The tablets of stone, upon which God wrote the Ten Commandments, were not only a distinct and summary covenant document; they were the specific legal covenant document that established Israel as a special nation before God at Mount Sinai. The ark of the covenant establishes the fact that the Ten Commandments were the specific document that summarized the legal covenant terms that were the basis of God’s special relationship with the nation of Israel. The Ten Commandments were the actual ‘words of the covenant’ that God made with Israel at Sinai. Exodus 34:27, 28; Deuteronomy 4:13 and other passages clearly state his fact. The Ten Commandments were kept in the ark of the covenant precisely because they were the actual covenant document that established and maintained Israel’s special status before God.

The very name of the box that housed the Ten Commandments and the special care given to that box clearly demonstrate the true significance of the tablets of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. Nowhere does the Word of God even hint that the significance of the ark of the covenant was that it housed the so-called eternal, unchanging moral law of God. It housed the Old Covenant document that established Israel as a special nation before God and spelled out the major terms (the Ten Commandments) of that relationship, or covenant. That box was not the ‘ark of the moral law’. It was the ‘ark of the covenant’ and the terms of the covenant were the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of the covenant and kept in the ark. 

The importance that Scripture attaches to the Ten Commandments is always, without a single exception, connected with Israel’s special status before God as a unique nation.

Several verses of Scripture emphasize this point clearly. One of the most important sections of Scripture in any discussion of the Ten Commandments is Exodus 19 through 24. Exodus 19 contains the preamble to the oral transmission of the Ten Commandments, recorded in Exodus 20. Exodus 24 records the official ratification of the book of the covenant with the sealing of blood. The writers of one particular school of theological thought emphasize the ‘grace’ shown by God in delivering Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 19:3, 4), but seem to ignore the next two verses: 

“‘Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exod. 19:5, 6 NIV) 

It is true that God showed special favor to the Jews in their redemption from Egypt, but that was a physical redemption. Most of those Israelites were still hard-hearted sinners who needed to be convinced of their lost estate (Heb. 3:16-19). God did not give the Ten Commandments to a ‘redeemed [regenerate] people for their sanctification’. Such a view is not tenable simply because most of those people were not regenerate believers. God gave the Ten Commandments as a legal covenant of life and death to a nation composed of a mix of mostly proud sinners and a few regenerate believers as a means of driving the former to faith in the gospel preached to Abraham. As we shall see later, the primary function and goal of the Ten Commandments was a ministry of death by means of convicting the conscience of guilt. 

We must not confuse the gracious purpose of God in giving the covenant at Sinai with the nature of the covenant itself. There was not an ounce of grace in the covenant itself, but it was very gracious of God to give the covenant to Israel. It was the necessary instrument to bring conviction of sin and lead to salvation by faith in the gospel preached to Abraham. By convicting of sin, the tablets of stone functioned in the conscience as a ministration of death; they could only do this if they had the status of a covenant with the power of life and death. Sinai was indeed the handmaid of the gospel of grace, but we must not confuse it with the gospel of grace itself. 

John Owen is the exception to most writers in the Reformed tradition. He saw clearly that the Ten Commandments constituted a legal covenant document that was totally devoid of grace. He is one of the few writers (John Bunyan is another one) that knew how to separate law and grace. Some folks accuse us of ‘misrepresenting Owen’ when we use the following quotation. In no way whatever are we suggesting that John Owen was a New Covenant Theologian. That would indeed be a misrepresentation. However, we are claiming, and proving beyond question, that Owen’s two-fold definition of the word ‘law’ in the following quotations is exactly what we believe about the meaning of ‘law’. These quotations are taken from a sermon on Romans 6:14 entitled, “You are not under the law, but under grace” which was published by his wife after Owen’s death. It was one of the last things he wrote.

