Objection:
The Bible says that the Ten Commandments are the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai, the old covenant (See Deuteronomy 4:13). That covenant was abolished, and we now live under the new covenant. Therefore, Christians are to have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.
Answer:
The text reads thus: “And he [The Lord] declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” Deuteronomy 4:13.
The keyword here is “covenant,” translated from the Hebrew word berı̂yth, which may be translated as “compact, league, covenant.” These terms have as their most essential feature the idea of an agreement between two or more parties. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary thus defines “covenant”: “A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation.” We usually think of a covenant as an agreement made. And appropriately, we find various references to God’s covenant with the Israelites of the Exodus, couched in this same language. For example, “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” Deuteronomy 5:2. “The tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you.” Deuteronomy 9:9.
Then why should Moses describe the Ten Commandments themselves as the covenant? For the same reason Moses should say to the Israelites, “And I took your sin, the calf which you had made, and burnt it.” Deuteronomy 9:21. Strictly speaking, the sin was their turning to a false god, an action of their rebellious will, but the calf was that concerning which the sin was committed. Likewise, though the covenant was “made” by the act of the will of the Israelites in response to God (See Exodus 19:5-8), the Ten Commandments were that concerning which the covenant was made. Our English language employs this same figure of speech. Webster says further on “covenant”: “In church affairs, a solemn agreement between the members of a church, that they will walk together according to the precepts of the gospel, in brotherly affection.” “A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties…”
When the Israelites came to Sinai, the Lord said to them through Moses: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Exodus 19:5-6. The response of the Israelites was agreement: “And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD” Verse 8.
Then follows in the next chapter the proclaiming of the Ten Commandments by the voice of God. In the following three chapters, this is followed by a summary of civil statutes, which show the application of the Ten Commandment’s principles, and by an even briefer summary of specific ceremonial requirements that the Lord gave to the people through Moses. Then in chapter 24, we read that Moses “told the people all the words of the Lord,” and again the people responded, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do” Verse 3. “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord… And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient” Verses 4-7. Then Moses took the blood of certain sacrificial animals and “sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words” Verse 8.
Here the record explicitly states not that the words of the proclaimed statutes and judgments and laws were the covenant, but that the covenant was made “concerning all these words.”
Refer back for a moment to the objection on the two laws—“There Is Only One Law In The Bible.” Here two comments may properly be interjected:
- The fact that Moses wrote a copy of the Ten Commandments in this “book of the covenant” does not minimize the force of the distinguishing fact that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger on tables of stone. A copy implies an original. Unlimited copies of the Ten Commandments have been made. The Israelites had heard the Ten Commandments as God spoke it. They promised to be obedient. In giving them a copy to see in a book, Moses made doubly sure that they fully realized what they were covenanting to do. God had not yet transferred the words of the Decalogue to stone. The distinction between the earthy touch of Moses’ hand and the divine hand of God and the sharp distinction between the various laws in the book and the one supreme moral law are sharply emphasized a few verses further on: “And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them” Verse 12.
- The fact that statutes and judgments and certain ceremonial precepts in addition to the Ten Commandments were included in the covenant does not make them all one law or confuse their distinctive features one bit. The essence of the covenant, the agreement, between God and the Israelites was that they would obey Him. This meant that they would faithfully keep the Ten Commandments and the civil statutes, which were to govern them as a nation, and the ceremonial precepts, which dictated the religious ritual by which they expressed their desire for forgiveness for transgressions of the moral laws.
However, the very fact that the civil statutes were simply an extension of the Ten Commandments’ principles, and the ceremonial precepts set forth how the Israelites were to express their sincere desire for freedom from sins committed against the moral code, fully justified the Biblical description of the Ten Commandments as that concerning which the covenant was made. Thus, the civil statutes and ceremonial laws were accessory to the Ten Commandments; they owed their existence and meaning to it, but it was not dependent on them.
With these facts in mind, we can understand a whole series of statements concerning the “covenant” found in the Bible record following the Exodus experience. Five points stand out sharply as we trace the history of this covenant through the Old Testament:
- The frequent references to it by the prophets.
- The sorry fact that Israel so repeatedly broke it.
- The repeated combining of the statement that the people broke the covenant with the idea that they had violated various commands of the Ten Commandments, the latter fact explaining the former.
- The reminding of Israel that sacrifices were not a substitute for obedience and the essentially minor status that the Lord gave to the ceremonial ritual.
- The promise of a new covenant.
