Tablets of Stone

Tablets of Stone

Chapter Nine
The Biblical Significance
Of The Tables Of Stone

We have carefully explained and then used Biblical terms throughout this book. We have at various times deliberately used one of the seven interchangeable terms, or synonyms, when we wanted to refer to the Ten Commandments. The term that the Holy Spirit has used most often in reference to the Ten Commandments is "the Tables of Stone." It is one of the only two terms that is used in both the OT and NT Scriptures. The only other term used in both the Old and New Testament Scriptures is the term "the Tables of the Covenant." The Holy Spirit never once used the words "Ten Commandments" in the NT Scriptures but He did use these two synonyms. Both of the synonyms used in the New Testament Scriptures use the word "Tables" and take us back to covenant at Sinai. It seems significant that both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures use the word "covenant" when referring to the Ten Commandments (Deut 9:9 and Heb 9:4). It would seem that the Holy Spirit wants us to think "covenant" when He makes reference to the Ten Commandments.

The great significance of the Ten Commandments in the Bible is that they were the actual covenant document upon which everything pertaining to Israel rested. The importance of the Tablets of Stone, as well as their unique character, is identical to the importance of the Constitution of the USA. Nowhere does the Word of God call, or treat, the Tables of Stone as the "unchanging moral law of God." It always relates them to Mt Sinai when God made them the basis of the covenant with Israel. We saw this clearly in chapter 4.

It is true that various writers in both the OT and NT Scriptures will quote individual commandments out of the Decalogue (and also out of the rest of the OT Scriptures) and use it to reinforce a moral duty. Our Lord used Deut 6:6 and Lev 19:18 as the foundation to prove the two greatest commandments in all of Scripture. Does that mean that the rest of the laws in those chapters are of the same importance?

We are only insisting that when the Ten Commandment are considered as a single unit, as the "Tablets of Stone," they are always viewed as a "covenant." The question is never, "Do the Ten Commandments contain unchanging moral law?" Of course they do. We only object when someone insists that the Ten Commandments, as recorded on the Tablets of Stone at Sinai, are 100% unchanging moral law. We realize that some people's system of theology force them to this position. However, the position is still wrong. We gladly acknowledge that the Tables of Stone contain much moral law but we also believe: (1) they contain some ceremonial law; (2) they contain some moral laws that were changed by Christ such as the laws governing marriage, divorce and polygamy.

The real question should always be, "In the mind of the writers of Scripture, what is the great significance of the Ten Commandments?" If we answer this question with Scripture, our answer will always be, "The Ten Commandments are viewed as the terms of the Old Covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai." The Bible never gives the answer, "God's unchanging moral law." Some theological systems may respond in that way but the Scriptures never do.

If the discussion shifts from the Tablets of the Covenant, or Ten Commandments, as a covenant document to any individual or specific moral duty commanded in the "words of the covenant," the questions should change accordingly. We are now discussing an entirely different subject. The question has now become, "Are the Ten Commandments, or Tablets of Stone, as given at Mt Sinai, the highest, and therefore totally sufficient moral law for the Christian's rule of life today?" We should answer, "Absolutely No!" They are not the highest moral law ever given, and they are certainly not sufficient for the Christian's rule of life today. The Tablets of Stone are only a dim shadow when compared to the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

Each of the commandments written on the Tablets of the Covenant stands entirely on their own merit when considered individually and independently of their covenant status. While some of the commandments remain in force exactly as they were given at Sinai, some of them are changed and raised to a higher level. While some are dropped, or at least totally spiritualized, others are redefined and enlarged. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ has every right to make all of these changes. We respect Moses and acknowledge his greatness but we love Jesus Christ and believe that He is far greater than Moses. The Tablets of Stone were indeed the highest moral code ever given up to that point in time. But the Sermon on the Mount is a much higher and more spiritual moral code than the Tables of Stone.

