of the Church. But the very consideration they propose restrains me from uniting with any of them. For I cannot think that I should honor the headship and kingly office of Christ by acknowledging Him as the Head of a party and subdivision of His people to the exclusion of the rest.

Every party uses fair sounding words of liberty; but when an explanation is made, it amounts to little more than this: that they will give me liberty to think as they think, and to act as they act; which to me, who claim the right of thinking for myself and acting according to the dictates of my own conscience, is no liberty at all. I therefore came to such conclusions as these: that I would love them all, that I would hold friendly intercourse with them all, so far as they should providentially come in my way [and, he might have added, so far as they will allow me! A.W.P.] but that I would stand fast in the liberty with which Christ has made me free, and call none of them master; in fine, that if others sought to honor Him by laying great stress on matters of doubtful disputation, my way of honoring Him should be by endeavoring to show that His kingdom is not of this world, nor consists in meats and drinks, in pleading for forms and parties, but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit; and that neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature, and the faith which worketh by love.^[1]

In some cases, men realize exactly what they are doing. However, they continue with their practice simply because that is the only method they have of protecting a theological position that they cannot textually prove with the Bible. The attitude and defense of such people is identical to that of an Arminian when he is asked to discuss the ninth chapter of the book of Romans. When a cherished ‘system’ is challenged with the Word of God itself, some self-appointed defenders of ‘God’s truth’ feel threatened and reach for creeds, labels, and anything else they can use to justify their refusal to discuss the Bible itself. How else can we explain why some people are so afraid of confronting and discussing verses of Scripture?

As mentioned earlier, when a person says, “The Ten Commandments are my rule of life,” that person is actually saying, “The tables of the covenant that established and governed the life and worship of Israel is my rule of life today.” Both statements mean exactly the same thing. If we cannot assert both of those statements, then we have no biblical right to voice either one of them. We can no more say, “the Ten Commandments, as they are given in either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5, comprise the Christian’s rule of life,” than we can say, “the tablets of the testimony that established the terms of the covenantal relationship of God with Israel is the church’s rule of life today.” If we were to say, “The Ten Commandments, as they are individually interpreted and applied by Christ, are one essential part of the church’s rule of life,” then we would be speaking biblically as a New Covenant believer. We could also say, “The enduring and unchanging moral principles that underlie the duties contained in the Ten Commandments are an important basis for our moral duty today.” However, both of these statements are different from, “The Ten Commandments are the rule of life for a Christian today.” 

When we make such statements, we in no way either disparage Moses or deny that a Christian is under clear objective moral commandments as a rule for his life. Christ is a new lawgiver and his laws are more extensive than anything Moses ever imagined. The words written on the tablets of stone were the fullest revelation of moral standards ever given up to that point in time. However, they are not a complete enough standard for a child of grace who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and lives under the New Covenant. It is unjust for anyone to call another person an ‘antinomian’ (which means ‘against law’) for teaching and insisting that the laws of Christ are higher laws than those given to Israel on the tables of stone. How can recognition of a fuller, more complete revelation of God’s moral character be in any way construed as being anti-law? Using identical logic, I could label anyone who rejects what I have said in this book as being ‘anti-Christ.’ This would be an unfair and illogical charge. However, it would be no more so than labeling a person an antinomian just because he does not believe the law of Moses is not a high enough standard for the Christian!

It is rather surprising when we take a concordance and look up the occurrences in Scripture of the words ‘law’ and ‘laws’. After Exodus 20, we find both words on nearly every page. However, we do not find the word ‘law’ (singular) used even one time in Scripture before Exodus 20. If we take Paul literally when he talks about ‘until the law’ and ‘the law entered’ (Rom. 5:13, 20) we should not expect to find the term ‘the law’ mentioned prior to Mount Sinai. We do find the word ‘laws’ (plural) used once. It is in connection with Abraham keeping God’s laws (Gen. 26:5), but neither the text nor context identifies those laws except for the law of circumcision.

