by Richard Barcellos | 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.
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 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.
