by Richard Barcellos | Nov 30, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology
Part I: The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part II: Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part III: The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others
1. John Owen. Owen viewed the Decalogue as having more than one function. He did not view it as Old Covenant law alone. His understanding of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue can be seen clearly in several places of his Hebrews commentary. For instance, commenting on Heb. 9:5 (referenced above), he says, “The law [the Decalogue], as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.”[1] Later he claims that “what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.”[2] Notice that he views the Decalogue as functioning several ways; first, “as unto the substance of it, …the only law of creation”; second, “the rule of the first covenant of works”; third, that which “was in the tables of stone”; fourth, “a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally”; and fifth, that “which is returned [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”
Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19 (also referenced previously), he says:
Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[3]
Here he views the Decalogue as a unit “so far as it was compacted with the other [ceremonial law] into one body of precepts for the same end.” In other words, he is considering the Decalogue not absolutely or in itself (see below), but relatively or as it was ‘compacted’ with the ceremonial law under the Old Covenant.
While discussing the causes of the Sabbath and arguing for the morality and immutability of the essence of the fourth commandment, he makes this statement concerning the nature and function of the Decalogue under the Old Covenant:
The nature of the decalogue, and the distinction of its precepts from all commands, ceremonial or political, comes now under consideration. The whole decalogue, I acknowledge, as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation, as peculiarly under the rule of God. It had a place also in that economy or dispensation of the covenant which that church was then brought under; wherein, by God’s dealing with them and instructing of them, they were taught to look out after a further and greater good in the promise than they were yet come to the enjoyment of. Hence the Decalogue itself, in that dispensation of it, was a schoolmaster unto Christ.[4]
First, Owen views the Decalogue as the core of the law of the Old Covenant. He says, “The whole decalogue, …as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation.” Second, he makes the point that the Decalogue was “made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government” of Israel under the Old Covenant. This is something that it was not until that time. He viewed it as already in existence, though in a different form and revealed in a different manner, but now being “made” something it was not. It was now “made” to fit the redemptive-historical conditions of the Old Covenant. This seems even more likely, since he goes on to say, “Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan.”[5] Third, he also viewed it as “a schoolmaster unto Christ.”
Next, speaking of the Decalogue “in itself, and materially,” he says:
But in itself, and materially considered, it was wholly, and in all the preceptive parts of it, absolutely moral. Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan; but these especial applications of it unto them change not the nature of its commands or precepts, which are all moral, and, as far as they are esteemed to belong to the Decalogue, are unquestionably acknowledged so to be.[6]
Notice that he has transitioned from viewing the Decalogue in its Old Covenant functions to viewing the Decalogue in itself. We might say that he was considering it relatively speaking, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, but now he is considering it absolutely (or “in itself”), as it functions transcovenantally. First, he distinguishes between the Decalogue “as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their [Old Covenant Israel’s] nation” and “in itself.” Hence, “in itself” and “in all the preceptive parts of it,” the Decalogue is “absolutely moral.” Second, he says that the Decalogue under the Old Covenant had redemptive-historical “prefaces, enlargements, or additions” peculiar to the conditions in which they [the church in the land of Canaan] lived. These are positive, covenantal appendages added to the Decalogue and applicable to Old Covenant Israel in the land of Canaan.