The Ten Commandments contain much unchanging moral law that is just as binding on us today as it was on an Israelite. However, that is a totally different position than equating the Tablets of the Covenant with a so- called "eternal moral law." The problem is the adamant insistence of some theologians that the Tablets of Stone are, in their entirety as given at Sinai, the "highest moral law ever given" and therefore "totally sufficient, when correctly understood, to be the Christian rule of life today." This makes it absolutely impossible for them to accept the clear fact that the Ten Commandments are the distinct covenant that established Israel's nationhood.

The Medieval Concept concept of law which breaks it down into moral, ceremonial and civil laws must be replaced with Biblical terminology. "The covenant in force at the time" was the means of establishing morality and holiness for any individual. God's commandment to Israel to "be ye holy, for I am holy" is the identical commandment that is given to Christians today. When Peter exhorts us to be holy, he quotes from the OT Scriptures (Lev 11:44-46; 19:2; 20:7, etc.). However, carrying out the commandment "to be holy" as given in I Pet 1:15,16 is totally different from carrying out the identical commandment as given to Israel under the Old Covenant. A failure to see this difference makes it impossible to understand the correct relationship of the laws of the Old Covenant to a believer's life today.

We cannot possibly understand how David could enter into a polygamous marriage with Bathsheba with God's expressed approval and blessing without understanding the change in the terms of the "Be ye holy, for I am holy" commandment when it is given under the New Covenant. Obviously David could be holy in God's sight under the Old Covenant and practice polygamy but a believer today under the New Covenant cannot do the same thing. ¹⁶Polygamy did not break the Seventh Commandment (You shall not commit adultery) under the Old Covenant but it does violate the new and higher moral law that Christ gave the Church in the New Covenant.

We must face the fact that it is impossible to make a clear distinction between moral and ceremonial laws in Scripture. While we would all put eating unclean animals on the so called "ceremonial law list" (Lev 11:44-46) and would certainly put respecting our parents (Lev 19:2,3) on the so called "moral list," the Holy Spirit put them both on the same list under the Old Covenant. This is even clearer in Lev 19:18,19. In these verses, one of the two greatest moral commandments ("love your neighbor as yourself") is mixed together with "ceremonial laws."

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. "`Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Lev 19:18,19.

In the above passage Scripture, the Holy Spirit deliberately put the second highest moral commandment in all of Scripture right in the middle of what would have to be designated a "ceremonial list." Was Jesus conscious of the immediate context when He took a phrase out of Lev 19:18 and turned it into the "second greatest commandment" in all of the Word of God? Jesus obviously did not think of the Ten Commandments as the "highest moral standard ever given." The context of the text quoted by Jesus gives no indication that it is a "great moral law" and the surrounding laws are only "ceremonial." Nor is there the least indication in the text that we are to "get ready for a real biggy." Both the first and second "greatest commandments" are almost like off handed statements when seen in their contexts. It is only when Christ chooses to use Lev 19:18, as He does in Mt 22, that the phrase in this text becomes the "second highest commandment" upon which all other laws, including the Ten Commandments, hang. Dt 6:6 and Lev 19:18 are not the "summary of the Ten Commandments." It is the other way around!

Let us look at the context of the "second highest commandment":

The LORD said to Moses, Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: `Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. Each of you must respect his mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God . . . Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. . . . Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. Lev 19:1-3, 18,19, 26-30.

It is obvious that neither our Savior nor Moses, the writer of Leviticus, thought of dividing up the various laws in Lev 19 into different kinds of lists. The chapter begins with the identical exhortation of "Be Holy for I am Holy" that Peter gives to Christians (I Pet 1:15,16). The above verses, quoted from Lev 19, covers honoring parents, keeping the Sabbath, loving our neighbor as ourself (the "second greatest law"), and then immediately talks about mixing different seed and different cloth and cross breading of animals. It is impossible to miss the fact that some of these laws are "ceremonial" in nature and others are "moral" in nature. It is just as impossible to try to create two "lists of laws," one "moral" and the other "ceremonial," out of these verses.

However, the moment we admit this we face a dilemma. No one would dare deny that Lev 19:18 is, according to Christ, the second highest "moral law" in the Bible. To deny this is to contradict Christ. Likewise, no one would dare try to make the very next verse, 19, into a "moral law." Was the Holy Spirit playing games with us when He wrote Lev 19 or does this show us how utterly futile and wrong it is to think in terms of a "moral" list and a "ceremonial" list of laws?

