I have tried to use biblical terms in this book. At various times, I have deliberately used one of six interchangeable terms, or synonyms, when I wanted to refer to the Ten Commandments. One of the terms that the Holy Spirit has used most frequently in reference to the Ten Commandments is ‘the tables of stone’. It is one of only two of the synonymous terms used in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures. The only other term used in both Testaments is the phrase ‘the tables of the covenant’. The Holy Spirit did not choose to use the words ‘Ten Commandments’ in the New Testament Scriptures, but he did use these two synonyms. Both of the synonyms used in the New Testament Scriptures include the word ‘tables’, which not only takes us back to the covenant document at Sinai, but also emphasizes that we are to think of the Ten Commandments as a unit. It seems significant that both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures employ the word ‘covenant’ when referring to the Ten Commandments (Deut. 9:9 and Heb. 9:4). It would seem that the Holy Spirit wants us to think ‘covenant’ when he refers to the Ten Commandments.

The great significance of the Ten Commandments in the Bible is that they were the actual covenant document upon which everything pertaining to Israel rested. The importance of the tablets of stone, as well as their unique character, is identical to the importance of the Constitution of the United States. (See page 53) Nowhere does the Word of God call, or treat, the tables of stone as the ‘unchanging moral law of God’. It always connects them to Mount Sinai when God made them the basis of the covenant with Israel. We saw this clearly in a previous chapter.

Various writers in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures will quote an individual commandment out of the Decalogue (and also out of the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures) and use it to reinforce a duty. Our Lord used Deuteronomy 6:6 and Leviticus 19:18 as the foundation to explain what the two greatest commandments in all of Scripture were. Does that mean that the rest of the laws in those chapters are of the same importance as the two that were quoted?

When the Ten Commandments are considered as a single unit, or as the ‘tablets of stone’, they are always viewed as a ‘covenant document’. The question is never, “Do the Ten Commandments contain laws that reveal the unchanging character of God?” Of course they do. We must also ask, “Do the Ten Commandments contain any laws that govern ceremonies that are pictures of Christ, and as such, display God’s character in picture form rather than plain words?” Again, the answer will be yes. We only object when someone insists that the Ten Commandments, as recorded on the tablets of the covenant at Sinai, are one hundred percent “unchanging moral law.” A picture is fine, but the reality is better. The ceremonies that present Christ in shadows and types must change when the real thing has come. We realize that some people’s system of theology forces them to hold to the “unchanging moral law” position, however, that position is still wrong. We gladly acknowledge that the tables of stone contain laws that reveal the character of God in plain words, but we also believe: (1) those tablets contain some laws that pertain to ceremonies; and (2) they also contain some laws that pertain to ethical behavior that were raised to a higher level by Christ.^[1] When we say raised, we do not mean “contradicted.”

 We must insist that what determines moral conduct for any individual is the specific covenant under which that individual lives. The church is not under the same covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai. Some duties are stated in exactly the same words under both covenants, but some of those duties are defined differently under either covenant. Christians are commanded to be holy for I am holy. Peter, in 1 Peter 1:15, 16, quotes verses from Leviticus 11 and 19 as proof texts for this duty. God commanded both Israelites and Christians to be holy. However, the Israelite demonstrated his holiness quite differently than a Christian does. 1 Peter 1:15, 16 does not tell a Christian to go back to Leviticus 11 and follow the food laws detailed there in order to live a holy life. The duty to be holy is always in effect. The definition of holiness depends on the covenant under which an individual lives. The Christian acquires his definition of holiness, the specific rules for holy living, from the New Covenant Scriptures. The Israelite acquired his rules for holy living from the whole law of Moses. 

Sometimes when I am asked, “Do you believe that the Ten Commandments are the rule of life for a Christian?” I reply, “That depends what you mean. If you (1) mean the Ten Commandments as they are written on the tablets of stone, then the answer is no. If (2) you mean the Ten Commandments as they are interpreted and applied by our Lord and his apostles in the New Covenant Scriptures, then the answer is yes. They are a vital part of my rule of life.” 

