The Ten Commandments and the Covenant: Life According to God
Term paper for
Old Testament History and Theology I
Prof. Douglas Green
Westminster Theological Seminary
Fall 2001
Tim Black

Note:
I would greatly appreciate any comments you think would benefit me. I always think my papers deserve more apologies than people have time to hear, but.......I am a bit worried you will think this paper is too systematic. I hope it is rather a successful wedding of systematics and exegesis; I believe that to do either one well you must at the same time be doing the other.
In Christ,
Tim Black

1. Introduction

The first three commandments teach that the guiding principle in the life of God's people is that the whole of their life must be in accord with the whole of God's life. This principle is prefaced by the teaching that God is "YHWH, your God," and is summarized in the fourth commandment's comprehensive reference to all of man's¹ life as tied up in the whole of his time, activity, and influence. In the first three commandments, however, the principle is laid out in systematic detail, following the outlines of the systematic structure of the covenant. That structure is as follows: the covenant is metaphysically composed of two components: commitments and requirements, it is epistemologically expressed in two modes: word and deed, and it is ethically dynamic in two activities: God's sovereign administration and man's responsible reception.² In each of these areas the principle is in effect, such that man's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics must be in accord with God's. The commandments teach that the means by which man may live his life in accord with God's in each of these areas is by keeping the first item of each of the paired sets primary, and the second item secondary--commitment primary over requirement, word primary over deed, and sovereign administration primary over responsible reception. This explains the structure and meaning of the commandments, and provides a clear window into the systematic structure of the covenant relation between God and man.

This is the first reading.³ The primary tension or ambiguity with which the first reading leaves us is that while the text clearly delineates God's requirement for the life of His people, it does not explain how God will give what He commands. The second reading supplies the answer. God commands man to bring his whole metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics into accord with God's, and in the three central blessings of the New Covenant in Christ--regeneration, justification, and sanctification--He gives what He commands. I suspect this function of these blessings is somewhat of a surprise not only to the New Testament audience, but also to most Biblical Theologians of today. Who would think to relate the Ten Commandments and these blessings in this way? But I think Ezekiel does, I think Jesus does, and I think Paul does. So to demonstrate that the second reading is truly focused upon the subject-matter of the first three commandments, we will note briefly how the last three requests of the Lord's Prayer are our paradigmatic request for God to make good His promise to give these blessings. By showing the relations of the Lord's Prayer to the first three commandments, we will begin more accurately to grasp the comprehensive scope of the covenant as it is proclaimed in scripture, the central lines and stages of its development, and the outlines of its structure in ways few commentators have been able to before. And frankly, while we may feel ashamed for not having seen these structures in scripture before, let us rejoice in them now that we do!

1. First Reading

   1. Translation

3. There shall not be to you other gods before my face. 4. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of that which is in the heavens above, or which is in the earth beneath, or which is in the waters under the earth. 5. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I YHWH your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, 6. but showing mercy to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7. You shall not take the name of YHWH your God for nothingness, for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes His name for nothingness.

1. Context

The first three commandments are given to us in a set of nested, expanding contexts. Within the Ten Commandments, they form the first principles of God's law, and because they are summarized in the fourth commandment, they can be treated as a separate unit. With the fourth commandment, as the requirements for the God-man relationship they form the foundation for the requirements for man's relation with his neighbor, expressed in the last six commandments. The Ten Commandments as a whole were first given from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai in Horeb (Ex. 20--perhaps even so that the people heard, too--Dt. 5:4, 9:10, cf. Enns, 112), then to the people of Israel by Moses at Sinai, throughout the desert-wandering (Numbers), and in Moab (Dt. 5). They were the covenant God made with His people at Horeb (Dt. 4:13, 5:2-3, 9:9) and reconfirmed in Moab. As such they are the central verbal expression of the covenant-relationship established at the climax of God's deliverance of His people from Egypt, and reconfirmed in preparation for their entrance into the land He had promised. This is why they are placed at the climax of the story in Exodus, and made the principial structure of the torah-teaching of Deuteronomy (cf. Olson, 1994: 6-22). They draw together, then, the main themes of the Pentateuch, and lay the foundation for Israel's life in Canaan under Joshua, the judges, David, and the prophets. This covenant then formed the foundational structure of and pedagogue leading to the New Covenant under Christ, as we will see in the second reading.

Along with a growing line of scholarship,⁴ and the implication to this effect in Dt. 6:1-3, I believe we must take Dt. 6-26 to be a commentary on the Ten Commandments listed in Dt. 5, such that the order of the Decalogue forms the order of the sections in ch.'s 6-26.⁵ I consider the divisions suggested by Jordan and Krabbendam to be correct, that ch.'s 6-11 treat the first commandment, 12-13 the second, and 14 the third. Within the context of the Pentateuch then I find it our obligation to exegete the first three commandments in accord with the way that God, Moses, and Deuteronomy explain and apply them in Dt. 6-14.

