Tablets of Stone

Chapter Five
The Ten Commandments Were
Given Only To The Nation Of Israel

The Old Testament Scriptures always state that the covenant written on the Tablets of Stone was made only with Israel at Sinai. We saw this truth in chapter one. We looked at the first time the words "Ten Commandments" were used in the Bible. This same text states that the Ten Commandments, as the covenant document, was given only to the nation of Israel:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and WITH ISRAEL. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Ex 34:27,28

When Moses refreshed Israel's mind concerning their covenant relationship with God, he specifically says that the covenant (Ten Commandments) was given at Horeb. This is clear in the following text:

The Lord our God made a covenant [Remember the covenant is the Ten Commandments or Tablets of Stone] with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all of us alive here today. Deut. 5:2,3

Moses insists that the covenant was "not made with our fathers," meaning the patriarchs, ¹¹ but with the people that came out of Egypt. He then repeats the words of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, that were written on the Tablets of Stone.

The Prophets saw the coming of a New Covenant and spoke of it in glowing terms. Whenever they contrasted the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, they always state when and with whom the Old Covenant was made. Notice this in a classic passage in Jeremiah:

Behold days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel..., not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hands to bring them out of the land of Egypt..." Jer. 31:31.32.

Notice the following things clearly set forth in this passage:

1.There was going a New Covenant. "I will make a new covenant."

2.The New Covenant was going to be different in nature from the Old Covenant. "Not like the covenant I made with their fathers"

3.The Old Covenant being replaced was made at Sinai and made only with Israel. "Made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"

How is it possible to read these words in Jeremiah and say, "God was not actually promising to make a new and different covenant with Israel. He was really promising a new administration of the same covenant they were already under?" It seems to us that such statements are literally contradicting what Jeremiah said. The rest of the Bible always says the same thing that Jeremiah said when it speaks on this subject. The following passage from I Kings appears to be going out of its way to affirm the facts we are setting forth:

There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, WHEN the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, WHEN they came out of the land of Egypt. I Kings 8:9

The phrases "Tables of Stone," "Moses at Horeb," "made a covenant" and "children of Israel," in this text are the same key ingredients that we always find connected with the Ten Commandments. This passage of Scripture uses the word "when" two times. We could put a period after "children of Israel" and not lose the thought or argument. The last phrase in the sentence "When they came out of the land of Egypt" is almost redundant. The Holy Spirit must have wanted to impress this point on our minds.

The NT Scriptures always connect the Old Covenant with Israel.

Heb 8:6-9 is the Apostolic interpretation of Jer 31:31,32. The author of Hebrews clearly states: (1) when the Old Covenant was made; (2) with whom the Old Covenant was made; (3) the fact the New Covenant would be different than the Old Covenant. The passage is clear:

.......... the time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel .......... It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out Egypt.......... Heb 8:7,8

It is not possible to make this verse promise a new administration of the same covenant. Nor is it possible relate this covenant back to Adam in the garden. Neither the words in prophecy of Jer 31:33 nor the Apostolic interpretation in Heb 8:7,8 will allow such an idea.

"Having the law" as a covenant and the Gospel as a promise as opposed to "not having the law" and being without covenant or hope was the great difference between the nation of Israel and the Gentiles (Eph 2:11-21).

The following text is a key passage on this particular point:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..... Rom 2:14.

First of all, the word "law" in this passage clearly refers to the Tablets of Stone. It cannot refer to "a sense of moral duty" since all men have that by virtue of being God's image bearers. Paul is talking about a law that all men definitely do not have. If all men have "the law" in the sense that Paul is using the word in this passage, his argument does not make sense. He is contradicting himself in the same breath. Paul's whole point in the context of this passage is to show that the Jews are more guilty than the Gentiles. The basis of his proof is that the Gentiles "without the law" live better lives than the Jews do "with the law." The Jews alone have the special gift of the Law. And the specific law that he is talking about is the law written on the Tablets of Stone as a covenant.

Rom 2:14 is not talking about a so called "ceremonial law." Whatever the "law" is in this passage, it convicts the conscience of sin. Conscience, by nature and without special revelation, cannot convict men of disobedience to "ceremonial" laws. One of the many proofs that the Sabbath is not a "moral law" is the fact that we have never discovered a single instance of anyone knowing, by nature, the Sabbath law. This particular law must always be taught as special revelation just as it was to Israel at Sinai. ¹² Gentiles intuitively knew that adultery was wrong but they know that the seventh day is to be kept holy.