From these statements, the following observations are relevant to our purpose. First, Owen viewed the Decalogue both relatively and absolutely, depending on its function in redemptive history. Second, he viewed the Decalogue (i.e., that which “was in tables of stone… as unto the substance of it”) functioning various ways and in all of the epochs of redemptive history. He saw it functioning in the Garden of Eden. He regarded it as the law of creation, the rule of the Adamic covenant of works, and the law that was written on Adam’s heart. He then saw it functioning in a special manner under the Old Covenant. He also saw it functioning under the New Covenant. He taught that it was this same law, as unto its substance, “which is returned thither [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”[7] He viewed it as the rule of life for all men,[8] because “in all the preceptive parts of it” it is “absolutely moral.” And as stated earlier, he viewed it as related to the active and passive obedience of Christ and hence, connected and essential to the doctrine of justification.[9]
2. John Calvin. In many places Calvin clearly identified the Decalogue as a special form of the Natural Law.[10] For instance, Calvin said, “Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables.”[11] Calvin “saw the revealed law as given in the ten commandments as a specially accommodated restatement of the law of nature for the Jews.”[12] He clearly held that by nature Gentiles without special revelation possessed the general knowledge of the Decalogue, though that knowledge is obscured by sin.[13] Hesselink says, “There is no denying that for Calvin the content of the moral law is essentially the same as that inscribed on the hearts of humans ‘by nature’.”[14] Wendel says, “One can even say that, for Calvin, the Decalogue is only a special application of the natural law which God came to attest and confirm.”[15]
Calvin’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue is no secret. It is also evidenced by the fact that he clearly upheld the perpetuity of both tables of the law for New Covenant believers.[16] For instance, he says:
The whole law is contained under two heads. Yet our God, to remove all possibility of excuse, willed to set forth more fully and clearly by the Ten Commandments everything connected with the honor, fear, and love of him, and everything pertaining to the love toward men, which he for his own sake enjoins upon us.[17]
Calvin clearly held that the Decalogue, all Ten Commandments, functioned as the basic, fundamental law of the Bible and as a universal ethical canon for all men based on creation. He also believed in the basic centrality of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant. Similar to Owen, Calvin holds to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.
3. Zacharias Ursinus. As stated above, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the question “To What Extent Has Christ Abrogated The Law, And To What Extent Is It Still In Force,” Ursinus says, “The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not.”[18] He continues, “But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[19] Ursinus, like Owen and Calvin, holds to a multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.
4. Francis Turretin. While discussing the use of the Moral Law, Turretin says:
A twofold use of the law may be laid down—absolute and relative. The former regards the law in itself; the latter regards the law in relation to the various states of man. The absolute (which obtains in every state of man) is that it may be a unique, full and certain rule of things to be done and avoided by each of us as well towards God as his neighbor. Thus there is no work truly and properly good and acceptable to God which does not agree with the law and is not prescribed by it; and whatsoever is not commanded nor forbidden by it is to be considered in its own nature indifferent and left to the freedom of man, unless this freedom has been restricted by some positive law.[20]
In Turretin, the Moral Law or Decalogue is the inscripturated form of the Natural Law.[21] Notice that Turretin views the Moral Law absolutely and relatively. Viewing it absolutely, it is applicable “in every state of man.” How does he view the Moral Law relatively? He continues:
The relative use is manifold according to the different states of man. (1) In the instituted state of innocence, it was a contract of a covenant of works entered into with man and the means of obtaining life and happiness according to the promise added to the law…
(2) In the destitute state of sin, the use of the law cannot be “justification” because it was weak in the flesh. …Still there is a threefold use of the law [in man’s destitute state of sin]. (a) For conviction… (b) For restraint… (c) For condemnation…
(3) In the restored state of grace, it has a varied use with respect to the elect, both before and after their conversions. Antecedently, it serves (a) to convince and humble man… (b) To lead men to Christ…
It not only antecedently prepares the elect man for Christ, but consequently also directs him already renewed through Christ in the ways of the Lord; serving him as a standard and rule of the most perfect life…[22]
Relatively, or considering the law in its relation ‘to the different states of man,’ the law has various functions as it pertains to the lost and the saved throughout all ages. In other words, there is a multi-functional utility to the law. Its utility transcends covenantal bounds. Due to the nature of the Decalogue, it cannot be eliminated from any era of redemptive history, which includes the New Covenant era. Turretin’s view is that of Owen, Calvin, and Ursinus.