1. Exegesis

   1. The First Commandment: The Metaphysics of Commitment and Requirement

The first commandment teaches that God is the only true God because He is committed to be Himself, that He has committed His whole being to His people on their behalf, to be their God, and therefore requires them to commit their whole being toward Him, to be His people.⁶ Their being must be in accord with God's.⁷

This concern with God's being is emphasized by the use of hy<h.yI, yihyeh, "be." Most translations miss this and transform ^l.-hy<h.yI (yihyeh-lecha, "be to you") into a verb of possession ("you...have"). We should note that there are other verbs of possession in Hebrew; however, they are not used. Further, we should note that to make this transformation is to change the subject of the verb, and of the sentence; the subject is an indefinite third person ("there") implied in the verb, which is a Qal imperfect, 3^rd person masculine singular verb. Though it is indefinite, it is specified definitely by the "other gods" which are the implied subject: the other gods shall not "be to you." The transformation changes the subject to "you," a definite second person reference, and pulls the verb and its original subject apart from one another, obscuring some of the meaning. More literally, we should translate the commandment "There shall not be to you," meaning, you shall not believe in the existence of other gods, or treat other gods as if they exist or are gods for you like YHWH your God is. Further, retaining the literal "to you" or "for you" indicates the way that a god is oriented or committed toward his people if he is at all to be compared to the real God, who is committed to His people. The tendency of some translations, then, is to lose the specificity with which this commandment teaches a metaphysics of commitment and requirement. But the translations still convey that meaning(!), merely with less specificity.

y:n"P'-l[; (al-pnay) is more literally "before my face," or "before my presence," not denoting an order of priority, but a proximity of location, or a location within the field of God's vision or observation. This specificity is lost by the translation "before Me." To think that the construction refers to an order of priority is to forget that it refers to His face, terminology which indicates His presence and perception of things in His presence, even His impressions, feelings, evaluation, and response. We should realize that because God is omnipresent, and omniscient, any "god" we may treat as if it is real is of necessity within the field of God's observation; as such every "false god" is before God's face. WSC Q&A 48 says that these words indicate that God "taketh notice of, and is much displeased with, the sin of having any other gods." The implied reason for this is not only that God knows about His own existence, and the non-existence of other gods, but further it is that He is committed to being the one true God. This commitment forms the foundation of His commitment to be such for His people, and the basis of His requirement that they worship Him alone. He will not tolerate Israel giving a higher priority to other gods, but is incensed--it is even worse--when they bring other gods "before His face," because of His commitment to be the one true God, over all creation. In view of who He is, and especially His faithfulness, love, and commitment to be our God, how dare we "rub His nose" in the false gods of our own imaginations!

Deuteronomy's commentary: Deuteronomy introduces this commandment in 6:4-5, saying that YHWH our God is "one," or that YHWH "alone" is our God, and that therefore we should love Him with all our heart, soul, and might. The foundation of the metaphysics of the covenant is God's absolute commitment, and the outflow is His requirement of a reciprocal absolute commitment. Olson (1994: 52) rightly sees that this implies we should worship God with our "whole being." Krabbendam (1997: 130-131) says that vv. 10-12, 13-19, and 20-25 respectively summarize the threefold danger facing Israel, that each will tempt Israel to break their commitment to YHWH: the riches of the land (8:1-20), the gods of the land (7:1-26), and Israel's pride in its own righteousness (9:1-10:11). In the face of this danger Moses exhorts Israel a) to renew and maintain their commitment to YHWH, by circumcising their hearts to YHWH (10:12-16), on the basis of who He is (17-22), and how His commitment to Himself and to them shows in what He has done (11:1-7), b) to live out their commitment in obedience to His law, in order to receive the promised abundant blessings He is committed to giving them, or else face their removal (11:8-17), and c) to let His requirement guide the commitment of all of their life, that they may receive His blessing rather than His curse (11:18-32).

The first commandment then teaches the metaphysics of God's commitment and requirement: He is committed to us, therefore He requires a reciprocal commitment from us back to Him; He is our God, we are His people. Our whole being must be brought into accord with His.

1. The Second Commandment: The Epistemology of Word and Deed

The second commandment teaches that Israel must interpret God's deeds and their own according to His word, and thereby bring their thinking into accord with God's.

1. The Commandment

The commandment is stated simply: You shall not make for yourself a graven image, in the likeness of anything in all creation. Then it is explained: God is jealous that His word alone may provide the proper interpretation of His deeds of creation, providence, and redemption, and of our deeds as a result. This meaning is evident in the structure of the second sentence. Two lines are set in parallel; on the one hand, God will punish those who worship by means of images of created things out of hatred for Him, and on the other hand, God will show mercy toward those who keep His commandments out of love for Him. Image-worship is condemned, commandment-keeping is praised. You cannot do both at the same time. We see then that the two are contrasted. The difference between them is not simply that image-worship breaks this one commandment and therefore is the opposite of keeping this commandment, but that image-worship is the opposite of "keeping my commandmentS," plural commandments. Image-worship goes against the very nature of commandment-keeping, not just against the requirement of one command.

