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

 Part IV: The Idea of Abrogation in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. Owen teaches that the whole law of Moses (even the moral element) has been abrogated. Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19, Owen says:

I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 7:12, Owen says:

It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood [emphasis added].[2]

Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent [emphasis added].[3]

Owen, of course, carefully qualifies what he means by the whole law and its abrogation. Commenting again on Hebrews 7:18, 19, 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.[4]

Again, Owen says:

By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church [emphasis added].[5]

This comes in a section in which Owen is showing how “the whole law may be considered …absolutely in itself” or “with respect …unto the end for which it was given” or “unto the persons unto whom it was given.”[6] He calls the law “the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people of Horeb. For the apostle takes ‘the commandment,’ and ‘the law’ for the same in this chapter; and ‘the covenant,’ in the next, for the same in them both.”[7] Owen is concentrating on the whole Mosaic law, i.e., it is the law in its totality as it related to God’s Old Covenant people that has been abrogated. Thus the abrogation of the law in Owen refers to the whole law as it functioned in Old Covenant Israel.[8] 

2. John Calvin. This understanding of abrogation is found in Calvin also. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law under the New Covenant in no way abrogates the Decalogue in every sense of the word. Commenting on Rom. 7:2, Calvin says:

…but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection [emphasis added].[9]

It is important to note that “the term ‘law’ for Calvin may mean (1) the whole religion of Moses…; (2) the special revelation of the moral law to the chosen people, i.e., chiefly the Decalogue and Jesus’ summary…; or (3) various bodies of civil, judicial, and ceremonial statutes.”[10] Calvin says, “I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God through Moses.”[11] Calvin views the law in various ways. So when he speaks of abrogation, he does not intend absolute abrogation, but relative abrogation in terms of the law considered not in itself, but in its redemptive-historically conditioned use. Commenting on the concept of abrogation in Calvin, one Calvin scholar said, “the Law was not in itself abrogated by the Christ, but only the slavery and malediction attaching to it under the ancient Covenant.”[12] According to Calvin, therefore, the Moral Law has not been abrogated, as such. What has been abrogated or fulfilled in Christ for believers is its function as a curse. “The law itself is not abolished for the believer, but only the maledictio legis… [F]or Calvin the law is related above all to believers for whom, however, the maledictio is removed.”[13]

3. Zacharias Ursinus. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the extent that Christ abrogated the law and the extent that it is still in force, Zacharias Ursinus says:

The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience [emphasis added].[14]

The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not [emphasis added].[15]

But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law [emphasis added].[16]

4. Francis Turretin. A similar understanding of abrogation is found in Francis Turretin. In volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin entitles chapter XXIII as follows:

THE ABROGATION OF THE MORAL LAW

XXIII.    Whether the moral law is abrogated entirely under the New Testament. Or whether in a certain respect it still pertains to Christians. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Antinomians.[17]

Notice Turretin’s careful qualifications (i.e., “entirely” and “in a certain respect”). While discussing the abrogation of the moral law, he says, “In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not.”[18] Then, after listing three senses in which the law has been abrogated, he says, “But the question only concerns its directive use–whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.”[19]

Turretin does what we have seen in others. He has a view of abrogation which both includes the Decalogue and does not include the Decalogue. This is because the law can be viewed from different theological and redemptive-historical vantage points.

5. Protestant Scholasticism. Finally, concerning the lex Mosaica [law of Moses], which, representing the view of Protestant Scholasticism, he defines as the moral law as given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, Richard Muller says, “As a norm of obedience belonging to the [covenant of grace], the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament.”[20] Muller recognizes the fact that Protestant Scholastics considered the law in different ways. Therefore, when we examine their statements about abrogation, we must take this into consideration. If we do not, we may take their statements on the abrogation of the law in an absolute manner and make them mean something they did not.

We have seen that Owen’s view of abrogation was similar to Calvin’s, Ursinus’, Turretin’s, and Protestant Scholasticism’s. With them, he carefully and repeatedly qualifies what he means by abrogation. He stands clearly within Reformed orthodoxy at this point. His view of abrogation neither necessarily demands the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit in all senses under the New Covenant, nor is it contradicted by the inclusion of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant. Though with his own nuances and emphases, Owen’s view is substantially that of others in his day. It was Calvin’s, Ursinus’s, Turretin’s, Protestant Scholasticism’s, as well as that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the 2^nd LCF.[21]

From the evidence presented, Owen must be understood to view abrogation as both including and not including the Decalogue, depending on how it is viewed. If this is the case, his understanding of abrogation, though with its own nuances and emphases, has clear and ample precedent in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, and Protestant Scholasticism.

[2] Owen, Works, XXI:428.

[3] Owen, Works, XXI:429.

[4] Owen, Works, XXI:458.

[5] Owen, Works, XXI:469.

[6] Owen, Works, XXI:466.

[7] Owen, Works, XXI:471.

[8] I defended this view of abrogation in my IDOTD. “Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 61.

[9] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1984), IXX:246.

[10] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii, n. 1.

[11] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.1.

[12] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 203.

[13] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 256.

[14] Ursinus, Commentary, 492.

[15] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.

[16] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[17] Turretin, Institutes, II:ix.

[18] Turretin, Institutes, II:141.

[19] Turretin, Institutes, II:141, 42.

[20] Muller, Dictionary, 174.

[21] See chapters 4 and 19 of these Confessions.

Richard Barcellos

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.