Decalogue: Tenth Command

To be honest, I had not encountered a defense of the Catholic number of the Decalogue (by an Evangelical) until fairly recently. As I pointed out in the post dealing with the numbering issue, I noted that the division of this Command into two is an artificial division. Rome does this because they can bury the prohibition of images behind the ban on idolatry. As we mentioned previously, it was Peter Lombard (ca. 1096 – 1164) who first devised this numbering of the Decalogue. We could appeal, as we did before, to Josephus as a representative of the Jewish numbering, but we can actually do one better. Paul makes this one simple command in Romans 7:7. 

The primary argument this defender of the Roman numbering, which he considered his best argument, was that it was inconsistent with Scripture to list a man’s wife in this command, for that would imply that she was just another piece of his property. Granted, that is an unbiblical position. Even in the 5th Command, we see obedience and respect being enjoined for both mother and father. This is significant. It may be semantic nitpicking, but it seems better to say that the biblical worldview is patricentic, not patriarchal. Job demonstrates this. He was not the center of his children’s lives around whom their world revolved. Rather he was intimately busy with God on their behalf. This is a big difference. One of the greatest evils Israel was guilty of during the time of the Judges was their pagan treatment of women. 

I said all that to say this: Just because wife is listed here, it is not a legitimate assumption that this means she is a piece of property if we view this command as one rather than two. This is true for at least a couple of reasons. 

(1). It neglects the way we all commonly speak. The possessive tense of a noun does not necessarily imply ownership in a dehumanizing way. After all, we all speak of our wives, our husbands and our children, and none of us do this with the intention of being understood as a claim of ownership wherein these people are mere possessions. There is no other way to express it. When I refer to my wife and my car, even in the same sentence, no one understands me to be using the word “my” in the exact same way. And if they do, they’re crazy.

(2). The exact same thing is forbidden in both clauses. This would have to make it one command. If the 6th Command said, “You shall not murder your wife, nor shall you murder you next-door neighbor, we would not construe that as two separate commands. It is only because one has forced the first two Commands together that they are compelled to do it here. No other Command has two clauses for this pretended division to be placed.

(3). When Moses reiterates this Command in Deuteronomy 5, he reverse the order of the clauses.

As we have done so often already, we cite the Heidelberg Catechism. 

“Question 113. What does the tenth commandment require of us?

Answer: That even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God's commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart, and delight in all righteousness. (a)

“(a) Rom.7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

As far as the actual prohibition is concerned, this is one of the most regularly and flagrantly violated of all the Commands. Hardly a single ad in existence, from the beginning of time, does not operate on a violation of this Command. We are all entice to buy this or that product for no other reason than that someone else (whom we presumably wish to emulate) has one. Very few luxury items would even have the remotest appeal for most people were it not for the sin of covetousness. What inherent quality do most luxury items actually possess, as opposed to more generic examples of the same item, to make them more desirable? The answer to that question is: squat. Wanting to have nice things is no sin and dictating which watches a Christian can wear is straight up legalism. But again, we must ask, how much does covetousness factor in? Do I want some extravagant thing because others will want one? or because I envy someone who has one? I can’t see your heart no you mine. But God can see and if we are honest, we know when we are motivated by envy. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed the particularly internal quality of this one Command. All of the others deal with overt outward acts (except perhaps the 1st), but this one deals exclusively with the internal motives and desires of the heart. Also, if we remember Jesus’ words Matthew 6:27-30, it would seem that at least part of this is already subsumed under the 7th Command. And it would be a legitimate use of Christ’s principle of application to say that the rest of this Command would fall under the 8th Command. No doubt, the whole point here is to stress the internal character of obedience to God. An obstinate child, who is ordered to sit down, may be complying outwardly, but in his heart he is still standing up. Proverbs 23:7 and 24:9 show that Jesus’ way of narrowing in on the heart’s motive behind the action was always understood by God’s people. It is a not a New Testament interpretative device. God has always looked at the heart. 

Someone might be tempted therefore to conclude that this interpretation makes this Command superfluous. But that would miss the whole point. Granted, nothing is enjoined here which is not comprehended under foregoing Commands; nevertheless, this Command serves as a general rule of interpretation, according to which as Ursinus writes, “the internal obedience of all the other commandments must be understood, because this is spoken of the whole Decalogue generally.” In other words, this Command reminds us that God is to be obeyed from the heart. It also has the added feature of making the Commands add up to ten. That makes it a simple mnemonic device. You have ten fingers; you can easily remember Ten Commands.