Anyone who reads the Bible attentively will surely agree with these five statements. Moses warned Israel against transgressing the covenant by serving “other gods” (See Deuteronomy 17:2-3). The Lord revealed to Moses that after his death, Israel would “go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land… and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.” Deuteronomy 31:16. When Joshua was dying, he warned of the day when Israel would transgress the covenant by serving “other gods” (See Joshua 23:16). A judgment was pronounced upon Solomon because he had gone after “other gods” and had not kept “my covenant” (See 1 Kings 11:10-11). In the last years of the kings of Israel, the inspired writer recounted their long years of repeatedly turning to heathen gods and rejecting God’s covenant (See 2 Kings 17:7-23). The Lord instructed Jeremiah to tell the “men of Judah” in their dark hour of general disaster that they had failed to keep the covenant He had made with their fathers at Sinai, “saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall you be my people, and I will be your God.” But “they went after other gods to serve them.” Jeremiah 11:4, 10. Hosea declares: “The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood touches blood.” Hosea 4:1-2. And he goes on to add a little later in his description: “They have transgressed my covenant.” Hosea 8:1.
Despite their almost constant turning away from God’s moral precepts, they did not always turn from the ceremonial laws of sacrifices, burnt offerings, feast days, and the like. On the contrary, they, at times, glorified these ceremonies while transgressing the Ten Commandments, as though the ritual that was intended of God to give expression to their sorrow for sin—transgression of God’s law—could serve as a substitute for obedience. This fact explains some striking passages in the Old Testament and reveals the definite distinction between the ceremonial laws and the moral laws.
Through Hosea, the Lord said to the morally corrupt “inhabitants of the land”: “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant.” Hosea 6:6-7. Indeed, the Israelites sometimes forgot even the ritual of their religious services. But that was not at the heart of their apostasy. Long after they had “transgressed the covenant” by their moral corruption, they were still carrying on a ceremonial service in obedience to the ceremonial law, as if the outward forms were a proper substitute for heart obedience to God’s moral requirements. That is why the Lord, through Hosea, pronounced this judgment: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” Hosea 2:11. A reference to the ceremonial law reveals that all the special days listed here are found in that code.
In similar language, the Lord inquires through Isaiah, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?” Isaiah 1:11. He describes their offerings as “vain oblations.” “Incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.” And why was this whole ceremonial service of offerings and special holy days so abhorrent to God? Because their carrying on of this ceremonial service was hypocritical. The sacrifices, the Passover sabbath, Day of Atonement sabbath, and essentially all the ceremonial rituals were intended of God to provide an expression of repentance for violations of the moral code and a desire for cleansing from sin. But the Israelites were set in evil ways and had no heart desire to reform. “Your hands are full of blood” Verse 15. After pleading with them to turn from their corrupt practices, the Lord declares, “If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land” Verse 19. Here is the echo of the covenant agreement made at Sinai.
Jeremiah presents a similar description of the violation of God’s moral code by rebellious Israel. “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?” Jeremiah 7:9-10. Then follows this declaration that shows perhaps more sharply than any other in this series of passages the clear distinction between moral and ceremonial laws: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you” Verses 21-23.
But did not the Lord give commandments at Sinai concerning offerings? Bible commentators believe that the only way to resolve the apparent contradiction is by interpreting this passage in Jeremiah to mean that by comparison with the glory and priority of the moral code given at Sinai, the ceremonial statutes pale into insignificance. To borrow the words of the learned commentator, Lange, on this passage:
“Thus those commentators are right who find here this meaning, that the whole of the enactments relating to sacrifices do not enter into consideration in comparison with the importance of “the moral law.”
It is doubtless in this same sense that we may understand those scriptures that equate the covenant with the Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 4:13), even though specific ceremonial laws and civil statutes were also involved (Exodus 24:3-8). As earlier stated, the civil statutes were only an extension of, and the ceremonial laws only all accessory to, the moral code.
Now, in this long, dismal record of Israel’s backsliding, where lay the trouble? Were the terms of the covenant at fault? Nowhere do the prophets suggest that the Ten Commandments were either inequitable or deficient. Had God failed in His part of the agreement? No. The trouble was with the Israelites, who could not live up to their promise to be obedient to God’s voice, His holy law. They were stiff-necked, hard of heart, rebellious. Christ could say to His Father, “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” Psalms 40:8. But not so with the children of Israel. “Their heart went after their idols.” Ezekiel 20:16. “The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars.” Jeremiah 17:1.
The children of Israel had promised at Sinai, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” Exodus 19:8. But they knew not how deceitful were their hearts, how weak their will and their spirit. It is in this setting that we can appreciate the promise of the new covenant as foretold through Jeremiah: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jeremiah 31:31-33.