1. Implies a word-deed epistemology

But what is the nature of commandment-keeping? It is the linguistic, and epistemological, predication of God's words of His deeds, and the resultant bringing of our deeds into accord with that predication, with that interpretation of reality. This can be seen in the following: The commandments place requirements not only on man's (ethical) activity (holiness), but also on the construction and orientation of his (metaphysical) being (goodness/perfection), and on his (epistemological) knowledge (truthfulness). In this case, keeping God's commandments involves not thinking that images of things from any part of creation (heaven, earth, waters; Ex. 20:4)--or that the creation itself (Dt. 4:9-23)--are an appropriate means by which to worship God unless God tells us by way of command that they are. In all cases God's commandments require us to think of images as part of creation, the result of God's deeds of creation, providence, and redemption. Thus, not only images, but creation itself--all of the results of God's deeds, and by extension, God's deeds themselves--must always be interpreted according to God's commands. Because God's promises of commitment always imply a requirement to believe them, God's promises as well serve to command our belief and resultant action. God's word is composed principally of His promises and laws (WSC Q & A 3), and so the implication is that God's word-revelation must always be the interpreter of His deed-revelation, and His deed-revelation may never be given the interpretive priority over His word-revelation. This is seen in the very function of language itself; words and meaning are predicated interpretively of things other than the words themselves; there is an order of priority between words and their referents--words come first, referents second. To allow otherwise is to construct our own false interpretation of God's deeds, which amounts to image-worship, worshiping in a way He has not commanded.⁸

1. Implies that (soteriological) justification and epistemology are integrally related to one another

We should recognize here that the word-deed epistemology of the covenant is at the core of condemnation and justification from the perspective of the Pentateuch, and thereby of the rest of scripture. Justification is epistemological, epistemology is about discerning good and evil. If man judges correctly--interpreting God's deeds according to His word--he does what is right in God's eyes (Dt. 13:18)--who sees all things--and is considered righteous. Adam and Eve judged this way until they ate of the fruit. If man judges incorrectly--interpreting according to his own imagination rather than God's word--he sins, and God considers his actions to be iniquitous (guilty), and punishes ("visiting-upon") that iniquity. If man believes God's Pentateuchal offers of forgiveness, and that God is a loving, forgiving, gracious God, and believes that he is condemned by God's commandments, then he is thinking rightly, seeing himself as God sees him, and God shows mercy to him, forgiving his sin. According to the Pentateuch, in justification man's epistemology is brought back into accord with God's. "For he knows worthless men; when he sees iniquity, will he not consider it?" (Job 11:11) God's knowledge of all things bears on us most centrally in regard to our obedience to His word; He sees even the deeds we do in secret. Likewise, our knowledge must judge our deeds according to God's knowledge as revealed in His word.

1. This is supported by the context of Deuteronomy and other scripture

Evidence in Numbers: This word-deed epistemology is central in Numbers 13-14. God reveals the good land in word and deed to the spies, Joshua and Caleb interpret what they see according to God's word, the other spies misinterpret their observations according to their own imaginations, and the members of the congregation follow their false interpretation, and do not believe (14:11) God's word-deed revelation. For this reason Moses pleads with God to forgive and pardon their sin and guilt (14:18-19), on the basis of His name which He had proclaimed on Sinai (Ex. 34:6-7), also referenced in this commandment: "YHWH is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation." God pardons the people, yet punishes their sin.

Evidence in Deuteronomy: In Dt. 4:9-23 Moses emphasizes to the people that at Sinai, they saw no image of God, but only heard His voice, and therefore must not worship images, and not even worship the sun, the moon, or the stars--things in creation--lest they forget the covenant.

Deuteronomy's Commentary: For this reason Moses introduces the second commandment as "statutes and rules"--commandments--and warns the people that they must not worship in the way or the place in which the Canaanites worship, but only in the way and the place that God commands (Dt. 12), and (in Dt. 13) that they should not "listen to the words" of prophets, family members, or cities who entice them to worship other gods, but rather "keep His commandments, and obey His voice." (v. 4, cf. 18)

Further examples demonstrating these points could be multiplied almost beyond number from scripture (Lev. 18:24-26; Jer. 25; Jer. 35-36; Am. 3:2, 7, 14; Ps. 89:30-33; Job 11).

The second commandment, then, teaches the epistemology of predicating God's words of His deeds, especially in regard to His justice and mercy, and our standing before Him as either guilty or innocent. Our whole epistemology must be brought into accord with His.

1. The Third Commandment: The Ethics of Sovereign Administration and Responsible Reception

The third commandment teaches that God actively administrates the covenant, and that as a result Israel is responsible to receive God's activity in a manner that accords with God's administration. Israel's ethical activity must be in accord with God's.

1. God's Name: God's Activity

The name of YHWH refers to His reputation for what He does. God declared His special name YHWH initially in Ex. 3, but the full meaning of His name is not seen until it is known by Israel, Egypt, and the surrounding nations as a result of God's mighty deeds in redeeming His people. His reputation developed in the story of Exodus will be that He is present (Ex. 3:8, 12) and active in redeeming power (3:16-22).⁹ In Ex. 6:1, God says "Now you will see what I will do," so that "you shall know that I am YHWH your God" (v. 7). Thus God's wonderful works of salvation (14:13) were multiplied in Egypt (11:9), to be remembered for all generations (13:14-16). That is His name: His reputation for what He has done. (Cf. Ps. 111, 115, 116:3-4, Rev. 15:3-4)

1. "Taking": Man's Activity

In this context, what it means to "take" God's name is twofold: it is to receive God's reputation and His activity, and to use, handle it, or act in a way which is appropriately in accord with God's activity. "God's activity in redemption demands a corresponding holiness of life in the beneficiaries of that redemptive activity." (Krabbendam, 1997: 73) The verb afn (nasa) here can mean "lift" (as in taking a name on one's lips), "carry," or "take" (more with the sense of use, employ, act), and even "receive." God gives His activity to us to receive, to respond to, to cooperate with.