This is exactly what Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:19, 20. We must take this text of Scripture seriously. These words are the Words of God! If I am wrong in my interpretation of these verses, then all of the following conclusions that I make must be rejected. However, if this passage really means exactly what it says, then we are forced to acknowledge that Israel and the church have two different canons of conduct. Look carefully at the text:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:19, 20 NIV)

Nearly all commentaries on this text written fifty years ago or earlier will say, “The phrase, ‘Apostles and prophets,’ means the Old and New Testaments Scriptures.” More recently, we find men saying, “The word prophets may refer to the New Testament prophets.” Today, most commentators will insist that the word ‘prophets’ must mean the New Testament prophets and cannot possibly mean the Old Testament prophets. William Hendrickson is typical in his commentary:

The position that the term prophets as here used refers to the Old Testament bearers of that appellative, such as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., (thus Lenski, op. cit., pp.450-453), is open to serious objections; such as the following: (1) Apostles are mentioned first, then prophets; (2) the designation of ‘foundation’ of the house, a dwelling shared equally by Jew and Gentile, suits the New Testament prophets better than those of the older dispensation; (3) according to 4:8-11 the prophets there mentioned immediately after the apostles, just as here in 2:20, are ‘gifts’ bestowed on the church by the ascended Christ; hence, prophets of the New Testament era; and (4) 3:5, where the same expression ‘apostles and prophets’ occurs in a context from which the reference to the prophets of the old dispensation is definitely excluded, would seem to clinch the argument in favor of New Testament prophets.^[2]

You, as I, may find it hard to believe that a convinced Covenant Theologian would make such statements. I admire him for being honest with the words and truth of the text, even if what he writes cannot be reconciled with his own theological system. His comments demonstrate beyond question that Paul refers to New Testament apostles and New Testament prophets. John Stott takes Hendriksen’s correct exegesis one step further and presents its biblical and theological implications. Both men agree that the term ‘prophets’ in Ephesians 2:19, 20 refers not to Old Testament prophets, but to New Testament prophets. Stott not only says that the text refers to New Testament prophets; he demonstrates that this clear fact has profound theological implications. The life and worship of the church is not built on Moses, his laws, or the covenant terms that established Israel as a nation. The foundation of the church is Christ himself and her life and worship is governed through his laws. Christ, the new Lawgiver, gives those laws through the New Covenant apostles and prophets in the inspired New Covenant Scriptures. John Stott has said it better than I can. The emphasis is mine.

The couplet ‘Apostles and Prophets’ may bring together the Old Testament (prophets) and the New Testament (apostles) as the basis of the church’s teaching. But the inverted order of the words (not ‘prophets and apostles’ but ‘apostles and prophets’) suggests that probably the New Testament prophets are meant. If so, their bracketing with the apostles as the church’s foundation is significant. The reference again must be to a small group of inspired teachers, associated with the apostles, who together bore witness to Christ and whose teaching was derived from revelation (3:5) and was foundational.

In practical terms this means that the church is built on the New Testament Scriptures. They are the church’s foundation documents. And just as a foundation cannot be tampered with once it has been laid and the superstructure is being built upon it, so the New Testament foundation of the church is inviolable and cannot be changed by any additions, subtractions or modifications by teachers who claim to be apostles or prophets today. The church stands or falls by its loyal dependence on the foundation truths which God revealed to his apostles and prophets, and which are now preserved in the New Testament Scriptures.^[3]

One of the implications of Ephesians 2:20, as John Stott says, is that there is a historical shift of authority from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The life and worship of Israel was built on Moses and the laws given to him, including the tables of the covenant, at Sinai. The life and worship of the Body of Christ is built on the New Testament Scriptures given to the church by Christ and his apostles. During Israel’s history, many different prophets delivered the specific laws that were necessary to administer the Old Covenant. In the New Testament Scriptures, Christ and his apostles deliver the laws that are necessary to govern a community based on grace. The full and final authority over the church’s life and worship is not Moses and the laws of the earthly theocracy. Her full and final authority is the Lord Jesus Christ, the new lawgiver who replaces Moses. He expresses and defines his will and authority through his Word; the New Testament documents inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what Paul means in Ephesians 2:19, 20. John Stott has clearly understood and set forth the meaning of this text.