It is amazing that anyone can read Lev 19:26, which talks about eating blood and witchcraft, then read the next verse, 27, which discusses how to cut your hair and beard, and believe that the Old Covenant laws are divided up into "ceremonial and moral" lists. All of the laws given in Lev 19 were both equally important and equaling binding on an Israelite. As the Israelite tried to obey God and "be holy," he was just as duty bound to attach the same importance to his diet and hair style as he did to the treatment of his parents, his observance of the Sabbath, and loving his neighbor. Getting a tattoo mark and making your daughter a prostitute is in the same breath without a ounce of difference in importance.

In no way could "love your neighbor as yourself" be the "second greatest moral duty" for an Israelite living under the law of Lev 19. This law was no more important than planting his garden correctly. The same thing is true today. There is a very great difference in the respective importance of those same things under the New Covenant. In other words, how an Israelite obeyed the commandment "Be ye Holy" is in many respects totally different from how a Christian today obeys the identical commandment. The way to tell the difference is not by arbitrarily creating a "moral law" list and a "ceremonial law" list. Now, we are NOT saying that there are no individual laws that are "moral" in their very nature. Lev 19:18 is surely such a law. We also believe there are other laws that are "ceremonial" in nature (Lev 19:19). We are insisting that neither Moses nor Christ, or anyone else, in all of Scripture created lists and used the different lists as the foundation of moral conduct.

Let us summarize what we are saying:

1.There is a radical difference in the specific laws that an Israelite and a Christian follows in order to obey the commandment, "Be ye holy, for I am Holy." Any honest comparison of I Pet and Lev 19 will show this to be the case.

2.That which makes the difference is NOT discovered by arbitrarily creating "lists" of different kinds of laws. That is simply not possible. No writer of Scripture in either the Old or New Testament ever hinted at such a method. Our duty to God is defined by the laws of the specific covenant under which we live. The Old Covenant was accompanied by a whole series of laws given at various times through prophets. All of these were equally part of the "The Law of Moses" and therefore equally binding on an Israelite because he was a member of the theocracy. The New Covenant is accompanied by new and higher laws given by Christ and the Apostles and these laws are all binding on a Christian because he is a citizen in the kingdom of Christ.

3.The commandment to be "Be ye holy, for I am holy" is identical in both covenants. However, the specific laws to be obeyed in order to be holy is not the same. There are many instances where the duty is identical in both cases but there are also instances where the duties are radically different.

4.Anything that is intrinsically "moral" in its very nature is always moral. We dare not arbitrarily decide what is moral and what is not. We must obey all of God laws that He tells to obey simple because He says so. God may (and definitely has) take a law that is purely ceremonial in nature and make obedience to that particular law a matter of life or death. Both the Sabbath and circumcision are examples of this when God made them covenant signs. Breaking these "ceremonial" laws were the most grievous sins that a Jew could commit simply because they were sins against the covenant signs (Ex 4:24-26 and Num 15:32- 36). Touching a dead body was not intrinsically "immoral" but it was still a great sin under the Old Covenant. Eating shrimp was an issue of "moral disobedience" for an Israelite.

We have not understood the message of the New Testament Scriptures until we see the historical shift from the authority of Moses to the full and final authority of Christ. Christians are not under the authority of Moses as their lawgiver. They are under the authority of Christ the new Lawgiver. Christians are not under the Old Covenant and do not use it to define their moral absolutes any more than they use it to define their diet. They are under the New Covenant and it defines everything in their life and worship either by clear precept or personal application of a principle. Often times the principle will be a spiritual application of an Old Covenant law. Paul's use of Dt 25:4 is only one example: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it only about oxen that God is concerned? (I Cor 9:9)

Christians are in no sense lawless. They are under higher laws and a greater obligation to be holy because of Calvary. The difference in their holiness is the specific laws that they obey.

This is exactly what Paul is saying in the following text:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Eph 2:19,20.

