CBTS Logo

Review of Rooker’s The Ten Commandments

by | Dec 2, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology

The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century

Mark F. Rooker

(Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010, 234pp.)

reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

Mark F. Rooker’s The Ten Commandments (TC) is volume 7 in the NAC Studies in Bible & Theology series put out by B&H Academic. Dr. Rooker is professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. TC is a nice, hardback volume with recommendations by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Jerry Vines, among others. It contains a bibliography and name, subject, and Scripture indices.

I first heard of this book when a student from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, emailed me asking if I thought Rooker quoted me in context while referencing my In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD). I did not even know who Rooker was, nor had I heard of the book. I immediately ordered a review copy and read the book this fall. I’ll comment on Rooker’s references to IDOTD later. In case you are wondering, I have no problem with his quotes in the context in which he used them, though I am sure we differ on some finer points.

Preface

Something in the one-page Preface that caught my eye was this: “The reader of this volume will clearly see that the Ten Commandments are founded on the creation account of Gen 1-2” (xi).

Introduction

The Introduction has the following headings: The Influence of the Ten Commandments; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in Judaism; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in Christianity; The Enumeration of the Ten Commandments; The Ten Commandments in their Ancient Near Eastern Background; The Context of the Ten Commandments; and The Addressees of the Ten Commandments. Rooker is clear that he thinks the Ten Commandments are important. He says, for instance:

…the Ten Commandments have stood the test of time and will continue as long as civilization exists. The influence of the Ten Commandments on the Western world is beyond doubt. No other document has had such a great influence on Western Culture. (1)

Rooker then gives historical examples in Western history where the Ten Commandments have influenced many (1-3). Though I appreciate Rooker’s desire to highlight the importance of the Ten Commandments, I do not find his examples compelling me to agree with such an assertion – i.e., “No other document has had such a great influence on Western Culture.”

Rooker sees special significance in the Ten Commandments. He argues that, in one sense, they are distinct from and foundational to all other laws of the Bible. He says:

The Ten Commandments are literally the “Ten Words” …in Hebrew. The use of the term dabar, “word,” in this phrase distinguishes these laws from the rest of the commandments (miswa), statues (hoq), and regulations (mispat) in the Old Testament. (3)

The Ten Commandments should be viewed as fundamental to all the laws of the Bible. They may be compared to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws that follow (Exod 21:1-23:19) as somewhat analogous to sections of federal law dealing with particular matters. (4; Rooker references D. Stuart, Exodus, NAC, 441.)

The special role of the Ten Commandments is seen in the fact that they were placed in the ark of the covenant, “the most holy article of the tabernacle/temple furniture…” (5). It is in this context of discussion that Rooker says, “The Ten commandments express the eternal will of God” (6). A little further on, he says that

the laws in the Decalogue are not entirely new to Israel. The Bible presupposes a moral code long before the theophany on Mount Sinai. This is indicated in earlier biblical events such as the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain (Gen 4), as well as the judgments of the flood (Gen 6-9) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). The expression of God’s will in the Decalogue is commensurate with His nature. (6)

While discussing the significance of the Ten Commandments in Christianity, Rooker distances himself from those who think that the Ten Commandments have served their purpose and are no longer relevant for Christian ethics. Rooker says:

The New Testament church accepted the Decalogue as the substance of Christian ethics at an early date. Early attestation of its importance is clear not only from the numerous citations of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament (Matt 5; 19; Mark 10; Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jas 2:11) but also from the apostle Paul stating emphatically that the tenth commandment convinced him he was a sinner (Rom 7:7-8). Under the teaching of the tenth commandment, sin stirred up a world of iniquity in his heart. The New Testament nowhere rescinds the ethics of the Ten Commandments. (9)

These words clearly distance Rooker from others in our day who see the function of the Decalogue as limited to old covenant Israel (i.e., New Covenant Theology).

The last page of the Introduction discusses the addressees of the Ten Commandments. Rooker says, “The Ten Commandments are addressed to the nation of Israel… ….The Ten Commandments were given directly to every individual Israelite…” (23) These statements might appear to be contradicting some of the things Rooker has already said. However, if one understands that the Ten Commandments have more than one function in the Bible, there is no contradiction in Rooker at this point. Rooker himself holds to a multifunctional utility of the Decalogue. He sees it related to creation and redemption; to Israel, to the Moral Law, to the Natural Law, and to Christian Ethics (175-199).

Chapters 1-10

Chapters 1-10 take up each commandment in order. Each chapter is outlined basically the same. The basic outline is as follows: introduction, the meaning of the commandment, the commandment elsewhere in the OT, the commandment in the NT, and a conclusion. I really appreciate this approach. It helps readers get a grasp of the usage of each commandment in both testaments. Rooker shows ample acquaintance with relevant contemporary, scholarly literature. I would have liked to see much more interaction with Reformed theologians on this issue (especially older ones). I found this lack somewhat of a disappointment, especially while dealing with the fourth commandment (see my comments below). All in all, though, the chapters are well-written and informed, full of Scripture, and easy to follow.