I am not suggesting that the Old Testament Scriptures only set forth laws that govern behavior restricted to ceremonies and/or civil action. Nor am I saying that the principles upon which these other laws are based are not meant to govern the moral behavior of all men in all ages. I also agree that the laws that are clearly confined to governing the ceremonies and/or civil activities of a theocracy have been done away in Christ. That is too obvious for anyone to deny.^[4] However, that is far different than creating clear-cut complete lists, or specific codes of law,^[5] and (1) designating one list as ‘THE moral law’, another list as ‘THE ceremonial law,’ and yet one more as “THE civil law”, then (2) keeping one list and throwing away the other two. The Scriptures know nothing of this approach in establishing moral behavior for either a Jew under the Old Covenant or a Christian today under the New Covenant. The only clear-cut list that was written in a codified form was the ‘words of the covenant’ or Ten Commandments, and that ‘written code’, considered as a covenant document, was ‘nailed to the Cross’ in Christ (Col. 2:14).

We continue to emphasize that our position is that the Ten Commandments were done away only when considered as a covenant document. We are not saying that the principles expressed in the demands of the individual commandments have ceased. Our Lord Jesus Christ retains the principles that underlie commandments regardless of where those commandments are found in the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ did indeed drop some commandments that governed ceremonies; with the abolition of those ceremonies, laws to govern them were no longer needed. The sabbath commandment is just such an example. Christ also changed some commandments by raising their demands to a much higher level. The Mosaic law of divorce is an illustration of this fact. Christ also added some new laws that are consistent only with grace and inconsistent with the law of Moses. This is why Moses could never have written the Sermon on the Mount.

Wherever Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:20 are minimized or ignored, and Moses accorded equal (which actually is greater) authority over the worship and conscience of either the church or the individual Christian, there is a clear denial of the unique and final authority of the lordship of Christ over the church.

All that the Old Testament Scriptures predicted and looked forward to concerning the church has been, or is being, accomplished in the person and work of Christ. The new nation, the true dwelling place or temple of God, the true house of God, the priesthood, the new sonship status, and the gift of the Spirit of adoption are all present realities. All of these things are possible only because of the new foundation laid in the New Covenant. The lordship of Christ, expressed in his Word by his Spirit in the New Covenant Scriptures, is that which defines and mediates all of the above things, including the New Covenant itself. Until this shift from the old authority of Moses to the new authority of Christ is seen, recognized and clearly articulated, we deny, even if unknowingly, the lordship of Christ as the new lawgiver over the life and worship of the church. We reject the chief cornerstone when we reject the uniqueness and total newness of the new building (Eph. 2:11-22) and act as though no distinctly new building has been built. In essence, we deny that Jesus Christ himself is the new foundation upon which the ‘new creation’ has been built. 

When Israel is treated as exactly analogous with the body of Christ, then Moses must be not only equated with Christ as an equal lawgiver, Moses actually must be made the greater lawgiver and Christ merely the greatest interpreter of Moses, because Moses came first. When the church, as the body of Christ, is not seen as a radically ‘new man’ (Eph. 2:15) or part of a completely ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17) that was unknown before the day of Pentecost, it will always follow that Christ is rejected as a new lawgiver. Christ becomes merely the obedient disciple, or law keeper, of Moses; but dare not be a law giver in his own right. At most, Christ is the final and greatest rabbi. In such a theology, we should call the Sermon on the Mount “The Talmud of Jesus” since he is only an interpreter of Moses and not a lawgiver in his own right.

The key question that we are discussing in this book is this: “What is the great significance of the Ten Commandments, or tablets of stone, in the mind of the writers of Scripture?” Are the tables of the covenant the unchanging moral law of God and therefore the Christian’s rule of life? If we answer that question with the Scriptures themselves, our answer will always be, “The Ten Commandments are viewed as the basic terms of the Old Covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai.” The Bible never leads us to answer that question by saying, “The tables of the covenant are God’s unchanging moral law.” Our creeds may force us to respond that way, but the Scriptures will not allow us to do so.

If the discussion shifts from the tablets of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, as a covenant document to any individual or specific duty commanded in the words of the covenant, the questions should change accordingly. We would then be discussing an entirely different subject. The question would have to become, “Are the Ten Commandments, or tablets of stone, as given at Mount Sinai, the most complete revelation of the moral character of God ever given, and therefore totally sufficient to be the standard for the Christian’s rule of life today?” We should answer, “Absolutely Not!” The tables of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, are not the fullest revelation of God’s character that was ever given, and they are certainly not sufficient for the Christian’s rule of life as he lives under grace. As I said above, “The Ten Commandments, as they are interpreted and applied by our Lord and his apostles, are a vital part of a Christian’s rule of life.” However, that is an entirely different statement from, “The tables of the covenant given to Israel are the rule of life for Christians today.” 