The law is taken two ways: 1. For the whole revelation of God in the Old Testament. In this sense it had grace in it, and so did give both life, and light, and strength against sin, as the Psalmist declares, Ps. 19:79. In this sense it contained not only the law of precepts, but the promise also and strength unto the church. In this sense it is not spoken of here, [JGR: i.e. in Romans 6:14] nor is anywhere opposed to grace. 2. For the covenant rule of perfect obedience: ‘Do this, and live.’ In this sense men are said to be ‘under it,’ in opposition unto being ‘under grace.’ They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant.^[1] 

Owen clearly saw that there was grace in the Old Testament Scriptures but there was no grace in the Ten Commandments when they were viewed as covenant terms. The Old Covenant was a legal/works covenant. The tablets of the covenant established the conditions of the covenant as Do and live, disobey and die without mercy (Heb. 10:28). Israel was ‘under the law’ as a covenant of life and death in the sense of Owen’s second definition of the law. He calls it “The covenant rule of perfect obedience.” Owen is following Paul when he acknowledges the distinct contrast between the covenant given to Israel and the covenant given to the church. He clearly communicated this in the last two sentences of the above quotation. Israel was ‘under law’ as opposed to ‘under grace’. They were under the tablets of stone as a covenant, and that means, as Owen shows, that they were “under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant.”

Owen boldly states that there was not an ounce of grace in the law when it is viewed as the legal covenant given to the nation of Israel at Sinai:

Fourthly, Christ is not in the Law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it, we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. In it is Christ revealed; by it he is proposed and exhibited unto us….^[2]

If that statement either shocks or confuses us, we have not yet understood the biblical doctrine of law and grace. We have not apprehended the nature, purpose, and function of the Ten Commandments as a covenant document. We have failed to see that God gave the tablets of stone to Israel as a ministration of death. That covenant document was meant to push men to faith in the gospel preached to Abraham. Neither Christ nor the gospel are found in the terms of do and live, disobey and die—and these were the specific covenant terms set forth at Sinai on the tablets of the covenant. It was these terms that the Israelites pledged themselves to obey upon pain of death. It was Israel’s disobedience to these covenant terms that caused their captivities and final national rejection.

Many Reformed writers will emphasize the gracious act of God in physically redeeming Israel out of Egypt, but totally neglect the fact that God immediately put Israel under a conditional legal covenant at Sinai. This is perplexing, especially when it is so clear in the Scripture. It is just as clear that the basic terms of this conditional legal covenant were nothing less than the tablets of the covenant upon which the Ten Commandments were written. Notice how clearly the following texts of Scripture show this truth in the ‘if/then’ nature of this conditional covenant:

Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself [It was indeed very gracious of God to physically deliver Israel from bondage]. Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: [Israel never became the true people of God simply because she never kept these covenant terms] for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exod. 19:4-6)

It seems impossible to make the ‘if/then’ relationship in this text to be anything other than a legal covenant that promises certain blessings as a reward for obedience to the covenant terms. The special national status of Israel was based on the Ten Commandments as a covenant document; the covenant was conditional; it was a legal/works covenant that promised life and threatened death. As mentioned above, Israel never became the true holy nation. She was cast off without inheriting the blessings promised in the text. The church is the true ‘holy nation,’ or Israel of God, and all her members are ‘kings and priests’ (a kingdom of priests—See 1 Pet. 2-5:10). Christ, as the New Covenant Surety (Heb. 7:22), has kept the terms of the Old Covenant for his people and has earned every blessing it promised. When texts like Deuteronomy 7:6 speak of Israel as a ‘holy nation’ that had been ‘chosen to be a special people’ it does not mean they were a saved and sanctified people who had been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. They were indeed chosen, as a physical nation, out from all other nations, but that is not ‘election unto salvation’. They were indeed redeemed by the blood of animals out of bondage to Egypt, but they were not redeemed by the blood of Christ and delivered out of bondage to sin. There were some truly saved individuals within the nation, but that was not the condition of most of the population. Hebrews 3:18–4:2 makes this clear.