Decalogue: Ninth Command

At bottom, the 9th Command is one of the easiest to understand. Its primary application is in regards to testifying in court. Nothing is more despicable that a witness who perjures himself. Regardless of the case, we all want justice to be served based on truth. It is a hollow victory for justice that a thief rightly gets sent to prison when witnesses have lied about him. I recently saw a forensic documentary in which one of the prosecution experts perjured herself on the stand regarding some of the evidence. Although there was no doubt in anyone’s mind about the defendant’s guilt, the case against him was severely harmed by this unfortunate turn of events.

It is fairly obvious to anyone that the implication of this Command is the necessity of telling the truth in all circumstances. Lying about oneself or one’s neighbor is strictly forbidden. Lies can be told or implied by silence. We are all aware of situations where someone’s reputation has been destroyed by the silence of people who know better. While it is possible to lie through silence, this Command also enjoins silence when necessary. Just become something is true that does not mean that it is fair game for public discussion. This is the pretense behind which gossip frequently hides behind. Many of us have been in ‘prayer meetings’ where prayer was the vehicle for spreading dirt on other people. This is a covert form of gossip, and it is also a taking of God’s name in vain.

Matthew Henry, in his masterpiece commentary writes, “The ninth commandment concerns our own and our neighbor's good name: Thou shalt not bear false witness, This forbids, 1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor. 2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both), 3. Bearing false witness against him, laying to his charge things that he knows not, either judicially, upon oath (by which the third commandment, and the sixth of eighth, as well as this, are broken), or extrajudicially, in common converse, slandering, backbiting, tale-bearing, aggravating what is done amiss and making it worse than it is, and any way endeavoring to raise our own reputation upon the ruin of our neighbor's.” All of the Reformation Catechisms handle this Command in exactly the same way.

Of course, a lot of nonsense has been taught in the name of this Command. Some of the Greek Fathers in the early centuries of Christianity held that Paul’s rebuke of Peter recounted in Galatians was actually a charade. It was said that they had agreed upon this little drama before hand and then set up the dummy circumstances whereby they could teach the Jews and Gentiles their lesson. Later theologians had the wisdom to see the folly in this position. The cause of God’s truth cannot be advanced through deception. Plus, admitting that Peter blew it here is not a rip on his character or Apostleship. It is simply an acknowledgment that he was human.

On the other hand, some people have asserted that virtually all strategy is evil because it is deceptive. I remember reading that in the early days of college baseball that the curveball was banned because it was an attempt to deceive the hitter. God Himself gave Joshua (8:2) a strategy which involved fooling the enemy. If you beat me at chess, a feat requiring little effort, I would not think you guilty of violating the 9th Command. We both understand the rules of the game and the strategies which are employed. When nations go to war, both sides expect their enemies to practice strategies which are intended to mislead and outsmart the other. Whatever else may be implied by this is beyond the scope of this article.

Nevertheless we may say this: it is certain that God’s cause is not advanced through deceit. One thinks of all the discrepancies in Benny Hinn’s biography. We might also mention Ergun Caner. Several years ago there was a scandal about the biography of Christian stand-up comedian Mike Warnke. A lot can be said about this, but it seems to me to be the result of the Arminian fascination with “testimonies.”

That word, viz., testimony, never occurs in Scripture as something we say about God or ourselves. Search the book of Psalms and without exception you will find the word testimony used regarding things God has revealed about Himself or His will. Nowhere will you find David saying, “I will declare my testimony in midst of the congregation.” Nowhere do we find in Scripture anyone telling the story of their conversion as part of evangelizing the lost. When Paul tells his, he was on trial! God has ordained that His Word be the instrument through which men are regenerated, not our conversion stories, interesting as they may be. The fact of the matter is, imagine a person, like John the Baptist, regenerated in the womb, or a kid who was raised in a Christian home – there is no less miracle involved in that person’s regeneration than in the salvation of the worst drug-addicted Satan-worshiping mob hit man. We create these distinctions because of a faulty notion of sin. Original Sin makes us all equally unable to come to God, unwilling to repent and believe. Were it not for the sovereign electing grace of God, no one at all would ever repent and believe savingly upon Christ. How dramatic or mundane my conversion story is, is absolutely irrelevant.

Decalogue: Eighth Command

I still remember how startled I was the first time I read the section of the Westminster Shorter Catechism that deals with the Decalogue. I am embarrassed to say that it had never occurred to me before that implicit in the negative prohibitions were positive prescriptions. If God forbade murder, He also commanded me to protect life, not merely abstain from taking it. But it was in reference to this Command that I felt the most shock. Even now I can remember the sheepish feeling I had all those years ago when I realized that the ban on theft also naturally entailed a positive command that I lawfully advance both mine and my neighbor’s wealth and “outward estate.” I suspect many other people may be similarly shock by this implication.