Our goal in this book is clearly annunciated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-21. 

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. (NIV)

I want to correctly represent our Lord and his glorious gospel of grace to all men. I realize some men are “under the law” in a wrong sense and others are under the wrong law. I want it clearly understood that we are not “under the law” in the sense that Israel was under the law, but we are nonetheless not lawless. We are indeed under God’s true law, the law of Christ. God’s true, full, and final law is given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, whom I consider a true lawgiver who replaces Moses in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as our priest. I would no more think of sending a New Covenant believer back to the Old Covenant lawgiver to find God’s will for the church’s life and worship than I would send a believer back to Aaron or his ministry to find assurance of forgiveness of sins.

The one question I have sought to answer has nothing at all to do with whether a Christian is duty bound to obey God’s clear commandments. We all agree that one of the marks of any true child of God is obedience to God’s revealed will. The question is not whether we follow objective commandments or some nebulous feeling called love. Again, we agree that God’s truth comes in words; in propositional absolutes as well as clear principles. The controversy occurs when we insist that we start and finish our ethics with the Cross and not with Mount Sinai. What are the practical implications of what I am saying for the church as a whole and the individual Christian? Is this just much ado about nothing? I believe it is a serious mistake to exalt a theological position by lowering, even if unconsciously, the standard of biblical holiness, which I believe is what Covenant Theology does. 

If the Sermon on the Mount and the New Covenant Epistles do indeed teach a higher and more spiritual standard of holy living than the law of Moses, do we not effectively, in the very name of holiness, lower the actual standard of holiness under which a Christian is to live when we send him back to Moses to learn ethics and morality? Is that not exactly what Covenant Theology does? Granted they do it because they sincerely believe that Moses was the greatest lawgiver that ever lived and the law that God gave to him, Moses, was “THE full, final, eternal, unchanging moral of God.” They also are forced to insist, “Jesus Christ cannot and does not give any laws that change in any way ‘the moral law’ written on the tables of stone.”

The bottom line is the authority of the lordship of Christ in relationship to the authority of Moses. Is Moses the final and full lawgiver and Christ merely the true interpreter and enforcer of Moses, or is Christ the new lawgiver who supersedes and replaces Moses with higher laws? It is one or the other? Are Moses and Christ really equal authorities over the church and the Christian’s conscience? Was Peter, after all, correct in his desire to build one tabernacle each for Moses, Elijah, and Christ?

In reality, classical Covenant Theology produces a two-tiered system of morality and holiness. Unhappily, Moses occupies the top tier. Let me give a practical illustration to not only prove this point but also demonstrate how it works itself out in pastoral preaching and practice. Suppose a married couple comes into a pastor’s study for counseling. There is no hint that they have broken God’s law by being unfaithful, but the marriage is nonetheless in real trouble. Do you get the picture? Do you realize what I have just done? I have redefined the biblical commands of marriage in terms of a two-tiered ethic. I have used ‘unfaithful’ to mean only sexual immorality and a breach of ‘God’s holy law’ written on stone. I have also clearly implied that whatever biblical rules of marriage the couple may have violated, those rules are not in the same category as ‘God’s real laws’ written on stone. 

It is obvious that one, or both, of these two people have been very unfaithful and disobedient to some things that the Word of God teaches about marriage. However, with a two-tiered ethic, you have real commandments, ten of them in fact, and you also have excellent spiritual advice found the epistles of the New Testament Scriptures. These rules given by Paul, and others, are excellent spiritual advice and are essential to a successful marriage, but they are on a lower tier than ‘THE moral Law of God.’