Even a cursory comparison of Exodus 19:5, 6 with 1 Peter 2:9 will demonstrate that although both texts use identical words;^[3] ‘loved, chosen, called, and redeemed’, they are used in two different ways. These words refer to national Israel as a nation among nations and as such are ‘God’s special (national) people’. The same words also refer to the true Israel of God, or redeemed Body of Christ. Exodus 19 gives a list of the specific blessings that God promised Israel IF they would keep the covenant terms (the Ten Commandments). Israel never obeyed the terms of the covenant and therefore never received these blessings. She was finally cast off, as a nation, and lost her special national privileges. First Peter 2:9 shows that the church inherits those very blessings only because Christ has kept the covenant in her place. Notice the word-for-word comparison of Exodus and 1 Peter:

Exodus 19:5, 6 (KJV)	1 Peter 2:9 (NIV)
Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be	But you are [because Christ kept the covenant for us]
(1) a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me	(1) a chosen people, … a people belonging to God
(2) a kingdom of priests, and an	(2) a royal [kingly] priesthood,
(3) holy nation.	(3) a holy nation…

Both the beginning and the ending of Israel’s special national standing and privileges are connected with their keeping or breaking the Ten Commandments. 

The passage quoted above (Exodus 19:5, 6) certainly proves this point as to the institution of the nation. The termination of Israel’s special national status proves the same thing. Israel’s special national standing and privileges ended when the covenant ended that had established them as a nation. One of the most important verses in the New Testament Scriptures, from either a Dispensational or a Covenantal point of view, is Matthew 27:51. It definitely marks the end of both a dispensation and a covenant arrangement. The blood of Christ ratified the New Covenant, thus nullifying the Old Covenant, the moment Christ ‘gave up the ghost’ and died on the Cross. The entire theocratic kingdom established at Sinai ended at the same moment. Both of these things happened the moment the finger of God rent the veil of the temple from top to bottom. The way into the Most Holy Place is now open to all believers twenty-four hours a day. The same God who wrote that first covenant in stone with his finger now writes a new message with the same finger as he tears the veil and opens his immediate presence to all who come. The first covenant said, “Do not come near or even touch this mountain or you die,” but the New Covenant that takes its place says, “Come and welcome, the door is wide open.” The change of covenants makes the difference in the following texts:

The LORD said to Moses, “Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die…” Lev. 16:2 (NIV)

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way… Let us draw near…in full assurance… Heb. 10:19- 22 (NIV)

At the very moment that the veil was rent, Israel’s national status and privileges were ended,^[4] along with everything that was connected to that special covenant relationship. Aaron’s priesthood was finished, the sacrifices were done, the tabernacle was no longer holy, and the tables of the covenant (Ten Commandments) in the ark of the covenant were no longer in force as the covenant foundation of God’s relationship to Israel. A ‘better covenant’, based on ‘better promises’ (Heb. 8:6), replaced the tablets of stone. The ‘moment’ described by Matthew is the exact moment that the decisive historical shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant took place.

And when Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. (Matt. 27:50, 51 NIV)

The change of status brought into being by the change of covenants was a truth despised by the Jews. The words, “There is no difference” killed every ounce of pride in their birth, their circumcision, and their exclusive possession of the law. Two things happened with the coming of the kingdom of grace. First, the Gentile believer was made an equal heir with the Jewish believer in the one new man (Eph. 2:14-16), or body of Christ, and secondly, the unbelieving Jew was reduced to the same level and status before God as the unbelieving Gentile dog. Before Christ came, there was a great difference in privileges between Jew and Gentile (see Ephesians 2 and Romans 9), but once the Body of Christ came into being at Pentecost, and Judaism in its totality was ended, there was no difference at all. Just as all believers have the same status ‘in Christ,’ all lost people have the same status ‘outside of Christ.’ 