5. Protestant Scholasticism. Richard Muller defines Moral Law in Protestant scholastic thought as follows:
[S]pecifically and predominantly, the Decalogus, or Ten Commandments; also called the lex Mosaica …, as distinct from the lex ceremonialis …and the lex civilis, or civil law. The lex moralis, which is primarily intended to regulate morals, is known to the synderesis [the innate habit of understanding basic principles of moral law] and is the basis of the acts of conscientia [conscience–the application of the innate habit above]. In substance, the lex moralis is identical with the lex naturalis …but, unlike the natural law, it is given by revelation in a form which is clearer and fuller than that otherwise known to the reason.[23]
While defining the Mosaic Law, he says:
…the moral law or lex moralis (q.v.) given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. In contrast to the moral law known in an obscure way to all rational creatures, the lex Mosaica is the clear, complete, and perfect rule of human conduct. The Protestant scholastics argue its completeness and perfection from its fulfillment, without addition, by Christ. Since the law does promise life in return for obedience, the Reformed argue that in one sense it holds forth the abrogated foedus operum (q.v.), or covenant of works, if only as the unattainable promise of the righteous God and the now humanly unattainable requirement for salvation apart from grace. In addition, the Reformed can argue that Christ’s perfect obedience did fulfill the covenant of works and render Christ capable of replacing Adam as federal head of humanity. Primarily, however, the Reformed view the law as belonging to the Old Testament dispensatio (q.v.) of the foedus gratiae (q.v.), or covenant of grace. It is the norm of obedience given to God’s faithful people to be followed by them with the help of grace. As a norm of obedience belonging to the foedus gratiae, the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament. Lutheran orthodoxy, which does not follow the covenant schema typical of the Reformed, also views the law as the perfect standard of righteousness and the absolute norm of morals, which requires conformity both in outward conduct and inward obedience of mind, will, and affections.[24]
These definitions of key theological terms and concepts used by Protestant Scholasticism amply display that it held to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.
Owen’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue comports with his view of abrogation (see below), Jeremiah 31:33, 2 Co. 3:3, and Matthew 5:17, and also with many of his theological contemporaries. There is a way to understand Owen on abrogation which both eliminates the Decalogue from the New Covenant and preserves it (see below). Relatively speaking, as the Decalogue functioned under the Old Covenant, it has been abrogated. Absolutely speaking, as the Decalogue represents and summarily comprehends the Moral Law as to its substance, it has not and cannot be abrogated. It has more than one function.
[1] Owen, Works, XXII:215.
[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215.
[3] Owen, Works,XXI:458.
[4] Owen, Works, XVIII:365, 66.
[5] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.
[6] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.
[7] Owen, Works, XXII:215.
[8] Owen, Works, XXII:215.
[9] Owen, Works, XXII:89, 90. “But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator.”
[10] Some of the following material comes from Barcellos, IDOTD, 92, 93, and is used with permission from Founders Press.
[11] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), II.viii.1.
[12] I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992), 51.
[13] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.1.
[14] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 10.
[15] Francois Wendel, Calvin, Origins and Developments of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1997), 206.
[16] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.13.
[17] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.12.
[18] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.
[19] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.
[20] Turretin, Institutes, II:137.
[21] Turretin, Institutes, II:6, 7.
[22] Turretin, Institutes, II:138-140.
[23] Muller, Dictionary, 173-74.