Most people misquote this passage of Scripture. Paul does not say, "The law" is written in the Gentile's heart. He says that certain behavior proves that there is a conviction of right and wrong in all men. This fact shows that conscience is alive and well even in the Gentiles. In fact, it is more alive and well in them than it is in the Jew. This power of conscience "shows the work of the law written in their hearts." The "work" of the law is to accuse or excuse according to the standard given to it. It condemns all violations of known wrong and rewards obedience to what is known to be right. All men have a conscience and they all experience, to a greater or lesser degree, conviction they have done wrong.

The Gentiles did not have "the law" but they did have the "work of the law" in their hearts. The law can only "work" true repentance that leads to faith if there is (1) a covenant with clear terms and (2) the individual has a knowledge of those terms. In giving Israel the law as a covenant, God enlightened the mind and sharpened the conscience. He sandwiched conscience under the Old Covenant and its threat of judgment. This caused a very painful death to all hope of eternal life in those who truly experienced the end for which the law covenant was given, namely, genuine "conviction of guilt." The same law actually "blinded" the rest of the Jews and made them worse off spiritually than the Gentiles.

We say again, it was most gracious of God to kill Israel's hope in their own efforts. However, it took a covenant of pure law with the power of life and death to do the job. There was not an ounce of grace in the Tablets of Stone but it was most of God to give them to Israel as a covenant that could prepare the heart to receive grace!

Regardless of whether the reader agrees or disagree with what has just been said, one thing is certain. We cannot change a passage that emphatically states that Israel had a specific law that the Gentiles did not have into a text that says "all men have the same law." This is to destroy the text. Paul can only be referring to the Tables of Stone as a covenant.

It both amazes and amuses us to watch people waver back and forth when they cannot fit clear passages of Scripture into their theological system. They usually want to "eat their cake and have it too." If they are discussing the "unchanging moral law," they will insist that "the moral law (Ten Commandments) is written on ever man's heart." However, if they are discussing the canon of conduct for believer's today, these same people will insist that in regeneration "the moral law" (Ten Commandments) is written on the heart" by the Holy Spirit. In both cases it is said to be the same law that Scriptures clearly state was given only to the nation of Israel at Sinai on the Tablets of Stone.

Something seems to be a bit out of focus when all of this is put together. (1) If the first point is true, and the same law that was given to Israel at Sinai (the Ten Commandments) is indeed written on every man's heart, it is impossible to say the Gentiles are "without the law." They cannot be "without" the very law that is written "in" them. (2) If the second point, affirming that the same law written in the heathen, and given to Israel at Sinai, is also written on the heart of believer in regeneration, is true, there appears to be a contradiction. What need is there to write something on the heart that is already there? (3) If, in regeneration, the Holy Spirit writes the Ten Commandments on the heart of every believer, what then is the necessity of preaching those commandments to the Christian?

We must distinguish between the Ten Commandments as the terms of a legal covenant and the duties commanded by the individual commandments. The moment we do this a lot of confusion disappears and some difficult passages of Scripture become clear and simple. We will illustrate this point with one passage of Scripture. This passage in its context is pivotal to any correct understanding of the change of covenants:

But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Heb 8:6-13

We have already noted the three distinct contrasts in verse 6. We saw the following: (1) Christ has a better ministry than Aaron; (2) because Christ's ministry is based on a new and better covenant; (3) the covenant Christ administers is superior to the covenant under which Aaron ministered because it is based on better promises.

Heb 8:7-9 settles any discussion as to either when (at Sinai) or with whom (Israel only) the Old Covenant was made. Heb 8:11 shows that everyone, without a single exception, in the New Covenant community, or Church, "know the Lord." In other words, the text proves that the Church born under the New Covenant has a totally regenerate membership. We will now look at verse 10:

This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. HEB 8:10

The text emphasizes several important things. First, God promises to make a new covenant, and this covenant will be with the "house of Israel." We will not digress from the point under discussion except to say that the "house of Israel" in Heb 8-10 must be the Church. The writer is not talking about the future but the present. This covenant cannot be pushed into a future millennium. Hebrews is talking about the priestly ministry of Christ over the Church. However, that is not our subject in this book.

The second major thing in the text is God's promise to put his laws in the mind and write them on the hearts of His New Covenant people. Now here is the question: "What is the difference, if any, between the "covenant" and the word "laws" in this passage?" Exactly what is God promising to do in this verse? Exactly what is the "New Covenant" He is making and precisely what "laws" is He going to write on the heart?

We should carefully note that God did not say, "In that day I will give a new administration of the same covenant that I gave Israel. I will write the old law of Sinai into the new heart of the Christian." That is how some theologians read this passage. Likewise, the text does not say, "I will make a New Covenant that destroys all of the Ten Commandments and allows a believer to do as he pleases." That is how some liberals view the text. No, the text, and its context, is talking about both a new and better covenant than the old covenant at Sinai and the new experience of the law being written on the heart by the indwelling Spirit.