Very little reflection is necessary to see the legitimacy of the Westminster’s exposition of this Command. I can only get things in one of two ways: right or wrong, i.e., legally or illegally. Hence when God forbids theft, in any form, He commands that I accumulate whatever possessions I have in a lawful way. And since I am forbidden from taking what belongs to my neighbor, it is implied clearly that he also accumulate wealth in a lawful manner.

With its characteristic wisdom, the Heidelberg Catechism expounds the 8^th Command as forbidding, “not only those thefts, and robberies, which are punishable by the magistrate; but he comprehends under the name of theft all wicked tricks and devices, whereby we design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbour: whether it be by force, or under the appearance of right, as by unjust weights, ells, measures, fraudulent merchandise, false coins, usury, or by any other way forbidden by God; as also all covetousness, all abuse and waste of his gifts.” In his Commentary on The Heidelberg Catechism, author Zachary Ursinus mentions sins such as embezzlement and false advertizing, purposely obscure fine print in contracts, usury and a host of other sins quite characteristic of our own age.

Interestingly enough, Ursinus also stresses the fact that this Command enjoins contentment. God has sovereignly ordained our station in life and therefore we should submissively accept whatever condition He places us in with contentment. This does not mean that we accept poverty with fatalistic resignation, nor does it mean that we fall into greed. Contentment does not exclude work and effort to improve one’s station in life, but it does trust God with the outcome of this work, whether it succeed or not. It is not contentment to refuse help when offered. It may be that God wishes to meet your need through the generosity of your fellow man. This is indeed God’s usual way of helping those in dire need. Too often people read the story of Elijah being fed by ravens and expect things to magically appear on their doorsteps. As one who has spent many years in Christian ministry, I have seen this far too many times.

Ursinus beautifully concludes his exposition of this Command with these words, “If we may not steal, it is necessary that we should posses what properly belongs to us, and that for these reasons: 1. That we may honestly maintain and support ourselves and those depending upon us. 2. That we may have something to contribute towards the preservation of the church. 3. That we may assist in upholding the interests of the state according to our ability. 4. That we may be able to confer benefits upon our friends, and contribute to the relief of the poor and needy.”

Many Christians are rightfully offended by the government’s version of charity or assistance to the needy because it is little more than legislated theft. Theft is the taking of another’s possessions against their will. The fact that it is legislated or even voted on in a democratic society does not make it any less a violation of God’s revealed will. For where do I get the right to vote that the government may take your possessions to give to someone in need? This is what many of the government aid programs actually amount to. I can give away anything I want that is mine, but I have no moral right, even when it is completely legal, to decide that you must do the same.

Contrary to public opinion, you will not find Scripture mandating that it is the Church’s job to alleviate public poverty. The Church’s charity, even in the Old Testament, was always confined to the household of faith. There were plenty of methods in the Old Testament to provide for widows and orphans, but notice carefully that Israel was not supporting Philistine, Amorite and Hittite widows. Paul gave specific instructions that the only widows that were to be put on the Church’s bill were those who had no extended family and were too old to remarry.

The ramifications of this on what James calls pure and undefiled religion is far beyond the scope of this brief article, but it is a subject more Christians would do well to consider. And while I’m on the subject, it would be uncharacteristic of me to neglect to say that the televangelists who constantly whine for money to support their lavish lifestyles are in gross, blatant, and flagrant violation of this Command. None of us should be a party to their sin. The moment people stop sending these clowns money, they will shrivel up and go away. What a day that’ll be! 

Decalogue: Seventh Command

Though I have referred to the preface of the Decalogue several times already in this series of posts, it is this Command in particular that demonstrates its relevance to all ten Commands in a way that needs little explanation. I have previously asserted and reasserted that God’s covenantal right over His people is the basis for all the Commands of the Decalogue. The 7^th Command brings this home with peculiar force. Among all the possible acts (in word, thought and deed) which this Command expressly treats, the sanctity and purity of marriage is truly at its heart.

This is no surprise because God actually designed marriage as a type of His covenant relationship with His people. Edmund Clowney writes, “In Genesis the command (leave father and mother and be united to his wife - AKU) follows the statement of Adam (‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’). God’s command is grounded in His act of creation. The relation of man and wife is exclusive. The love that’s join them is necessarily a jealous love; that is, it is a focused love that would be broken by adultery. This principle is again stated in the Ten Commandments, when God gives His covenant law to His redeemed people. That commandment, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ is not given simply to provide a stable home life for Israelite society. It is given to define a special and intensive love that goes beyond the command to love one’s neighbor.