We do not in any way demean Moses when we insist that the tablets of stone are only a dim shadow when compared to the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, any more than we demean Aaron when we insist that he and his ministry are finished because Christ has replaced them. Why would we refuse to send men back to Aaron and his ministry, and then insist on sending them back to Moses and his ministry? Does Christ not equally fulfill both the prophecy concerning a new and greater prophet who would arise to replace Moses (Deut 18:15-19), and the prophecy of the establishment of a priesthood that would replace Aaron’s?

When considered individually and independently of its covenant status, each of the commandments written on the tablets of the covenant stands entirely on the interpretation and application of that commandment by Christ and his apostles. Some of the commandments remain in force exactly as they were given at Sinai; some are changed and raised to a higher level; one is dropped, or at least totally spiritualized; and some are redefined and enlarged. I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ has every right to make all of these changes. I love Moses and acknowledge his greatness, but I love Christ more and believe he is far greater. The tablets of stone were indeed the most stringent moral code ever given up to that point in time, but the Sermon on the Mount is a much higher and demanding moral code than the tables of stone. The New Covenant Scriptures must interpret the Old Covenant Scriptures; the glossary that defines the meaning of true holiness for a child of God today is found in the back of the Book and not the front. 

The Ten Commandments contain much unchanging law that governs moral behavior and is just as binding on the church today as it was on an Israelite. However, that position is different from one that equates the tablets of the covenant with a so-called ‘eternal moral law’. I reject the adamant insistence of some theologians that the tablets of stone are, in their entirety and as given at Sinai, the ‘highest moral law ever given’ and therefore ‘totally sufficient, when correctly understood, for the Christian’s rule of life today’. Such a theology makes it impossible for these people to accept the clear fact that the Ten Commandments are the distinct covenant document that established Israel’s nationhood.

I know this may appear to be a gross over-simplification, but it is not! It is just as clear as the doctrine of justification by faith—if we begin with the Scriptures themselves and let the words and phrases mean exactly what they say. Why do men refuse to deal with the Ten Commandments as a distinct covenant document when the Scripture is so clear? Why do they deny the clear fact that the tablets of stone are a vital part of the actual ‘Old Covenant document’ that was made with Israel and done away in Christ? 

I was attending a conference in New England several years ago where I delivered a message that demonstrated that the primary function of the tablets of stone was to convict of sin and prepare lost sinners for grace. A young man challenged my message and said, “I agree that is one function of the law but not the primary function.” He then proceeded to explain that the Ten Commandments were given to a redeemed people as a ‘custodian’ and were meant to protect the gospel and keep the people from wandering into sin and idolatry. When asked if the message I had just preached had used Scripture verses to prove the point, the young man replied, “Yes, but the message did not show from Scripture the primary purpose of the law.” I responded, “You show me the texts of Scripture that prove the point that you are trying to make and you believe was missed in my sermon.” After several long minutes of deep thought, the young man grinned and replied, “Why am I so dogmatic about something for which I do not have a single verse of Scripture?” I then discussed with him some of the foregoing material concerning the status of the tables of stone as a legal covenant document. He finally asked, “Why have I never before thought of the Ten Commandments as even a covenant document let alone a legal covenant document?” Earlier, the young man had informed me that he had just finished listening to four tapes on the covenants and read several books about the correct relationship between the law and the gospel. It was not possible to resist saying, “The answer to your question may be that you read too many books and listen to too many tapes and do not read enough of the Bible.” He again grinned and said, “You may be right.”

The concept of ‘moral, ceremonial, and civil’ codes of law does not grow out of reading the Scriptures. It is a literary device whose use has come to be equated with biblical terminology. The idea of categories of law must be replaced with the truth that the covenant in force at a given time is the basis for the establishment of morality and holiness for any individual under that covenant. God’s commandment to Israel to ‘be ye holy, for I am holy’ is an identical commandment given to Christians today. When Peter exhorts us to be holy, he quotes from the Old Testament Scriptures (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, etc.). However, in order to carry out the commandment ‘to be holy’, given in 1 Peter 1:15, 16, something is required that is very different from the demands of the identical commandment given to Israel under the Old Covenant in Leviticus 11 and 19. Failure to see this difference makes it impossible to see the correct relationship of the laws of the Old Covenant to a believer’s life today.