The "prophets" in this passage cannot possibly be referring to the Old Testament Prophets. It is referring to the New Testament Prophets. ¹⁷ The life and worship of the Church is not built on Moses, his laws, or the covenant that established Israel as a nation. The foundation of the Church is Christ Himself and her life and worship is governed through the laws that He gives through the Apostles and Prophets. John Stott has said it better than we can:

The couplet "Apostles and Prophets" may bring together the Old Testament (prophets) and the New Testament (apostles) as the basis of the church's teaching. But the inverted order of the words (not "prophets and apostles" but "apostles and prophets") suggests that probably the New Testament prophets are meant. If so, their bracketing with the apostles as the church's foundation is significant. The reference again must be to a small group of inspired teachers, associated with the apostles, who together bore witness to Christ and whose teaching was derived from revelation (3:5) and was foundational.

In practical terms this means that the church is built on the New Testament Scriptures. They are the church's foundation documents. And just as a foundation cannot be tampered with once it has been laid and the superstructure is being built upon it, so the New Testament foundation of the church is inviolable and cannot be changed by and additions, subtractions or modifications by teachers who claim to be apostles or prophets today. The church stands or falls by its loyal dependence on the foundation truths which God revealed to his apostles and prophets, and which are now preserved in the New Testament Scriptures. ¹⁸

The life and worship of Israel was built on the Old Covenant and the specific laws that were necessary to administer that covenant. These laws were given to Israel by the different prophets. The life and worship of the Church is built on the New Covenant and the laws necessary to govern a community based on grace and not law. These laws are essential to administer the New Covenant. Today we find all of these laws in the New Testament Scriptures. The full and final authority over the Church's life and worship is not Moses and the Laws of Israel's earthly theocracy. Our full and final authority is the Lord Jesus Christ. He expresses and defines His will and authority through His Word, the inspired New Testament documents. That is precisely what Paul means in Eph 2:19,20.

We are not suggesting that the OT Scriptures do not set forth some laws that are clearly moral in nature and therefore always binding on all men in all ages. We also agree that there are other laws that are just as clearly ceremonial that have been done away in Christ. That is too obvious for anyone to deny. However, that is far different than creating clear cut lists, or specific codes of law, and: (1) designating one list as "moral" and another list as "ceremonial," (2) keeping one "list" and throwing away the other "list."

The Scriptures know nothing of this approach in establishing moral behavior for either a Jew under the Old Covenant or a Christian today under the New Covenant. The only clear cut "list" that was written in a codified form was the "words of the covenant" or Ten Commandments, and that "written code," considered as a covenant document, was "nailed to the cross" in Christ (Col 2:14).

We continue to emphasize that we are saying the Ten Commandments were done away only when considered a covenant document. We are not saying that the morality demanded in the individual commandment has been done away. Our Lord Jesus Christ never did away with one single commandment that was truly "moral" regardless of where that commandment is found in the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ did indeed drop some commandments which were ceremonial in nature. The Sabbath commandments is an example. Christ also changed some other commandments by raising them to a much higher level. The Mosaic law of divorce is an illustration of this fact. Christ also added some totally new laws that are only consistent with grace and totally inconsistent with the Law of Moses. This is why Moses could never have written the Sermon on the Mount. ¹⁹

Perhaps it would be good to illustrate what just been said. The American colonies were under the constitution and laws of England up until 1776. On that date, the colonies became the United States of America. They united under the Constitution of the USA. From that moment they were "under a new rule." The laws and constitution of England no longer had any legal authority of any American. The laws of England were totally null and void in respect to us as a nation. None of England's laws could be appealed to as the final authority on any matter whatsoever. America was under the authority of a new document or covenant. The constitution of the USA was now the full and final authority over ever American. That is the exact parallel between the Tablets of Stone given to Israel and the New Covenant given to the Church. Everything that established and governed Israel as a theocracy is no longer in effect over the Church.

It very obvious that the Constitution of the USA carefully considered and used many of the laws of England when they wrote the news laws. However, that is not the point. The only point is the change from being "under the law of England" versus being "under the law of the USA." That is a total and radical change regardless of how many laws are new or the same. That is precisely what the Bible means when it compares the legal covenant that Israel was "under" and the gracious covenant the Church is "under."