1. "For nothingness": The character of God's activity (sovereignty), and the character of man's reception (responsibility)

aw>V'l; (lashav) can be translated "for nothing," which does not specify whether a purpose ("for a bad purpose") or manner ("in vain") of action is in view, or whether the substance and value of God's reputation is being depreciated ("as no significant reputation"). I prefer the last meaning, because the context of Exodus emphasizes that God's reputation had to be filled out, to be revealed, by His actions, and recognized and received as it really is. So "for nothingness" is a better translation. But as a result, the first two meanings come into view as well; God's name-reputation and His activity must be put to "holy and reverent use." (WSC Q&A 54) God is active, so do not deny His activity in your own actions.

1. Taking God's Name

   • The right way

Taking God's reputational name means, then, responding to God's activity which identifies Him, and to what reputation He has because of that activity, and doing so in a way that accords with His activity. We must be holy, for God is holy. It is the responsible reception of God's sovereign administration of the covenant. It is the sum of our activity in response to the sum of God's activity, the sum of our ethics in response to the sum of God's ethics.

• The wrong way

To take God's name in vain, then, is to respond to God's administration of the covenant in a way that is out of accord with the holiness of God's activity. When someone takes God's name in vain in this manner, God "will not hold him guiltless." This means, in essence, that God will hold every man responsible for his actions within the covenant, by holding those actions up to the standard of God's own holy activity. Man's reception of God's administration of the covenant is a responsible reception.

1. Deuteronomy's Commentary

Because of God's active presence in redemption, because of His sovereign administration of the covenant, because His activity brings Israel life, Moses instructs them not to believe that death has the victory (in the past?) (Dt. 14:1-2), and to symbolize their holiness and life by abstaining from eating animals associated with death (in the present?) (14:3-21a), and to hope in God's redeeming, life-giving activity in the future (14:21b-29: the Canaanite's rituals seek to secure life in the future apart from God's activity, by forcing the life of the mother's milk upon the dead kid-goat's meat, and tithing is trusting in God's continued active provision.)

It should be clear, then, that the third commandment requires us to bring our responsible reception of the covenant into accord with God's sovereign administration of it, and thereby, to bring the whole of our ethics into accord with the whole of God's.

1. Second Reading

We have seen that God requires that Israel bring their being, thinking, and activity into accord with God's. But they are incapable of accomplishing this task on their own. They trust that YHWH will provide, but do not know how He will.

1. The Promise

YHWH promises in Jeremiah 31:31-34 to make a new covenant, writing His law upon their hearts, so that He will be their God, and they will be His people. Thus He will provide what the first commandment requires. Further, they all will know Him, for He will forgive their iniquity, and forget their sin. This will provide what the second commandment requires. In Ezekiel 36:25-27 He speaks of that same day, a new Exodus, when He will cleanse them from all their uncleannesses (guilt) and idols (the second commandment), give them a new heart, taking out their heart of stone, giving them a heart of flesh (the first commandment), and put His Spirit within them, causing them to walk in His statutes, obey His rules, and do them (the third commandment). He is promising a new (metaphysical) heart, a new (epistemological) record and knowledge, and a new (ethical) life. These blessings are termed regeneration, justification, and sanctification in the New Testament.

1. The Fulfillment

   1. In Christ

Christ put to death the old hearts, old records, and old lives of His people in His death, and raised to life their new hearts, new records, and new lives in His resurrection. The Spirit implements them in men initially at conversion and progressively throughout their subsequent lives, bringing them to final perfection in their glorification. Israel had trusted that God would give what He commanded His people to have--a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics in accord with His own--but Israel had no idea how God would do so. Now they know, and as a result, the true Israel of God rejoices in Christ and the work of His Spirit, for it is fuller and more abundant than Israel under the law could ever ask or imagine. Let us see how much fuller it is.

1. All Things Are Ours

The central summary in the New Testament of the blessings of the new heart, new record, and new life is found in the last three requests of the Lord's Prayer.

1. Regeneration

Jesus taught us to ask God to "Give us this day our daily bread." Christians everywhere realize that this is a request for God to provide for our daily needs. It is a request for God to maintain His providence, which sustains our whole being, as well as the many blessings which are ours in Christ Jesus. In fact, all things are ours in Christ--even suffering is a blessing--all things are a blessing of God's providence, so long as we have been recreated in Christ.¹⁰ He has created a new heart within us; He has circumcised our hearts as we were unable to do, and now He sustains our whole being, providing for our every need, and making us the firstfruits of the new creation. All of creation groans in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. Not only our bodies, but all of creation will be made new, in accord with God's being, in accord with His commitment to be Himself, to glorify Himself.

1. Justification

We must ask God to "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." This is clearly a request for God to wipe our record clean, and entails that we also have been convicted of sin and of righteousness, and have begun to discern good and evil as we ought. Our forgiveness does not provide the interpretive standard after which God's forgiveness must be fashioned, but rather our forgiveness manifests the pattern of God's forgiveness, and as such when we pray this prayer we interpret both His and our deeds according to His commandments, according to His word, according to His knowledge. We trust that in the end, God's justice and truth will prevail. All accounts will be reckoned, all debts will be paid, all guilt will be punished, all mercy will be shown. Then we will know even as we are fully known.