We cannot possibly understand how David could enter into a polygamous marriage with Bathsheba, with God’s expressed approval and blessing, without understanding the change in the terms of the ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ commandment when it is given under the New Covenant. David could be holy in God’s sight under the Old Covenant and practice polygamy, but a believer today under the New Covenant can not do the same thing.^[6] Polygamy did not break the Seventh Commandment (you shall not commit adultery) under the Old Covenant, but it does violate the new and higher moral law that Christ gave the church in the New Covenant (Matt. 19:1-9). Either the definition of adultery has changed under the New Covenant, or David lived his life in a multiple-adulterous situation.

We would all categorize the eating of unclean animals as ‘ceremonial’ in nature and place it on the ‘ceremonial law list’ (Lev. 11:44-46). Likewise, we would certainly have to classify respect for our parents (Lev 19:2, 3) as belonging on a ‘moral list’. But the Holy Spirit put both laws together on the same list under the Old Covenant. This kind of mixing of laws is even more clearly demonstrated in Leviticus 19:18, 19. In these two verses, one of the two greatest ‘moral’ commandments in all of Scripture (‘love your neighbor as yourself’) that, according to Christ (Matt. 22:39, 40), undergird all of man’s duty to God is mixed together with ‘ceremonial’ laws concerning animal husbandry, agronomy and clothing. 

Notice this fact in the following passage:

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Lev. 19:18, 19 NIV)

In this text from Leviticus, the Holy Spirit put the second highest ‘moral’ commandment in all of Scripture right in the middle of what would have to be designated ceremonial laws. Was Jesus conscious of the immediate context when he took a phrase from Leviticus 19:18 and turned it into the second greatest commandment in all of the Word of God? Jesus obviously did not think of the Ten Commandments as the highest moral standard ever given. The text from which Jesus quotes gives no indication that verse 18 is a great ‘moral’ law and the surrounding laws are only ‘ceremonial’. Nor is there the least indication in the text that we are to be prepared to receive a command of supreme importance. Both the first and second ‘greatest commandments’ are given as almost off-handed statements when placed in their contexts. It is only when Christ chooses to use Leviticus 19:18, as he does in Matthew 22, that the phrase in this text becomes the ‘second highest commandment’ upon which all other law, including the Ten Commandments, hang. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are not the ‘summary’ of the Ten Commandments. It is the other way around!

Let us look at the context of the ‘second highest commandment’ in Leviticus 19:

 The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. Each of you must respect his mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God. …“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. …Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. “‘Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD.’” (Lev. 19:1-3, 18, 19, 26-30 NIV)

Neither our Savior nor Moses, the writer of Leviticus, divided the various laws presented in Leviticus 19 into different kinds of lists. The chapter begins with the identical exhortation of ‘Be holy for I am holy’ that Peter gives to Christians (1 Pet. 1:15, 16). The above verses, quoted from Leviticus 19, cover honoring parents, keeping the Sabbath, loving our neighbor as ourselves (the ‘second greatest law’), and then immediately proceed to prohibit the mixing of different seed and different cloth, and cross-breeding of animals. It is impossible to miss the fact that some of these laws are exceedingly different in their nature. It is just as impossible to try to create two lists of laws, one ‘moral’ and the other ‘ceremonial,’ out of these verses. However, when this clear fact is admitted, we must (1) either deny that Leviticus 19:18 is, according to Christ, the second highest ‘moral’ law in the Bible, or we must (2) admit that it is impossible to create a ‘moral’ and a ‘ceremonial’ list of laws in Leviticus 19. Does the passage itself teach that the second highest ‘moral’ commandment in Scripture (“love your neighbor as yourself,” verse 18) is to be put on the same list with the very next verse, which contains instructions on making cloth, breeding livestock, and planting seed (verse 19)? Was the Holy Spirit playing games with us when he wrote Leviticus 19, or was he showing us how utterly futile and wrong it is to think in terms of a ‘moral’ list and a ‘ceremonial’ list of laws?

