Tablets of Stone

The second thing by way of introduction concerns the necessity of being sure that we know exactly what was written on the Tables of Stone. It is impossible to understand the theological significance of the Tables of the Covenant if we do not know exactly what is being commanded in the terms of the covenant. We must first know exactly what duty is being commanded before we start discussing its nature and purpose. Nothing but confusion and misunderstanding can result if we are not all talking about the same thing.

What was written on the Tablets of Stone? Exactly what are the "Ten Commandments?"

What was the exact content of the Old Covenant that was written with the finger of God on the Tables of the Covenant? One would think that such a question need not be asked and some may be surprised that we start with something so "simple." The very fact that no one starts here and just "assumes" that everyone knows the answer is indicative of the amount of ignorance there is about the Ten Commandments and the bad theologies that has been produced by that ignorance.

First of all, it must be noted that the Bible gives two different "versions" of the Ten Commandments that were written on the Tables of Stone. And there are some very real differences in the two accounts. The following chart compares some of differences in the two versions of the Ten Commandments as they are found in Exodus twenty and Deuteronomy five. The first through third and the sixth through ninth commandments are almost identical. The greatest differences are in the fourth and fifth. Since our concern at this point is only in the fact that there are two different versions of the Ten Commandments, we will only note the differences in the fourth commandment.

A dotted line (.......) means that something is missing in that particular account, and words in italics means that something has been added that is not in the other account. We need only to glance at the amount of dotted lines and words in italics to see that there is a vast difference in the two different accounts of the fourth commandment. We find it hard to believe that these differences are almost totally ignored by theologians:

It is very obvious there is a great difference in the fourth commandment as recorded in Ex 20:8-11 and the same commandment as recorded in Dt 5:12-15. Moses clearly gave two totally different reasons for why the Sabbath was to be kept holy. The first reason was to follow God's example in Genesis and the second was to remember the recent deliverance from Egypt. Very few writers even mention these differences in the two versions of the Ten Commandments, and most of them make no attempt to deal with the obvious problems created by the impossibility of having two different things written on the same Tables of Stone.

A.W. Pink, in his commentary on Exodus, never notices the problem. Walter Chantry, in God's Righteous Kingdom, not only does not mention the fact there are differences, he also uses Deut 5:22 in a manner that greatly compounds the problem. ⁴ Chantry insists that when Moses said, "and He added nothing more" that God explicitly meant that "nothing can be added" to the commandments recorded in Deut 5:1-21. This means that none of the things found in Ex 20 that are omitted in Dt 5 can be added to Dt 5 and then considered to be part of the actual commandment written on stone. ⁵ Patrick Fairbairn, in The Revelation of God in Scripture, is the only writer that makes any kind of a serious attempt to resolve the problem. Fairbairn does not mention the further problem created by Deut 5:22.

We think it is more than fair to say that any attempt to understand the true meaning and function of the Tablets of Stone in the history of redemption that does not begin by clearly establishing exactly what was written on those tablets is doomed to confusion and contradiction. How is it possible to know the true meaning and significance of commandments when we do not know for sure what a given commandment actually says? Likewise, we feel justified in thinking that a person's understanding of the significance of the Ten Commandments is rather shallow if that person never even noticed that the Bible gives two different versions of those commandments.

What Is Involved in the Fact that there are "Two Different Versions" of the Ten Commandments in the Bible?

One: The Verbal Inspiration of the Scripture. We are not talking about two versions of a parable or miracle. We are dealing with very special and unique commandments of great significance that were written in stone by the finger of God. Nothing could be more exact and specific than that. It is not possible that God wrote on the Tablets of Stone everything found in the both the Exodus 20 version and the Deut 5 version of the Ten Commandments. Something is obviously wrong and an awful lot is at stake until the problem is solved. The solution might be a bit easier if two different writers had given the two different versions. However, in this case Moses is the author of both Ex 20 and Dt 5.

Patrick Fairbairn uses the basic "dynamic equivalent" theory to reconcile the two versions. This means that a writer may use a different word or phrase in two different accounts of the same thing but the basic meaning of the two are the same. Even if this method is accepted as legitimate, it could not be stretched to reconcile the radical differences in Ex 20 and Deut 5. How can God delivering Israel from Egypt in any way be the "dynamic equivalent" of God creating the heavens and earth in six days and then resting on the seventh day?

Believing that the Ten Commandments, as given in Exodus 20 and Dt 5, are the "eternal unchanging moral law of God" only adds to the problem. Can anyone believe that God intended the Tablets of Stone to be what some preachers insist, with no Biblical proof, on calling "the unchanging moral law," and also believe that God would inspire Moses to give two different versions of His "unchanging moral law?" This fact alone ought to alert any serious mind to stop and think. One thing is certain, the two different versions of the Ten Commandments must be reconciled to each other before it is possible to know for sure what was actually written on the Tablets of Stone! We have people arguing vehemently about "unchanging laws" without even knowing what those laws actually say.

There are basically only three possible approaches to the problem of the two different versions of the Ten Commandments:

1.The Bible contradicts itself. Every Christian will reject this explanation.

2.Moses, in Deut 5, "forgot" what God actually wrote on the Tablets of Stone in Ex 20 and therefore left out the part about creation (Fairbairn is really weak on this point). Moses also "added," in Deut 5, the part about deliverance from Egypt even though it was not actually part of the original Ten Commandments given in Ex 20. It is obvious we must also reject this explanation. It is a "rational" version of the first approach.