1. Sanctification

We must ask God to "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." In this we ask God not to allow our actions from straying from His leadership, from His actions, but rather to do His sovereign redemptive work to conform our actions to His holiness. Our desire, and our request, is for Him to enable us to work out our salvations with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure. We ask Him to engage Himself in our lives, that we might be engaged in accord with Him, to administrate His covenant sovereignly on our behalf, that we might responsibly receive it and respond in a life of loving obedience and holiness. In order for Him to do this He must deliver us to the uttermost not only from our disobedience, but from evil in general, and from all temptation. He will bring this to pass, when He sanctifies His church finally and completely to be His holy bride, in the New Heavens and New Earth, in which righteousness dwells.

1. Conclusion

In the first three commandments, God commanded His people to bring their whole metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics into accord with His own. They trusted Him but could not see even the extent to which this requirement would stretch, much less the way in which God would accomplish the redemption it required. It required not just that they circumcise their hearts, but that the whole of creation be redeemed, with man at its center, (and to the glory of God), not just that they receive forgiveness and think God's thoughts after Him, but that all righteousness be fulfilled, all falsehood banished, all guilt punished, and not only that their obedience would match God's faithfulness, but that all things would be emblazoned with the title, "Holy to the Lord." Now we know that God accomplished these in Christ, and is bringing them to completion in His church through the work of the Spirit. God is giving what He commanded! With Paul we must end with praise:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor? Or who has given a gift to Him that he might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever!

Appendix 1

A summary of the thesis, method, and bibliography of the paper.

Thesis:

My thesis follows the perspective of the Westminster catechisms in their somewhat exegetical exposition of these commandments, but goes beyond the catechisms by showing the greater level of organization involved in the commandments, and by showing the broader and more grand scope of their reach. In summary, my thesis is that the first commandment requires us to bring our being into accord with God’s being, the second requires us to bring our epistemology/knowledge into accord with God’s epistemology/knowledge, the third requires us to bring our ethics into accord with God’s ethics, and the fourth in a summary fashion requires us to bring the sum of these three areas - our whole lives (represented by our time and activity (and influence? covenantal relations?)) - into accord with the sum of God’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics: God’s whole life (represented by His time and activity (and influence? covenantal relations?).) As such the commandments teach the covenant as an all-embracing philosophy of life. An examination of each commandment reveals further detail within the structure of the covenant, detail which proves of great benefit to our understanding of biblical theology, especially in regard to the nature and progress of the historical aspect of the covenant. To remain brief I can only outline the further detail of each commandment here: 1: Promise - Law, 2: Word - Deed, 3: Sovereign Administration - Responsible Reception. Each commandment requires us to keep the first of each pair primary, yet retain the equal ultimacy of both. The central salvation blessings of regeneration, justification, and sanctification, clearly proclaimed in the NT gospel, respectively redeem man’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, bringing them into accord with God’s. The law prescribed (required) these blessings, Ezekiel (36) promised them, Christ produced them (Rom. 5, 6), the Spirit personalizes them, and our glorification perfects them. In the final 3 requests of the Lord’s prayer, Christ taught us to pray for their continued implementation and growth in our lives. The structure of the covenant is the structure of the gospel, the structure of the gospel is the structure of the covenant. This thesis demonstrates a central way in which the requirements of the law are fulfilled in Christ -- in His person, work, salvation, and church -- the first three commandments require what only salvation through Christ can provide: regeneration, justification, and sanctification. The gospel, then, is the philosophy which is according to Christ.

Tensions:

I am aware of several apparent tensions within my thesis, as it relates the teaching of the commandments to the teaching found throughout the rest of the history of revelation. However, as I have worked on this I have found that the tensions tend to be a function of my own ignorance - of the learning curve if not of my sin - rather than of the construction of the text itself. For example, we in post-Reformation Protestantism might think it odd that I propose that justification produces the redemption of our epistemology. I struggled for quite some time with the apparent incompatibility of epistemology and justification as I tried to compare the metaphysics-epistemology-ethics structure with the regeneration-justification-sanctification structure. It is easy for us to grant that justification involves God’s epistemology, because it is His declaration that He considers us to be no longer guilty but rather innocent. Yet it is difficult for us to think of justification as having any redemptive effect upon our own epistemology. However, this confusion in the matter was not so from the beginning; God presented Adam and Eve with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as an (epistemological) evaluation of their (admittedly ethical) obedience. If Adam and Eve obeyed, thereby exercising righteous discernment of the true distinction between good and evil, they would be judged to be righteous in God’s sight. If they disobeyed, they did so because they believed the lies - the false judgments - of Satan regarding what is good and what is evil, and as such would be judged by God to be unrighteous, to be guilty. Their thinking would be plagued with guilt from that time forward. These issues of discerning good and evil, and of being preoccupied with guilt, are central in human epistemology (Heb. 2:15; 4:11-16; 5:11-14; 10:2, 22, 26-39). In the implementation of our justification God convicts us of our sin and of His righteousness (John 16:8-11, Rom. 12:2-3), and assures us of our newfound righteous standing before Him (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-11, 29; 3:19-21), cleansing us from our guilty standing as well as our sense of guilt. We no longer suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but rather know that the judgment of God is according to truth. (Rom. 1:18; 2:2) It was Abraham’s faith in God’s righteous judgment, even in the prospect of justification through the Seed to come, which God imputed to Abraham as righteousness. (Rom. 4:21-25, Heb. 6:11-20) It is because justification involves the redemption of our epistemology that Luther and the Reformers were right -- justification comes by faith alone, not by works, so that no one can boast. So after more careful study I am brought to conclude that justification is eminently epistemological, bringing our judgment back into accord with God’s. I will continue to search out the ambiguities and tensions of the text at hand in accord with your requirements for the paper, but I must beg your forgiveness for the way my mind tends toward finding a textually-warranted resolution to such difficulties rather than a perpetuation of them.¹¹