[24] Muller, Dictionary, 174.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 27, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Old Testament
a. Caninical structure of the English Bible
b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible: That the Hebrew Bible comprised the inspired Scriptures of the first century Jews seems obvious. The Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ was comprised of a three-fold division: I. The Law (Torah) – 5 books; II. The Prophets (Nebiim) – 8 books; and III. The Writings (Ketubim) – 11 books.[1] This simple three-fold division of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, probably compiled by the second century B.C., was recognized by Jesus in Luke 24:44, “…These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Jesus’ Hebrew audience would have understood him to be referring to the Hebrew Bible and its three-fold division.[2] In the words of Shaw:
[W]e know that the Jews arranged their sacred books into three classes, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography, or holy writings. …The Psalms are here [Lk. 24:44] put for the Hagiography, probably because they were the principal book, or occupied the first place in that division.[3]
Jesus ratified the contents of the Hebrew Bible as Holy Scripture. Reymond agrees with Shaw, when he says:
In New Testament times Jesus Christ–the second Person of the Godhead present with his church as its ultimate “canon”–personally validated for his church the particular Old Testament canon of first-century Palestinian Judaism, namely, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon (see his allusion to the tripartite canon of Palestinian Judaism in Lk. 24:44), which corresponds to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament …[4]
This three-fold division is known as the Tanak, an acronym for
…the Torah, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; the Nevi’im (the Prophets), comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve; and the Ketuvim (the Writings), composed of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.[5]
It is of interest to note Luke 24:45-47.
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures [in context this refers to the Tanak], and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem…”
The Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus is what he explained to his disciples. According to Jesus, the sufferings and third-day resurrection of the Messiah are contained in the Tanak. Jesus also claims that the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations, starting at Jerusalem, is taught in the Tanak.
There has been much recent study on the canonical structure and theology of the Hebrew Bible. Such study has caused John H. Sailhamer to say, “…the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.”[6] In other words, the Hebrew Bible comments upon what it reveals and is assumed to be a single, coherent book. When the Old Testament (and the New Testament) comments upon itself, this is called inter-biblical or inter-textual interpretation/exegesis. The PDBS defines inner-biblical exegesis as:
An approach to the text that seeks to address the re-interpretation and reapplication of earlier biblical texts by later texts. …Direct quotations are the most obvious application of this method, but inner-biblical exegesis looks at glosses in a text, the arrangement of material in its present form, and the use of words, themes and tradtions in texts. For example, a scholar studying inner-biblical exegesis might examine the relationship of Isaiah 2:2-4 to Joel 3:10 and Micah 4:1-3, or the use that Hosea puts to the traditions of Genesis 32 regarding Isaac and Esau. This approach to texts shares features with interpreting “Scripture in the light of Scripture” but focuses more on the literary and historical relationships rather than the theological or spiritual ones.[7]
Sailhamer says:
When the future [from the point of the Hebrew Bible] came at a specific time and place, there were people waiting for it. There were those like Simeon and Anna, who understood it in terms of the OT prophetic vision. In other words, the prophets’s vision was such that it preserved and carried with it a people who both understood the prophets and were there waiting for the fulfillment of their vision. By falling in line with that vision, the NT writers show that they accepted the OT not only as pre-interpreted, but they also were in fundamental agreement with its interpretation. That interpretation, we can see, began long before the time of its fulfillment. Already within the OT itself we can discover clear signs of an ongoing process of inter-Biblical, or (I would prefer to say) inter-textual interpretation.[8]
Stephen Dempster, while discussing explicit signs of textual coherence in the Tanak, says:
As mentioned earlier, within the biblical text itself there was an awareness that the many books were a unity. There is an exceedingly rich intertexuality in which there are many linguistic and conceptual echoes throughout Scripture. Later biblical books consciously echo and imitate events, concepts and language found in earlier books… Creation, exile and (occasionally) return form a recurring pattern that is stitched into the biblical narrative fabric. At the beginning, there is the creation of Adam and Eve, the placing of them in the Garden of Eden and the judgment of exile and death. Cain is soon born, and experiences the judgment of exile for the murder of his brother. The growth of the nations into a great power leads to sin at Babel and to exile as they are condemned to be dispersed throughout the earth. Abram is called into being to go to a land, which he leaves at times because of a lack of faith, only to return later. His descendants experience exile in Egypt and are brought back to the land. Their descendants also undergo exile before returning. Frequently the return is described in terms that echo the original creation and the placing of the first human pair in the Garden of Eden. Creation language often is employed to signal the return.[9]
These themes are not in the Tanak (or our English Old Testament) alone. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inaugurated a new creation, thus signaling that man could now return to God from his exiled state. This new creation (presently enjoyed only by Jesus in his glory and those who are his) will one day expand into “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). The eternal state is depicted as a return to the Edenic state, yet without the possibility of sin (Revelation 22:1ff [“the tree of life,” no longer any curse, “they will reign forever and ever”]). The end of the Bible is the end or goal of the beginning to which Adam failed to attain.