One chapter needing some comment on is chapter 4 on the fourth commandment. Something I appreciate much is this statement: “The oft-repeated notion that the Sabbath was originally only a day of rest without any worship activity is unfounded” (91). He made this statement after showing “[t]he association of the sanctuary and priestly ritual with the Sabbath day…” (90). The Sabbath day under the old covenant was a “holy convocation” or “sacred assembly” (90). It was a special day of rest and public worship.

While discussing the fourth commandment, Rooker makes these statements about the Sabbath and creation:

Unlike the previous commands, the fourth is stated positively. It is dependent on the creation account of Gen 1-2, which also describes the cessation of the Creator’s work and affirms that the Sabbath is sanctified… (92)

…at Mount Sinai Israel was commanded to honor this day that was established at the beginning (Gen 2:1-3). The Sabbath commandment is to be read in light of the creation account that focuses on the sanctification of the seventh day. (93-94)

…[the fourth commandment] is the only commandment specified in the creation account… (99)

The Sabbath is not only the focus of the Ten Commandments; it is also the climax of the creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) and suggests that creation and the giving of the Ten Commandments are related. (176)

Does Rooker hold that the Sabbath is, therefore, a creation ordinance and for all men of all time? The answer would seem to be yes, based on these words, “The Sabbath was made for man. The fact that the work and rest pattern was established in the work of God Himself indicates that this principle for mankind had universal significance and application” (102).

What place does Rooker  see for the fourth commandment in Christian ethics? He rightly sees the Sabbath as a type of Christ (99) and as a sign with Israel as God’s old covenant nation (99). He says:

In addition, it is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is not repeated in the New Testament. The New Testament instead speaks of its typical nature. As a shadow it was fulfilled in Christ’s ministry in giving rest, but it also awaits a future fulfillment. (99)

But he goes on to qualify as follows:

Yet the fourth commandment is not without relevance for the modern Christian. The principles involved in observance of the Sabbath law are applicable today. The principles of work, rest, and worship that emerge from the Sabbath law are extremely meaningful in their application to the contemporary Christian. (99-100)

There is much to agree with in these words.

Because Rooker sees the Sabbath as typological of Christ, he does not see it as binding (as such) on believers or anyone else today. I agree that the Christo-typical function of the Sabbath is no more. As he states in the quote above, however, there are abiding principles from the Sabbath law that are applicable today, but the Sabbath, in its Christo-typical function, is no more. But is that the only function of the Sabbath in the Bible? I think it has more than just a Christo-typical function.

A denial of an abiding new covenant Sabbath is further illustrated where Rooker argues against the Lord’s Day being the new covenant application of the Sabbath law (98-99). He says:

While there is solid evidence that the early Christians were beginning to worship on Sunday in honor of the resurrection, there is no evidence that Sunday was to be considered the new Sabbath day of rest and the way Christians would now keep the fourth commandment. Thus, Sunday did not replace the Sabbath… (99)

Obviously, Rooker does not see the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath under the new covenant in application of the fourth commandment. He sees practical application from the fourth commandment, but not an abiding Sabbath to be rendered for the people of God on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, Sunday.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Rooker says about the fourth commandment, but I also find myself wanting him to say more and qualify more carefully. As for me, if the Sabbath is grounded in creation, made for man, incorporated into (and thus predating and transcending) Israel’s Decalogue, part of the Decalogue (which has various functions, one of which is the heart of old covenant law another of which is the heart of new covenant law [Jer. 31:33]), related to redemption, and other things, I don’t see a problem with it being an abiding law for Christians, granting a change in its application due to the redemptive-historical shift brought on by the resurrection of Christ, the sign of the new creation and seal of redemption accomplished.

Conclusion

In the Conclusion, Rooker’s headings are as follows: Interrelationship of the Ten Commandments; Mosaic Covenant and the Plan of God; Israel and the Law; The Church and the Law; The New Testament and the Law; The New Testament and the Ten Commandments; The Ten Commandments and Moral Law; Moral Law and the Christian; The Moral Law and the Natural Law; and A Final Word. There is much good theological discussion in light of the main section of the book, but I can only comment on a two things.

Rooker has a great discussion on distinctions in the law of the OT on pp. 181-86. I will only whet your appetite with these words: “A distinction can be made between what is universal and what uniquely applied to Israel’s special circumstance” (182). I found this section very helpful.

It is in the Conclusion where Rooker references my IDOTD six times. Though I am sure we differ here and there on some issues, on the main, I found his use of IDOTD judicious.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in a contemporary scholar interacting with mostly contemporary sources on the place of the Ten Commandments in the Bible.