What will the pastor say to this couple? He will NOT go back the tablets of stone because (1) none of those ‘unchanging laws’ were broken, and (2) none of the ten directly apply to the present problem, since neither party ‘broke the law’ by being unfaithful. The couple violated or disobeyed the theology of marriage given by Paul in his epistles but they did not ‘break the law.’ The pastor will go to the epistles of Paul (the lower ethical tier), and start with the truth of the Cross. He will earnestly plead, on the ground of redemption (not unchanging moral law), for the couple to begin to apply the spiritual principles that Paul lays out. He assures them that this is the only way to have a happy marriage.

In essence, the pastor is saying, “I urge you to apply these biblical principles, but what ever you do, don’t break God’s law and commit adultery.” The Ten Commandments are foremost on the top tier; disobedience to them leads to church discipline. Paul’s epistles are excellent spiritual advice, but not on a level with ‘God’s law’; disobedience to them will lead to more counseling sessions. My dear reader, this is not caricature or make-believe. That scene is played in many pastors’ studies every day. Must we not all admit that the words of Paul do not carry the same authority over the conscience of a Christian, as do God’s commandments written on tablets of stone? Must we not also admit, unless our conscience is married to a creed, that the real cause of this tragic reality is self-evident? It is the essential result of a two-tiered ethic that places the law of Moses above the words of Paul.

What am I saying? Am I suggesting that the ‘advice” in the epistles of Paul is to have the same authority over the conscience of a Christian as the Ten Commandments have? No, I am saying that Paul’s words should have MORE AUTHORITY! Paul’s words are as equally God’s words as those written on the tables of stone. If we understand progressive revelation we will see that Paul’s words should and must have GREATER authority in the conscience of a New Covenant believer than anything Moses ever wrote! As long your theology says the tables of stone are the highest standard for holiness that ever was given, it is impossible, in an experiential sense, to make the New Covenant teachings of Christ, given through his apostles by his Spirit, carry the weight of absolute law in either the life of the church or the conscience of an individual believer. It is a hollow victory that magnifies the law of Moses by minimizing the Sermon on the Mount and the epistles of Paul. You cannot posit a two-tiered ethic, with Moses on the top tier, in your theology without practicing the same thing in everyday life. Moses cannot be the lord in your principle of morality in your theology and Christ be the lord of your practice of morality in your daily life!

The greatest single tragedy that arises from misunderstanding the place and function of the Tables of the Covenant in the history of redemption is the assignment of a function to those tables that God never gave them. The Bible clearly teaches that the law must be cast out of the conscience before there can be true holiness in a believer’s life. Bunyan, following Paul in Galatians 4, insists we must “cast out the law.” One of the pressing questions in a discussion of law and grace is this: How could the ‘holy, just and good” law of God ever produce the mob of legalist work-mongers who crucified our blessed Lord? One of the answers is simple. Why must Hagar be cast out of Abraham’s house? Why cannot the son of Hagar, a bondwoman and a type of the law (Gal. 4:21-31), be included in the inheritance with Isaac? Hagar was a wonderful handmaid, but she was never meant to be the mother of Abraham’s children. The law of God is a wonderful and essential handmaid of the gospel, but was never meant by God to be the mother of holiness. All of the fruit of the law’s efforts, like Ishmael, the fruit of Hagar (the law), must be cast out. The law can only produce the fruits of the flesh, which end in death.

Every attempt to produce holy living by applying Moses to the conscience is an attempt to give Moses a job God never intended him to have. It also denies the true bridegroom his full rights as the new husband.

The issue at hand is not if holiness is essential. All parties in the debate agree that of course it is! The disagreement lies in the content of the only message that can be imposed on the heart and conscience to produce the fruit that will be acceptable to God. One group says: No Moses, no holiness. I say: All Christ, holiness guaranteed. The function of the law was to convict of sin and produce death. It is most gracious when God sends his ‘just, holy, good law’ to kill every hope of earned forgiveness. However, when that work has been done, the law’s work is finished. When we misunderstand the function of the law, we not only miss its true work, but we miss the greater glory of the New Covenant; that Jesus Christ is the fullest and final revelation of God’s character.

---