Method:

In accord with the above paragraph, I must say that I did not want to organize this paper around the concepts of a "first reading" and a "second reading." I only used that structure because my instructor required us to. He holds that texts which come earlier in the history of revelation can be understood on their own terms apart from taking later revelation into account, and that this is the "first reading." I can agree with him on this. He also holds that the same texts can be understood in new, fuller, more grand and far-reaching ways than they were originally understood by their original audience, once we read them in the light of "the end of the story," the later revelation in the OT, or especially in the NT--the revelation of Christ and the gospel. I can go a long ways down this road with my instructor, but I have to stop and disagree with him when it comes to one point: Our instructor also holds that the first reading of an earlier text (if not of later texts as well?) leaves the reader not only with unanswered questions, but with "tensions" in regard to that text's systematic and historical relation to other parts of revelation, "ambiguities" as to the text's meaning, and "contradictions" between one part of the text's meaning and another part, as well as between the text and other texts or contexts. I think the instructor is right to seek to discover the things that later revelation adds to the picture, which are even surprising, amazing, and to some extent are not what we might have expected. But he wrongfully seems to place the blame for initially misunderstanding the text during the first reading on the text itself, instead of on the reader in his sinfulness. I have to maintain that it is only because I have not listened properly to God's word that I have misunderstood it, and that it is never that God has misspoken, or been anything less than perfectly clear. Admittedly, there are "some things that are hard to understand" in parts of scripture (2 Peter 3:16), but it is no fault of scripture; it does not mean those hard things in scripture cannot be understood. Rather, the reason people misunderstand those hard sayings is that "the ignorant and unstable twist [scripture] to their own destruction!" (2 Pet. 3:16 again) In the end, it is not God's word that is unclear, but our understanding of it which is unclear. And further, it is not God who errs, but man. Further, man's sin, and not his finitude, bears the full blame for man's misunderstanding. This is apparent in that it is a sin not to humbly admit that one does not know the meaning of a passage when one truly does not know the meaning of that passage. In view of our finitude we ought rather to admit ignorance and leave God's word in His own hands than to blithely construct a false interpretation of God's word and twist it in ours. People too often place the blame on God and His word for their own misinterpretations, and their claims to perceive a fault in scripture; it is rather a misperception of the log in their own eye, the fault in their own hearts, as well as a misperception of the meaning of the passage, which is at stake. The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart. So let us give glory to God alone in our method.

I'd like to do that by revising the structure of this paper, but do not have time at present to do so. In principle, the revision would merely remove the aspects of ambiguity, tension, and contradiction from the paper's presentation of the passages, and would still gladly retain the first reading - second reading structure with its emphasis on the new and even surprising meaning found in the second reading. I would prefer to make more clear in the revision than my instructor's required method allowed that the new meaning gained is gained from the meaning of the later revelation through the later text, and is not gained from the meaning of the revelation conveyed through the earlier text. But this last goal was already largely accomplished (just not mentioned so as not to be punished!) in the first draft of the paper.

Preliminary Bibliography:

1. Primary

   1. Deuteronomy. As a commentary on the ten commandments, explaining their meaning, giving examples of their application, and symbolizing their requirements. Note 4:13: “He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.” Cf. 9:9.

   2. Exodus.

   3. The Westminster Standards.

   4. The Heidelberg Catechism.

2. Secondary

   1. General Areas for Research

      1. The expositions of the catechisms. (Note the expanded SC for families in Q & A format.)

      2. The various commentaries on the ten commandments.

      3. General OT studies works recommended in the syllabus

         1. BT approaches to the commandments?

         2. Systematic treatments of the commandments?

      4. Ask btdisc for recommendations, search archives, also Kerux.

      5. Robertson, Murray, other writers in covenant theology.

      6. Articles on the covenant recommended by Chad Bond.

      7. Possibly the older works referenced in Vos’s “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology”

      8. Standard hermeneutics works; look for section on law and commandments, as well as covenant.

      9. Hodge, Warfield, Berkhof on the covenant, or if they reference the commandments anywhere.

      10. Maaaaaaaybe the theonomists’ works on the ten commandments.

      11. Relation of Mosaic and more general OT Law to NT. (I don’t want to go deeply into this area in my research; seems too far afield.)

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Works Cited

Black, Tim. The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: An Analysis, Critique, And Reconstruction. (1998). 135 pp. Bachelor's thesis at Covenant College, submitted for the Biblical Studies and Sociology majors. Draws implications from the structure of the covenant to suggest revisions to Vos' hermeneutics. This is the more general project from which the present paper has been generated; I am trying to strengthen the foundations of the argument presented in that thesis project, and thereby build toward strengthening the central structures of Reformed hermeneutics as well as systematic and biblical theology, by attempting to bring them into closer accord with scripture, through careful exegesis.