It is also of interest to observe that the Hebrew Bible begins with the Pentateuch (as does our English Old Testament) and ends with Chronicles (unlike our English Old Testament). The Pentateuch, as has been mentioned, is the foundation upon which the entire Old Testament rests. The rest of the Old Testament assumes the Pentateuch as its historical and theological foundation. The prophets apply the theology of the Pentateuch to the contingencies of Old Covenant Israel. The prophets offer both rebuke, in light of covenantal disobedience, and hope, in light of God’s Messianic promises and purpose for creation. Post-pentateuchal revelation assumes, and is based on, that which precedes it. This is inter-textual or inter-biblical exegesis. The Bible itself often builds upon (and is thus explanatory of or a commentary upon) previous revelation.
The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles. Stephen Dempster comments:
It begins with a creation story of humanity in the garden of Eden, continues with their exile from this place of God’s presence because of disobedience, and ends with a nation in exile as a result of disobedience yet called back to the province of Judah to engage in the task of temple restoration – the supreme symbol of God’s presence. This temple is no ordinary temple either, as it has eschatological overtones, resulting in the restoration of Eden. The rivers of Eden will flow again, this time turning even the Dead Sea into a place of teeming life.[10]
When Jesus comes on the scene, he is often depicted as a temple builder (John 1:14; 2:19-22; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16-17; 1 Peter 2:4-6; Matthew 16:18), the end of which turns out being described with many Old Testament creation (Eden) and temple echoes and allusions (cf. Revelation 21 and 22 [new heaven and new earth, holy city, new Jerusalem, bride adorned for her husband, tabernacle of God among men, no death, he will be my son, temple language, water of life, fruit, no curse, etc.]).
This area of study can be very helpful in understanding the overall thrust of the Old Testament. Canonical content and structure reveals to us themes that reoccur in the Old Testament and end up reoccurring in the New Testament as well. This, again, witnesses to the fact that God is in the business of bringing creation to its intended goal.
[1] Cf. John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible” in Scott J. Hafemann, editor, Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 32ff.; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and dynasty: A theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 36ff.; and Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 30-34.
[2] Sometimes the New Testament refers to the Old Testament as the law and the prophets, the law, or simply Scripture. This does not mean that the New Testament contradicts itself. It simply reflects the fact that the Old Testament can be summarized in various ways.
[3] Shaw, Westminster Confession, 43.
[4] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 61.
[5] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 36.
[6] John H. Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44/1 (March 2001) 13.
[7] PDBS, 63.
[8] Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” 13.
[9] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 31-32.
[10] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 33. Dempster references Genesis 2:10-14; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Joel 3:18; and Zechariah 14:8.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 25, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology
In part I of this series of posts, I said:
Too often while reading contemporary authors on the law in the life of believers, I find myself asking the question, “Haven’t these guys read the great minds of the past on this issue?” Sometimes I get the feeling (remember – feelings are “nothing more than feelings”) that much ink has been spilled prior to consulting the giants of church history and, in particular, Reformed theologians of previous eras. This series of posts will provide readers with some quotes from and my interaction with some statments by a few guys I think are worth listening to on this issue. The reason why John Owen is prominant in the discussion below is becasue I wrote my dissertation on him (and Geerhardus Vos). The analysis below shows that Owen is main-stream Reformed orthodox in his view of the law.
Post I considered The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others.
This time we will look at:
Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says:
From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]
Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:
Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]
Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]
2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:
From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]
Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.
3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8]
It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.
[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.
[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.
[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.
[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.
[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.
[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.
[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.
[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