It is amazing that anyone can read Leviticus 19:26, which prohibits eating blood and practicing witchcraft, then read the next verse, 27, which discusses how not to cut your hair and beard, and believe that the Old Covenant laws are divided up into ‘civil, ceremonial and moral’ lists. All of the laws given in Leviticus 19 were equally important and binding on an Israelite. As the Israelite tried to obey God and ‘be holy,’ he was as duty bound to God to attach the same importance to his diet and haircut as he did to the treatment of his parents, his observance of the sabbath, and his love for his neighbor. Laws that forbid tattoo marks are placed right next to those that prohibit making your daughter a prostitute, without any discernable difference in importance.

In no way could an Israelite living under the law of Leviticus 19 ever discern that ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ was the ‘second greatest “moral” duty’ for him to obey. In the text, this law was no more significant than those that instruct him how to plant his fields correctly. The same thing is not even close to true today. There is a very great difference in the respective importance of those same things under the New Covenant. In other words, how an Israelite lived in order to obey the commandment ‘be ye holy’ was different in many respects from how a Christian lives today in obedience to the identical commandment. The duty to ‘be holy’ is just as essential for a Christian as it was for an Israelite, but how each one fulfils that duty is radically different. The way to ascertain that difference is definitely not by the arbitrary creation of a ‘civil law’ list, a ‘moral law’ list and a ‘ceremonial law’ list.

We are NOT saying that there are no individual laws that are ‘moral’ in their very nature. Leviticus 19:18 is surely such a law. We also believe there are other laws that are ‘ceremonial or civil’ in nature; the very next verse, Leviticus 19:19, is an example. We are insisting that neither Moses nor Christ, nor anyone else in all of Scripture ever created lists and used the different lists as the foundation of moral versus ceremonial or civil conduct. 

Let us summarize what we are saying:

One: There is a radical difference in the specific laws that an Israelite and a Christian follow in order to obey the commandment ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’.’ Even the shallowest comparison of 1 Peter and Leviticus 19 will show this.

Two: That which makes the difference is NOT discovered by arbitrarily created ‘lists’ of different kinds of laws. That is simply impossible. None of the writers of Scripture in either the Old or New Testament even hinted at such a method. 

Three: Our duty to God is defined by the laws of the specific covenant under which we live. The Old Covenant was accompanied by a series of all kinds of laws given at various times through prophets. All of these were equally part of ‘the law of Moses’ and therefore equally binding on an Israelite because he was a member of the theocracy. The New Covenant is accompanied by new and higher laws given by Christ and the apostles, and these laws are all binding on a Christian because he is a citizen in the kingdom of Christ. There is no New Covenant theocracy.

Four: The commandment to be ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ is identical in both covenants. However, the specific laws to be obeyed in order to be holy are not the same. There are many instances where the duty is identical in both cases, but there are also instances where the duties are radically different.

Five: Anything that is intrinsically ‘moral’ in its nature is always moral. Even God can not make something moral that is immoral. However, we dare not arbitrarily decide what is moral and what is not. We obey all of God’s laws that he tells us to obey, simply because he says so. God may take a law (and he definitely has) that governs a ceremony and make obedience to that particular law a matter of life or death. This is the case with both the sabbath and circumcision when God made them covenant signs. For a Jew, to break these ‘ceremonial’ laws was to commit a grievous ‘moral’ (?) sin, simply because they were sins against the covenant signs (Exod. 4:24-26 and Num. 15:32-36). Touching a dead body was not intrinsically ‘immoral’, but it was still a great sin under the Old Covenant. Was eating shrimp ‘moral disobedience’ for an Israelite? Did God turn an ‘immoral act’ (?) of eating pork into a ‘morally neutral’ act when Christ came? These are the kinds of difficult questions that arise when categorical lists are created. 