Black, Tim. "Let Us Be Perfect, As Our Heavenly Father Is Perfect: An Exegesis of The Last Three Petitions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew." (2001) Term paper for the Gospels course. This paper on the Lord's Prayer is the sequel to this paper on the first 3 Commandments. Together they demonstrate the foundation and the fruition of the structure of the covenant.

Black, Tim. "The Glory of God in the Covenant." (2001) Term paper for the Doctrine of God course. Demonstrates how the biblical presentation of God's glory follows the structure of the covenant.

Braulik, Georg. Die deuteronomischen Gesetz und der Dekalog. (Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblewerk, 1991).

Braulik, Georg. "Die Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 12-26 und der Dekalog." Das Deuteronomium. Ed. N. Lohfink (Leuven: University Press, 1985).

Douma, Jochem. The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life. Trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1996). He tends to miss the forest for the trees, but the forest he suggests is the one that I try to elucidate.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987).

Enns, Peter. Exodus: The NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text...To Contemporary Life. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).

Hill, Andrew E., and Walton, John H. Survey of the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991).

Jordan, James B. The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23. (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984).

Kaiser, Walter. Toward Old Testament Ethics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983). Follows Kaufman closely.

Kaufmann, Stephen. "The Structure of Deuteronomic Law." Maarav, 1/2 (1978-79): 105-58. Article defending a view of the structure of the central section of Deuteronomy (ch. 6 ff.) as a commentary on the ten commandments.

Krabbendam, Christian Ethics Syllabus. (Unpublished syllabus: 1997). I depend on and refine his outline of the meaning of the first 3 commandments (IS-SAYS-DOES). The appendix is an exegetical outline of Deuteronomy.

Mann, Thomas W. Deuteronomy. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. In The New American Commentary, Vol. 4. (n.l.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994).

Millar, J. Gary. Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

Napier, B. Davie. The Book of Exodus. The Layman's Bible Commentary, Vol. 3. (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963).

Olson, Dennis T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).

Schaeffer, Edith. Lifelines: God's Framework for Christian Living. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1982).

Schultz, Fr. W. Das Deuteronomium. (Berlin: G. Sclawitz, 1859).

Schulz, Hermann. "Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament." (Dissertation: Marburg, 1966).

Williamson, G. I. The Shorter Catechism: Volume II: Questions 39-107. (n.l.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972).

Willis-Watkins, David. "The Second Commandment And Church Reform: The Colloquy of St. Germain-en-Laye, 1562." Studies in Reformed Theology and History. Vol. 2 No. 2, Spring 1994. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1994).

Wolters, Al. Creation Regained.

Witsius, Herman. Sacred Dissertations on The Lord's Prayer. Trans. William Pringle. (Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1839).

Works Consulted

Alexander, T. Desmond. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch.

Bahnsen, Greg L. By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today. (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985).

Bush, George. Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Exodus; Designed As A General Help to Biblical Reading And Instruction. (Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1852). Pretty good. Follows the Westminster Standards.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Trans. Israel Abrahams. (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1951 (Hebrew), 1967 (English)).

Davies, G. Henton. Exodus. Torch Bible Commentaries. (London: SCM Press, 1967).

Dillard, Raymond B. and Longman, Tremper III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Check for general comments and bibliographic references.

Dorsey, David A. “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise.” JETS

Dumbrell, William J. “Genesis 2:1-3: Biblical Theology of Creation Covenant.” Evangelical Review of Theology 25 (2000) 219-30.

Horton, Michael S. “What’s Really At Stake.” In Christian Renewal Forum: Special Supplement to the May 28, 2001 Issue of Christian Renewal: Covenant. 11-19. Giving a definition of the covenant: “Every such arrangement involves a historical prologue (“I am the Lord who brought you out...”), and stipulations (command/promise) with sanctions (curse/blessing). Each of these elements is present in Genesis 1-3.” p. 14.

Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 3: Chapters 20-40. Trans. Sierd Woudstra. (Peeters, Leuven, 2000).

Hyatt, J. Philip. Commentary on Exodus. New Century Bible. (London: Oliphants, 1971).

Jones, David Clyde. Biblical Christian Ethics. Comments on the commandments, ch. 6. (Not very helpful, if I remember.) Categorizes scriptural direction into prohibition, permission, mandate, counsel, precedent, and example. Note the traditional divisions of the commandments on p. 104.

Maxwell, John C. Deuteronomy. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987).

Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990).

Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace.

Nielsen, E. The Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-Historical Approach. (SBT, Second Series, 7; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1968).

North, Gary. Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).

Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Trans. J. S. Bowden. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962).

Pink, A. W. The Ten Commandments.

Rawlinson, George. Exodus: Exposition and Homiletics. Vol. II. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1880?).

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law.

Sailhamer, John H. “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch.” WTJ

Sarna, Nahum J. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991).

Stamm, J. J., and Andrew, M. E. The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. (SBT, Second Series, 2; Napervile, Ill.: Allenson, 1967).

Sutton, Ray. That You May Prosper. A theonomic appropriation of Kline’s treaty formulation of the structure of the covenant.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 2.

Van Til. The Ten Commandments. (1933) Unpublished manuscript.

Van Til. God's Address to Man: My Bible Speaks to Me. Unpublished manuscript.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. (1692; reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1959).