The clear answers to the two questions that we asked lies in understanding the three comparisons made in verse 6. Why did the Old Covenant fail and thereby need to be replaced by a new and better covenant? The answer is that it could not secure the necessary obedience to its terms. It could not write on the heart the desire to do the things that were written on the Tablets of the Covenants. It could write on stone but not on flesh (II Cor 3). By nature all men hate God's authority (Rom 8:7) and even the mighty Law of God cannot change that rebellion into a sincere desire to obey. The Old Covenant failed to bring sinners into God's presence because it could not change the sinner's heart. It could not conquer sin in the flesh nor it could cleanse the conscience from the guilt of sin.

Now read carefully! The greater glory of the New Covenant is not that the standards or laws have been either lowered or done away. It is not that the moral duties demanded on the Tables of Stone are no longer binding on a Christian. No, No, that is to miss the whole point. The greater glory of the New Covenant is that no obedience at all is required as the terms of being saved simply because the very terms of the Tablets of the Covenant have been finally and fully met in the Person and work of Surety, the Lord Jesus Christ. The glory of the New Covenant is in the words, "IT IS FINISHED." Paul states the glory of the New Covenant in the classic passage in Rom 4:5. Here is a paraphrase of that text:

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Rom 4:5 This is the "rest" that weary souls enter into when they come under the yoke of Christ and are liberated from the yoke of the covenant given to Moses on Sinai. We doubt not that our Lord Jesus had this very contrast in mind when He gave that great gospel invitation in Matthew 11:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30.

Every thing in that passage is a contrast with Moses and old law covenant. The yoke of the covenant written on the Tables of Stone was a burden impossible to bear. The yoke written in the blood of Calvary is a privilege and delight to bear. The New Covenant is nothing less than Christ Himself and His finished work. When God said, "I will make a new covenant," He was saying, "I will give you Christ to be your covenant Keeper. He will both keep the law and die under its curse." The message has now become "It is finished" instead of "Do or Die." The New Covenant is grace and not works.

What then are the "laws" spoken of in Heb 8:10? Exactly what "laws" does the Holy Spirit write on the heart of a New Covenant believer? These laws, as far as their content, are basically the very same moral laws that were written on the tables of stone. Heb 8:10 is not talking about two different "sets" of laws that totally contradict each other as if there were two "kinds of morality." The morality of the New Covenant does not destroy the true morality demanded in the laws of the Old Covenant. It takes that morality to a higher level. It is true that Christ adds laws that were impossible for Moses to ever give but that does not mean Christ contradicts Moses. ¹³ Hebrews is talking about two different motivations that grow out of two different kinds of covenants." II Cor 3 is the Holy Spirit's commentary on Heb 8:10. Neither of these passages are teaching that God "tattoos" the exact words of the Decalogue on our hearts. Both passages are talking about the powerful effect of regeneration that results in a totally new and different attitude toward God. These two passages are picturing the removal of the stony heart that hated the Tablets of Stones and all they represented. It is describing the effect of regeneration in replacing the stony heart with a heart of flesh. The new heart of flesh loves all of God's revealed laws, not just a one small code, simply because it loves the new Lawgiver Who teaches us those laws.

The difference is not in the specific duties demanded but the difference between law and grace as covenants. It is the difference, in some cases, of the identical duties being enforced from without by fear and force, in the case of the Old Covenant, and being constrained by love from within a heart rejoicing in a covenant of grace. These two passages are talking about the difference between the conscience being under the old Pedagogue, the Tables of Stone, and being under the new Pedagogue, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

11. The writer of Hebrews, as well as the prophecy in Jer 31:33, establish beyond question that the "fathers" referred to in this passage are the patriarchs. To make the statement refer to the immediate fathers of the people to whom Moses is speaking would involve a contradiction. It was specifically to these very "fathers" that God gave the covenant at Sinai.

12. John Bunyan wrote an excellent article proving the Seventh Day Sabbath could not possibly be a so called "Creation Ordinance." To our knowledge, no one has attempted to answer his arguments. See, "Questions about the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh-Day Sabbath," by John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan, Vol. II, pp 359-387, Baker Book House. Also, Is Sunday the Christian Sabbath?, by Dr Robert Morey, Crowne Publications, P.O. Box 688, Southbridge, Mass., 01550

13. We have worked this out in a book entitled But I Say Unto You. This book shows that Christ supercedes and replaces Moses as the New Lawgiver. Christ changes some of the laws of Moses; raises some others to a higher level; discards some others altogether; and adds some laws that are totally new. However, this is not contradicting Moses as he were wrong. The book is available from Crowne Publications, P.O. Box 688, Southbridge, Mass., 01550.