We have not understood the message of the New Testament Scriptures until we see the historical shift from the authority of Moses to the full and final authority of Christ. Christians are not under the authority of Moses as their lawgiver.^[7] They are under the authority of Christ, the new lawgiver. Christians are not under the Old Covenant and do not use it to define their moral absolutes any more than they use it to define their diet. They are under the New Covenant, and it defines everything in their life and worship either by clear precept or personal application of a principle. Oftentimes the principle will be a spiritual application of an Old Covenant law. Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4 is one example: “…‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he?’ …” (1 Cor. 9:9, 10). This is a clear illustration of how a believer uses the Old Covenant Scriptures. Christians are in no sense lawless. They are under higher laws and a greater obligation to be holy because of Calvary. The difference in their holiness consists in both the specific laws that they obey as well as their motive for doing so. This is no way means that the Old Covenant did not demand heart obedience as well as mere outward conformity. It does mean that grace, in its very nature, can and does, because of the Cross, make higher demands on regenerate people than even the ‘holy, just, good’ law can ever make. 

Perhaps it would be good to illustrate what has just been said. The American colonies were under the constitution and laws of England up until 1776. On that date, the colonies became the United States of America. They united under the Constitution of the United States. From that moment, they were ‘under a new rule’. The laws and Constitution of England no longer had any legal authority over any American. The laws of England, as such, were totally nullified in respect to us as a nation. None of England’s laws could be appealed to as the final authority on any matter whatsoever. America was under the authority of a new constitutional document or covenant. The Constitution of the United States was now the full and final authority over every American. That is the exact parallel between the tablets of the covenant given to Israel and the New Covenant given to the church. That which established and governed Israel as a theocracy is no longer in effect over the church.

It is clear that the framers of the United States Constitution carefully considered and used many of the laws of England when they wrote the new laws. However, that is not the point. The significance is in the change from life under the law of England to life under the law of the United States. That constitutes a complete change, regardless of how many laws are new, the same, or different. That is precisely what the Bible means when it compares the legal covenant that governed Israel and the gracious covenant that governs the church.

We simply must stop asking and answering catch questions that are purely theological and not biblical, and then using the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ simplistic answers as a means of labeling someone either an antinomian or a legalist. It is this form of logical deduction that locks us into a man-made system that has been placed above the Word of God. This approach forces people to divide into antagonistic camps on the basis of how they answer the catch questions.

It is a sin against God and his church to label a Christian as antinomian simply because he believes the sabbath was the ceremonial sign of the law covenant and not an ‘eternal, unchanging moral law’. This is doubly true when the accused person affirms and clearly teaches that Jesus reissued the other nine commandments, and thus they are just as morally binding on a Christian as they were on the Jews. At worst, such person is only one-tenth an antinomian and nine-tenths a ‘nomian’ or lover of the law.

It is also sinful to label a person a ‘legalist’ for believing and seeking to obey all ten of the laws just as they are written on the tablets of stone. This is doubly true when that person affirms and teaches that such obedience neither saves him nor keeps him saved. Obedience to what we sincerely believe is the revealed will of God as it is set forth in objective commandments is not legalism! It is the proof of a holy heart! Some of the godliest people I know sincerely believe that the sabbath is a moral commandment binding on Christians today. I have the deepest respect for them and would not tolerate any suggestion that they are legalists. I do agree that a failure to understand which laws God wants us to keep may lead to a legalistic life style, but it is not at all inevitable. However, the problem in such a case is due to a misunderstanding of the truth of God’s Word and not a legalistic heart. This is the very problem that Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14. Notice that Paul does not label the weak brother a legalist nor does he label the strong brother an antinomian.

Summary

The biblical significance of the tablets of stone is that they are the covenant document upon which Israel’s national status rested. Under the New Covenant, the individual laws contained in that covenant document must stand or fall as Christ decides. Some duties are stated in identical terms under both covenants, but are defined differently under each, some commands are directly transferred from one covenant to another, and some laws are changed. The church’s status as a holy nation rests upon the foundation of the atoning work of Christ. He fulfills every type and shadow. The life and worship of the New Covenant people of God is built on the New Covenant Scriptures given through the apostles and prophets. The church is bound to obey the commands given to her by her new lawgiver—Jesus Christ—in the form in which he issues those commands. Let us stop sinning against our brothers by using theological systems to label each other either as antinominians or legalists. Let us instead ask this question: Does my attitude toward my brother fit into Paul’s exhortation and benediction to the Galatians?

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule [canon], even to the Israel of God. (Gal.6:14-16 NIV)

Let us fulfill the revealed will of God to love deeply, from the heart (1 Pet. 1:22), all those who boast in nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, and who walk in sincerity under the canon of conduct that clearly reveals the will of God for his redeemed church.

---