3.All that was actually written on the Tablets of Stone was the bare commandments. In the case of the fourth commandment, all that was written on the tables was the words "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." All of the rest of the words relating to the actual observance of the Sabbath, in both Ex 20 and Deut 5, are commentary added by Moses and not part of the commandment itself as written on the Tablets of Stone.

The last solution is obviously the only position consistent with verbal inspiration even though it might create some problems for some theologians. It would be most appropriate for Moses, standing at Mt Sinai, to point Israel back to the God of Creation as a ground for obeying the newly given covenant sign, or Sabbath commandment. As we shall see, the seventh day Sabbath was the specific "sign" of the Mosaic covenant that established the nation of Israel as a body politic at Mt Sinai. It would also be just as appropriate for Moses to remind Israel (at the second giving of the law in Dt 5) of God's redemptive rights over Israel because of the recent deliverance by blood and power from Egypt. The two reasons together combine the creatorial rights and redemptive claims of God over His chosen nation and furnish a double obligation for obeying the covenant sign and the whole covenant. However, it is obvious that neither of the two different reasons given by Moses for keeping the seventh day holy were part of the actual commandments, or covenant, that was written on the Tablets of Stone. Both reasons are commentary added by Moses to enforce the great significance of the covenant sign (Sabbath) that had just been given to Israel.

Two: As it regards the Sabbath Commandment. It is impossible to use Ex 20:11 to prove that the seventh day Sabbath was a so-called "Creation Ordinance." You must "add" that to the version given in Deut 5 before you can make it part of the actual commandment. However, as Walter Chantry has clearly demonstrated, Deut 5:22 forbids any such additions.

The purpose of Chantry in the section where he quotes Deut 5:22 is to prove the seventh day Sabbath is a Creation Ordinance. It is surprising that he did not realize that his comments on Dt 5:22 were making it impossible to use Ex 20:11 as proof that the Sabbath began at creation. In order for Ex 20:11 to be part of the Fourth Commandment, Chantry must clearly show how he can add the words found in this verse to the account in Deut 5 without admitting that the words "added no more" in Dt 5:22 really do not mean "added no more." If anyone chooses to believe that the Sabbath commandment existed before Sinai, he must get his evidence from a source other than Ex 20 and Dt 5.

Three: Our Theological view of "Moral Law." As mentioned earlier, we must ask this question: "If God intended the Tables of Stone to be a revelation of His `one unchanging moral law,' would He have given us two different versions of what He had written?" We think this is self contradictory. We need a whole new mind set that thinks and speaks in Biblical terms instead of theological terms. We need to say, "Give me a clear text of Scripture" instead of accepting theological terms as equal to Scripture verses. We must quit referring to the Ten Commandments as the "unchanging moral law of God" and begin to think and speak of them the same way the Bible does. We must call them, as the writers of Scripture do, the "Tables of the Covenant" or one of the other synonyms. When ever we hear the words "the Ten Commandments" our first thought should automatically be "the words of the Old Covenant written on the Tables of Stone at Mt Sinai." Until we do this, we are failing to think and speak in Biblical terms.

We are not suggesting that there are no "moral laws" written on the Tablets of Stone. The Ten Commandments contain much, actually mostly, moral law that is just as binding on a Christian today as it was on Moses. However, that is totally different than saying "the Ten Commandments, as written on the Tablets of Stone, are "THE eternal unchanging moral law."

We simply must fix in our minds that the Bible always treats the "Ten Commandments" as a single unit, or codified list that constitutes a covenant document. And that document is the Decalogue, or "Ten Words." When that covenant ended, everything it represented was also ended. However, the specific moral duties commanded in the individual commandments written on those tables are another thing altogether. Nine of the ten individual commandments are clearly repeated by both our Lord in the Gospels and by the Apostles in the Epistles.

Everything that God commands is "moral law" to the individual commanded. To pick up sticks on the Sabbath was one of the most immoral things that a man could do under the Old Covenant. This was not because there is anything inherently wrong with picking up sticks. The man was stoned to death because the Fourth Commandment, which was the covenant sign, specifically forbid any physical labor on the seventh day. A commandment that was ceremonial in nature became the highest moral duty possible when God made it the sign of the covenant. We will say more about this in a later chapter.

It was not immoral for a man to take a second wife under the same Old Covenant that had the man stoned to death for gathering sticks. The same "Book of The Covenant" that commanded "keep the Sabbath holy" also commanded a man to sleep with both wives when he took the second wife (Ex 21:10).

The exact opposite is true of the above two examples under the New Covenant. The ceremonial sign, or Sabbath, of the Old Covenant ceased when the covenant, of which it was a sign, was done away in Christ. The Seventh Commandment was changed by Christ, the new Lawgiver, and polygamy is now considered adultery. Polygamy was not a sin against the so called "moral law of God" according to the covenant under which David lived, but it is a sin according to the New Covenant under which a Christian lives today. The Bible defines moral duty according to the laws of the specific covenant under which an individual lives and never by an imaginary code of "unchanging moral law."

The fact that there are two different versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible presents some problems. There was a lot less written on the Tables of Stone than most people realize. The Ex 20 version and the Dt 5 version gives two different versions of the Sabbath Commandment. It seems improvable to us that God meant us to think of the Ten Commandments as His "unchanging moral law" when we are not positively sure what those commandments actually say.

4. See pages 87,88 of God's Righteous Kingdom, by Walter Chantry, Banner of Truth.

5. See page 325 in The Revelation of God in Scripture, Patrick Fairbairn, Guardian Press.