Every attempt to hang on to that which was distinctive of the Old Covenant and antithetical to the New Covenant was a further display of the Jews’ rejection of Christ as the Messiah. The Jewish nation not only rejected the message spoken by Christ, they also dismissed one of the greatest objects lessons that God ever gave. We do not know if they sewed that old veil back together or made a new one, but regardless, in re-hanging that veil they disavowed every promise that God had fulfilled and earned every judgment that their own prophets had clearly foretold. The times of the Messiah and the gospel blessing to all people that had been promised in the Abrahamic covenant had finally come. However, the Jewish nation could not believe the truth. ‘There is no difference’ could not penetrate the blind eyes and proud heart of the formerly favored Jew.

With the rending of the veil, the Most Holy Place was not the only area of the tabernacle that was finished; there was no longer a separate Court of Gentiles. Paul sets forth the heart of this truth in Romans 2 and 3; 9:1-18, 10:1-13; Ephesians 2:11-21; and Galatians 3:19-4:7.

The Ten Commandments, or tablets of stone, constituted the actual covenant document that established Israel as a nation.

Many details were added to the ‘covenant’ that explained and applied the covenant terms written on the tablets of the covenant to diverse areas of life and worship. The entire section of Exodus 20-22 is called the “book of the covenant.” The law of Moses included everything in the Pentateuch, and as such, was sometimes called ‘the law’ or ‘the covenant.’ Perhaps we could think of the tables of the covenant as a summary document that stood for the whole covenant arrangement, in the same way as a covenant sign stood for the whole covenant. Regardless, we must still see that the tablets of stone, or Ten Commandments, were a special covenant document that established Israel’s nationhood in the same sense that the Constitution of the United States is the covenant document that established it as a nation. The acts of Congress, the decisions of the Supreme Court, the rules of the IRS, Food and Health department laws, etc., are all part of the ‘law of the United States of America’ just as the judicial, ceremonial, social, and health laws are all part of the ‘law of Moses’. However, the Constitution is still the specific and separate document upon which all else rests. The same is true of the tablets of the covenant, or the Ten Commandments. 

All of the laws of the various departments in our government grow out of the Constitution. They define and apply specific sections of the Constitution to given situations. However, the fact remains that the actual covenant document upon which our nationhood was established, and by which we still are governed, is the Constitution. In the same sense, the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone were the ‘words of the covenant’ that constituted the basic covenant foundation of Israel’s special nationhood before God. A chart of comparison may help us to understand this point:

Covenant Document	Covenant Document
Ten Commandments	The Constitution
General Laws	Congress
Judicial Laws	Supreme Court
Civil and Social Laws	Justice Department
Health Laws	Department of Health
Tithing Laws	Department of Welfare
“The law of Moses”	“The law of the USA”

Summary

The preceding chart emphasizes the main points we are seeking to establish. The Ten Commandments are indeed a covenant document that set forth specific covenant terms. They function as a ‘foundation document’ in the same manner as the Constitution of the United States. In the United States, diverse agencies with specific laws were created to direct various aspects of the lives of American citizens living under the constitution; in the same manner, Israel had assorted laws to govern various aspects of her life under her covenant. We must avoid two mistakes. First, just as the Constitution of the United States does not contain the whole law of its government, so the Ten Commandments are not the ‘whole law of God’ for Israel. Second, we must not deny that both the Constitution and the tables of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, are basic covenant documents upon which each respective nation was built.

The primary resistance to consideration of the Ten Commandments as a legal covenant document is that such a view cannot be squared with the tenet of a “Covenant of Works with Adam before he fell and a Covenant of Grace with Adam after he fell.” Within such a framework, there can be no Covenant of Works after Adam ‘failed to earn life’ under the so-called Covenant of Works in Eden. Nor can there ever be another Covenant of Works once the so-called Covenant of Grace has been established. The ‘transaction’ at Sinai must be turned into ‘an administration of the Covenant of Grace’ or the whole system is destroyed. Mount Sinai simply cannot be a legal covenant if a ‘Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace with Adam’ concept is accepted.

---