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Two

by | Nov 22, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics

Chapter two is entitled “The OT Witness.” Wells first discusses the argument from creation (i.e., Gen. 2:1-3) or what many call creation ordinances. I will quote him in full at this point:

Perhaps you have heard someone say that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. What did they mean by that? Those who use the phrase appear to mean that at creation God gave commands to be carried out by all men and women throughout history. Often three are cited: marriage, labor and Sabbath. But if creation ordinance implies that all men and women must do these things, even if we suppose that Jesus needed to be an obvious exception, Paul shows us that it is not necessary that all normal people get married. In fact, he expressed a preference for singleness like his (1 Cor 7:7-8). So also the Sabbath could be an exception. (26)

I am not sure if any who advocate creation ordinances claim that marriage as instituted in Eden is a mandate for all men and women, no matter what circumstances might come onto the world-scene subsequently. If that were the case, then Jesus and Paul sinned in this area. This would be similar to arguing that the only legitimate vocation is that of Edenic garden-tending. I think the point is simply that if and when men and women unite in marriage, they are to do so monogamously. Also, though creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are age-long ethics, the fall into sin does complicate matters. For instance, in Matt. 19, Jesus argues from the creation account to life-long monogamous marriage. However, he also acknowledges that sin has complicated matters and, thus, there is a modified application of the creation ordinance of marriage in a fallen world. In fact, due to the fall into sin and the curse, the creation ordinance of labor looks different in its post-lapsarian application (Gen. 3:17-19). Could it be the same for the Sabbath? Could it be that the Sabbath takes on various temporary nuances due to the presence of sin and God’s purposes in the unfolding drama of redemption? Obviously, I think this is the case. Due to God’s purposes in creation and redemption, the Sabbath takes on redemptive-historical nuances as it is applied in differing eras of redemptive history. Though sin may complicate or change the application of creation ordinances it does not negate them.

While discussing Gen. 2:1-3, Wells says:

To begin we see that there is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3 that commands a Sabbath for anyone. I have already said that the verses would fit in nicely with such a command. Does this prove that there was no such command? Of course not. Still there is no such command in the passage. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there.

If we ask why people find a command here, they may tell us these verses do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings. When we look in those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do. Moses is silent on others. (26)

First, concerning the argument that since there is no command there is no command, it sure does have a prima facie appeal to it. There is no command, therefore there is no command! Case closed, end of debate, right? Not so fast. There are many things not commanded in the creation narrative that most Christians believe were, none-the-less, commands (call them moral requirements or whatever) for Adam and Eve and for all subsequent men and women. For instance, would Wells want to argue that since there is no command in the creation narrative concerning truth-telling, truth-telling was not commanded or required of Adam and Eve and all subsequent men and women? There is nothing in the creation narrative that explicitly commands truth-telling. It would fit in quite well but there is none. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there. The same goes for monotheism, idolatry, honoring God-ordained human authorities, coveting, etc. Here’s the point, Wells’ argument is a non sequitur – it does not follow – and it actually proves too much. Wells is asking too much of a narrative. The Genesis creation account tells the story of creation; it is not an explicit, detailed ethical code. As a matter of fact, the creation narrative is scant when it comes to ethical injunctions compared to many other portions of Scripture. And even though it is not an explicit ethical code, that does not mean it does not imply ethics. For instance, we know that being an image-bearer of God has ethical implications. This is hinted at in the creation narrative (Gen. 1:26ff.) and teased-out for us elsewhere in subsequent revelation (cf. Rom. 1-2; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Jms. 3:9). In other words, general revelation is implicitly imperatival. The act of creation warrants, even demands man’s proper response. “Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him,” says Ps. 33:8. But why? Verse 9 says, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” To what does “it” refer? “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made…” (Ps. 33:6a). In other words, the fact and act of creation is implicitly imperatival. This also shows us that subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation. In other words, the Bible often expounds upon and applies itself, drawing out of previous revelation implications for the present that were always there (cf. Paul’s argument for gender-based ethics for the church in 1 Tim. 2:11ff.). And the implications it draws out are sometimes highly conditioned upon the era of redemptive history one lives in (i.e., Exod. 20:8ff.; Mk. 2:28; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; Rev. 1:10). Wells seems to forget about general revelation and the ethical implications of creation imago Dei.

Second, Wells’ says, “these verses [Gen. 2:1-3]…do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings” and “[w]hen we look at those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26). What are we to make of this? First of all, Gen. 2:1-3 is not only “joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings,” it is connected to and further explained by other portions of Holy Scripture. There are quotations/allusions to Gen. 2:1-3 outside of the Mosaic writings and these must be taken into account when seeking to understand it (cf. Mk. 2:27; Heb. 4:4, 9-10 [NOTE: Some day I want to trace the link between temple building and rest throughout the Scripture. My hunch is that I will find the first temple, the Garden, linked to rest, as well as Israel’s tabernacle/temple and the church. There was temple and rest in the Garden, there was temple and rest in Israel, there is temple and rest for the church, both in this age and in the age to come. But I digress.]).