Not Consulted, for further research

Aquinas, Thomas. The Old Law. (1a2ae.98-105), vol. 29 in Summa Theologicae, trans. David Bourke and Arthur Littledale (New York: McGraw, 1969).

Bahnsen, Greg L. No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics. (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991).

Bahnsen, Greg L. “The Authority of God’s Law.” The Presbyterian Journal. 6 December 1978, 11.

Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. 2^nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984).

Barclay, W. The Ten Commandments for Today. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973)

Barker, William Schirmer, and Godfrey, W. Robert, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Chritique. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective.

Bartholomew, Craig G. “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction.” Calvin Theological Journal, 30 (1995) 11-33.

Bavinck, Herman. In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology.

Berkouwer, G. C. Works. On the structure of the covenant. Chad Bond recommends as good.

Calixtus, Gerogius. Epitomes Theologia Moralis. (1634)

Calvin. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Trans. Charles William Bingham, 4 vols. (1852; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950). Institutes. Commentaries on the commandments and Institutes on the covenant. Institutes on the Commandments? Also, Sermons on Deuteronomy (what is his structure of the body of Deut.?). Institutes, I.10-12.

Casselli, Stephen J. “Jesus as Eschatological Torah.” Trinity Journal.

Catherwood, F. First Things First: The Ten Commandments in the 20^th Century. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979).

Childs, Brevard. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.

Childs, Brevard. Old Testament in a Canonical Context.

Childs, Brevard. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974). “The Decalogue” pp. 385-439. Exegetical commentary on the commandments.

Chilton, David. Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch.

Collins, R. F. "Ten Commandments." ABD, 6:383-87.

Danaeus, Lambertus. Christian Ethics. (1577)

Davidman, J. Smoke on the Mountain: An Interpretation of the Ten Commandments. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953).

DeGraaf, S. G. Promise and Deliverance. Look for section on commandments if it is there.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant & Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology.

Frame, John. Doctrine of the Word of God. Doctrine of the Christian Life. ? On the nature of word and deed in epistemology, relation of Trinity and metaphysics-epistemology-ethics distinction.

Frame, John. Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988) pp. 12-18. Categorizes scriptural direction into prohibition, permission, commandment, and praise.

Fretheim. Exodus.

Gillespie, George. (Examine briefly his work on the structure of the covenant.)

Goldman, S. The Ten Commandments. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956).

Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture.

Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary.

Grant, Robert M. “The Decalogue in Early Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947) 1-17.

Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method.

Harrelson, W. The Ten Commandments and Human Rights. (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).

Henry, C. Christian Personal Ethics.

Johnstone, W. "The 'Ten Commandments': Some Recent Interpretations." Exp-Tim 100 (1989): 453-59.

Kerux. Look for articles on the commandments, perhaps the covenant.

Kline, Meredith. Kingdom Prologue.

Kline, Meredith. “Comments on a New-Old Error.” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978) 172-189.

Kline, Meredith. The Structure of Biblical Authority.

Kline, Meredith. The Treaty of the Great King. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).

Lee, Francis Nigel. The Covenantal Sabbath.

Long, V. Phillips. The Art of Biblical History.

Manton, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. (Is this a typo for Thomas Watson?)

McConville, J. Gordon. Grace in the End: a Study in Deuteronomic Theology.

McConville, J. Gordon. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy.

McQuilken, Robertson. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics.

Moo, Douglas J. “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1988).

Moriarty, Michael G. The Perfect 10: The Blessings of Following the Ten Commandments. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics.

North, Gary. The Dominion Covenant: Genesis.

Owen, John. ?

Palmer, E. F. Old Law--New Life: The Ten Commandments and New Testament Faith. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984).

Philo. On the Decalogue, On the Special Laws, On the Virtues. Trans. F. H. Colson. In The Loeb Classical Library. Ed. E. H. Warmington (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937-1939).

Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist.

Poythress, Vern. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses.

Pratt. On the nature of historical progress in the covenant, and the structure of the covenant.

Rees, D. A. “The Ethics of Divine Commands.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. n.s., 57 (1956-57), 100.

Rutherford, Samuel. (Examine briefly his work on the structure of the covenant.)

Sailhamer, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel.

Segal, B. Z., ed. The Ten Commandments As Reflected in Tradition and Literature Throughout the Ages. (Jerusalem Magnes, 1985).

Sproul, R. C. Ethics and the Christian.

Stek, John H. “‘Covenant’ Overload in Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal. 29 (1994) 12-41.

The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. On the law and commandments, perhaps covenant.

Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. Trans. G. W. Williard (1852; reprint, Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d.), 491-492.

VanGemeren, Willem A. The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem.

Van Til. Sections where he speaks of God’s metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics as original, foundational and archetypical for ours, and of ours as derivative.

Vos. The Eschatology of the Old Testament. Look at Biblical Theology again for more detail I may have missed. “Covenant or Diatheke,” and “Epistle of the Diatheke.”

Waltke, Bruce K. “Theonomy in Relation to Dispensational and Covenant Theologies.” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition.” In Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perpectives. Ed. Edwin B. Firmage et al. (Winina Lake, Ill.: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

Zens, Jon. “The Believer’s Rule of Life: A Study of Two Extremes.” Baptist Reformation Review. 8:4 (1979) 1-19.