Summary

The Bible always consider the Tablets of Stone (Ten Commandments) as the specific covenant document that established the nation of Israel as a body politic at Mt Sinai. It was the terms of this covenant document that necessitated and brought into being both the priesthood and sacrificial system that they administered. Everything in Israel's worship centered around the Tablets of the Covenant kept in the Ark of the Covenant.

The first use of the words "the Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34:27,28 give us the key to nature and function of their use in the history of redemption. The Tablets of Stone upon which was written the Ten Commandments were:

1. the terms of a legal covenant that promised life and threatened death;

2. the covenant was made only with Israel and established the terms of their special relationship with God;

3. this covenant is the Old Covenant that was replaced by the New Covenant established by Christ.

The Scripture no where states of infers that we are to think of the Tablets of Stone as "God's eternal uncahnging moral law." We are always to think "Old Covenant." The individual commandments written on the tablets are a different matter. They stand or fall according to their own nature. Nine of the ten are repeated in the New Testament Scriptures and are therefore just as binding on a Christian as they were on an Israelite.

The Ten Commandments, as given at Mt Sinai, are not the rule of life for a Christian today simply because they are not a high enough standard. The Ten Commandments, as interpreted and applied by Christ, are a very important part of the Christian's rule of life. However, our new Lawgiver has given new and higher laws in addition to interpreting the Ten Commandments in terms of the kingdom of grace.

It is impossible to separate the thunder, lightening and fear of Sinai from the Tablets of Stone. Until we see that Old Covenant forever done away in the body of Christ on the cross, we have not understood the true nature and function of the Ten Commandments in the history of redemption. The gospel of God's grace cannot remain pure and victorious in the conscience until the covenant of works is replaced by the New Covenant. A great Puritan preacher said it well:

It will prove a special help to know distinctly the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, between Moses and Christ; Moses without all mercy breaketh all bruised reeds, and quencheth all smoking flax. For the law requireth, 1, personal; 2, perpetual; 3, perfect obedience; 4, and from a perfect heart; and that under a most terrible curse, and giveth no strength, a severe task-master, like Pharaoh's requiring the whole tale, and yet giveth no straw. Christ cometh with blessing upon blessing even upon those whom Moses had cursed, and with healing balm for those wounds which Moses had made. The same duties are required in both covenants; as, `to love the Lord with all our hearts, with all our souls,' &c., Deut vi. 5. In the covenant of works, this must be taken in the rigour . . . This law is sweetened by the gospel, and becometh delightful to the inner man, Rom. vii. 22. Under this gracious covenant sincerity is perfection. This is the death in the pot in the Roman religion, that they confound the two covenants; and it deads the comfort of drooping ones, that they cannot distinguish them. And thus they suffer themselves to be held `under bondage,' Isa. lxi. 1, 2, when Christ hath set open doors before them. ²⁰

The Holy Spirit has said it best of all:

You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned." The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am trembling with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? Hebrews 12:18-25

16. See "But I Say Unto You," by John G. Reisinger, for a discussion of the change from the canon of conduct under which Israel lived to the canon of conduct under which the Church lives. It is vital that this change of canons be understood, especially as the two different canons relate to the polygamy and easy divorce allowed under the Old Covenant. This book is available from Crowne Publications, P.O. Box 688, Southbridge, Mass., 01550

17. For solid exegetical evidence of this fact see William Henrickson, Commentary of Ephesians, Baker Book House, p 142

18. John R Stott, God's New Society, InterVarsity Press, p 107

19. We are not contradicting what we said earlier. We today may refer to a given commandment as "ceremonial in nature" and therefore no longer binding. However, an Israelite would never have done this. He was just as morally bound to obey a food law as any of the Ten Commandments. We can see the difference between "moral" and "ceremonial," and are able to act accordingly. But that distinction was impossible for an Israelite. It was one ball of wax.

20. See "But I Say Unto You," by John G. Reisinger. This is available from Crowne Publications, P.O. Box 688, Southbridge, Mass., 01550