The promise of the new covenant is not a forecast of all era when grace would supplant law, but of a time when the law of God would be written in men’s hearts by the grace of God acting upon those hearts. So far from God’s law being abolished, it is enshrined within those who have received a new heart. Now, if there is only one law, as some contend, then the new covenant, under which all of us declare we may live today, calls for the writing upon our hearts, not only of God’s moral precepts but of all the ceremonial statutes also! The logic that requires this conclusion is unanswerable—if there is only one law. Could better proof be offered that there must be more than one law?
In referring to this passage in Jeremiah, the writer of Hebrews clarifies that the trouble with the old covenant lay, not with the law, but with the people. “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Hebrews 8:7-8.
In the same connection, we read concerning the new covenant that Christ “is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” Verse 6.
The first covenant broke down on the faulty promises of the people. The second covenant is built upon the divine commitment of God to change our hearts.
The first covenant was ratified at Sinai by the shedding of the blood of sacrificial animals (See Exodus 24:5-8). The second covenant was ratified at Calvary by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ (See Hebrews 9:12, 23).
The mediator of the first covenant was Moses (See Exodus 19:3-8; 24:3-8). The mediator of the second covenant is Jesus Christ (See Hebrews 8:6).
Under the first covenant, the worshiper brought his offering to an earthly priest. The latter ministered in a worldly sanctuary, which ministry could not of itself “make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” Hebrews 9:9. Why? Because this earthly sanctuary service “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” Verse 10. Only as the worshiper looked by faith beyond the animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ, the promised Messiah, could he receive genuine spiritual blessing and forgiveness of sins. And because it was possible for a child of God in the days preceding Christ’s first advent to exercise true faith and look beyond, the new covenant experience could be his.
Under the new covenant, we appropriate by faith the offering made by the Lamb of God, coming boldly to the throne of grace and into the presence of our great High Priest. We look back to Calvary and upward to heaven (See Hebrews 9:11-15, 24-26; 10:19-22). It was foretold of Christ that He would “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (See Daniel 9:27). No longer was there any occasion for the slaying of animals. Hence the ceremonial laws regarding all such offerings expired by limitation. There were no longer to be earthly priests drawn from a particular tribe and according to a specific statute of the ceremonial code. Hence we read, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Hebrews 7:12. The Levitical priesthood was changed—abolished, and so was the law that governed the selection and the ministry of that priesthood. Yet under the new covenant, God promises, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” Jeremiah 31:33. How obvious that we are dealing with a totally different law from that mentioned in Hebrews 7:12.
To sum up the matter in briefest form, note these comparisons and contrasts between the two covenants:
| Old Covenant | New Covenant |
| 1. Parties To Covenant: God & Israel | 1. Parties To Covenant: God & Israel |
| 2. Mediator: Moses | 2. Mediator: Christ |
| 3. Based On The Mutual Promises Of God & Israel | 3. Based On God’s Promise And Our Acceptance Of The Promise By Faith |
| 4. Text Of Covenant: Ten Commandments | 4. Text Of Covenant: Ten Commandments |
| 5. Written: On Tables Of Stone | 5. Written: In The Believer’s Heart |
| 6. Ratified At: Sinai | 6. Ratified At: Calvary |
| 7. By The Shedding Of The Blood Of Animals | 7. By The Shedding Of The Blood Of Jesus Christ |
| 8. Its Ministration: In Terms Of An Endless Number Of Animal Sacrifices, Whose Blood Was Ministered By Earthly Priests In The Earthly Sanctuary | 8. Its Ministration: In Terms Of One Sacrifice By Jesus Christ, Our High Priest, Who Now Ministers His Shed Blood In The Heavenly Sanctuary |
Not a change in the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, but a change in the location of these commandments; this is the essence of the difference between the two covenants. And the effecting of this change requires Christ and His divine sacrifice. In other words, to live under the new covenant is to live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. Faith and obedience to God’s commandments go hand in hand. How significant in this connection is the description of those who will finally be awaiting the return of Christ: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 14:12.
Yes, and how significant is Paul’s statement that the “carnal mind,” which distinguished rebellious Israel, is “not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7. Also, his statement of what has taken place for “them which are in Christ Jesus”: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us [“that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.” RSV], who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:3-4.
The weakness is not in God’s holy law but in us who are too weak of ourselves to give obedience. When the gospel changes us from carnal to spiritual, the law can be written in our hearts. The person who says that he has nothing to do with the law because he lives under the new covenant reveals that he has nothing to do with the new covenant, for the new covenant believer has the law engraved on his heart.