Interestingly, Wells says elsewhere, “What could I tell others about the meaning of my keeping a Sabbath if all I had was Genesis 2:1-3?”(29). May I call a foul or throw a flag? This, too, is a non sequitur – it does not follow that since you can’t say much, therefore you can’t say anything. But also, we have much more revelation than simply Gen. 2:1-3 and limiting ourselves to it is simply dangerously myopic and a really poor hermeneutical move. The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture. In other words, we must allow the Bible to speak concerning the canonical meaning of Gen. 2:1-3 lest we impose our own conjectures or arguments from silence upon it.

In my next post I will interact with Wells, where he says, “[w]hen we look at those [i.e., verses in Moses’ writings concerning the Sabbath] we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26).

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Foreword and Chapter 1

by | Nov 20, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

On Friday, November 19, 2010, I received a free copy of Tom Wells’ newest book, The Christian and the Sabbath. Thanks, Tom! It is a 141 page book, including bibliography and indices. I was glad to see my name referenced on four pages and Dr. Waldron’s name referenced on 16 pages (Dr. Waldron is much older than me so that makes perfect sense :-)). Wells quotes from my In Defense of the Decalogue and Waldron’s unpublished Lectures on the Lord’s Day. I would have liked to see some interaction with our exposition of the new covenant in our book Reformed Baptist Manifesto and interaction with Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, but I fully realize you can’t interact with everything.

In the Foreword, Wells shares some of his personal experience related to this issue, going back about 40 years. Though I enjoy autobiography, I thought the mention of some of the personal experience was unnecessary, but that’s probably just me. I noted on the first page that Wells sets up one of those unnecessary either/or dichotomies. He says, in effect, the Decalogue is eternal law or a gift to Israel (7). Why couldn’t it be both? More on this later.

Wells brings up the issues of probable arguments and arguments from silence. He is bold to say, “Both of us [Wells and those who differ with him] will lean heavily on probable arguments, including arguments from silence” (8). I want to assert that though I admit that all human exegesis is, to a degree, conjecture and setting forth what is most plausible (at least in the mind of the exegete), I do not want to give an inch to “arguments from silence.” I do not think it best, or even good, to argue from the absence of a word or concept to the presence of a doctrinal formulation. I did not find Wells’ words, at this point, helpful.

Wells states the burden of the book at least twice in the Foreword. He says, “My point is to show that there is no such command [i.e., Sabbath command] given to Christians. No one may insist on it for other adults” (10). He goes on and adds, “…I want to show that no one may command another adult Christian to keep a Sabbath” (10). I take this to mean that his book will prove that it is wrong for Christians to believe that there is a Sabbath to observe/render for the people of God under the new covenant. As a side note, I am not sure why Wells uses the word “adult.” Is it ok to insist on a Sabbath for Christian youth? I am probably making too much of a little thing.

At the beginning of chapter 1, Wells gives two reasons for writing this book: first, “the subject is important” (11) and the “second [reason] has to do with how the Old and New Covenants relate” (11). The rest of chapter 1 takes up the issue of the relationship between the old and new covenants. One of the things Wells discusses is the change that has occurred in light of the inauguration of the new covenant. He notes, commenting on 1 Pt. 2:5, 9-10, that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant. Whereas the old covenant had a physical house, the new covenant people of God are the house of God; and whereas “certain men from a certain tribe were priests, all Christians are priests” (13). “The OT priests had physical sacrifices to offer. We offer spiritual sacrifices” (13). So far so good. But I would like to insert one comment at this point. Since there is still a house of God, and since there is still a covenantal priesthood, and since that priesthood still offers sacrifices (granting that change has occurred), could it be that there is still a Sabbath to be rendered (granting that change has occurred)?

Wells makes a point that Israel was a sacral society. As a matter of fact, he takes seven pages to do so. He discusses the nature of the Ten Commandments as national legislation and in terms of its focus on externals. He says:

If you look at the Ten Commandments, unless you read into them what is not explicitly there, you will find only one command that apparently addresses motivation, the command, “You shall no covet!” All the rest cover easily measurable events. That is what national law does in all societies. (16)

I find this interesting, in light of how Jesus (Matt. 5) seems to highlight (my conjecture) what was implicitly there all along. Remember also that Paul said the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), not that it has now become spiritual. Again, I ask, could it be that Israel’s law is both a gift for national Israel and representative of moral law for all men?

While watching College football this afternoon I read over ½ of chapter 2. I was disappointed with aspects of it but will wait until next time to let you in on just what disappointed me.

Pin It on Pinterest