“This is the principle that God himself invokes as He reveals Himself to Israel. God is a jealous; His name is ‘Jealous’ (Ex.34:14). He demands of Israel exclusive devotion, the jealous love for which marriage is a type and symbol. His people are to love Him with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind.” Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery, pg. 25

The biblical prohibition of divorce lies at the heart of this issue as well. God is bound to His people by covenant. Marriage was meant to illustrate the permanence of God’s covenant love to His people. It can’t very well do that by an institution that can be impulsively severed at will. I am not going to go into a treatment of the supposed biblical exemptions or exceptions for divorce and remarriage except to say that none of the modern arguments were known or accepted by the Christian Church for nearly 1600 years. And no matter how widely we define the "Biblical exception" for divorce, the question remains whether we are supposed to automatically assume that this also automatically allows for remarriage and, we must therefore acknowledge that millions of professing Christians have, in fact, violated Christ's express teaching found in Matthew 5, Matthew 19 and Mark 10. 

Our society is awash in open violations of this Command. The ugly list of Leviticus 18 could be the plot-line for a whole series of Jerry Springer episodes. The sexual sins of Sodom, Gomorrah and the Canaanites, for which God destroyed them are rampant in Western society. Premarital sex is almost a meaningless expression because it isn’t even really premarital if the ones engaged in such sin never even get married! Unwed cohabitation is almost a societal norm. Unfortunately this sin is openly engaged in by many professing Christians. Extramarital sex is also hugely rampant both inside and outside of the Church. I remember someone making a joke about what must be in the drinking fountain water in a small church in southern Illinois because they had had more than one pastor run off with the organist or secretary. Extramarital sex is even more rampant in the form of pornography, which despite the modern ease of access, is not new.

Christians have always understood this Command to be referring to more than just adultery, which is defined as sexual relations between two people, at least one of whom is married. The Heidelberg Catechism, picking up on this fact states, “Since both our body and soul are temples of the Holy Ghost, he commands us to preserve them pure and holy: therefore he forbids all unchaste actions, gestures, words, thoughts, desires, and whatever can entice men thereto.”

Besides the obvious sins prohibited by this Command, the underlying principle also applies to general looseness of life and conduct. Such behavior, which used to be called ‘wantonness,’ serves as an occasion of stirring up lust. This would include the ‘wandering eye,’ watching pornography, movies and or TV programs that condone sexual promiscuity, immodest clothing, double entendres or sexual humor, idleness (2 Samuel 11:1-5). By engaging in such things, we desensitize our souls toward things which God hates, and lessen the effects of conviction and conscience in ourselves. 

As with the prohibition of murder in the 6^th Command, the New Testament emphasizes the internal character of this sin as well. Christ’s famous words in Matthew 5:27-30 stand as an eternal witness that God has always sought internal conformity to His will, not just external compliance.

None of this is new to us, I’m sure; which is why I would rather focus on the point made above in the quote from Clowney. Marriage was created by God to be a picture of Christ and the Church. This is the exact point Paul drives home with great force in Ephesians 5. We should bear it in mind that any violation of the sanctity of marriage is, ipso facto, a repudiation of God’s covenant with His people.

As an aside, a great violation of the principle of this Command as it relates to the relation of God and His people is to be found in unfaithfulness to God’s Word, whether it be in the form of doctrinal  infidelity, religious syncretism, unbiblical ecumenical alliances. I do not say this to belittle any reference the Command undoubtedly has to physical marital fidelity, but as per Paul in Ephesians 5, we must remember that marriage is a picture of God’s covenant with His elect. He takes doctrinal infidelity as seriously, if not more, than we would take marital infidelity if we were the victim of it.

Decalogue: Sixth Command

At the risk of sounding repetitious, I wish to return to the preface to the Decalogue and note what I have insisted upon several times throughout this series, namely, that the whole of the Decalogue is founded upon God’s covenantal right over His people. So regardless of what other considerations there may be when one thinks of this command, first and foremost, it is God’s sovereign prerogative to give such commands and expect His covenant people to comply.

Without digressing into matters of what constitutes “murder” (i.e., killing in combat, etc.), let us first not that God, as Creator has the sovereign authority over life and death (1 Sam. 2:6). Therefore, murder is a usurpation of the divine right over life. Since we are mere creatures even the right over our own life is God’s. This is why the Church has always understood this Command to forbid suicide as well. Let me go on record as saying that it is obvious that abortion is forbidden by this Command as well. Abortion is the conscious ending of a life, hence it is murder. It is a grabbing of the power over life and death, which power belongs only to God.

With its typical wisdom, the Heidelberg Catechism (Q 106) argues the New Testament principle (1 John 3:15) of applying the Command’s prohibition to the internal causes of murder, not simply to the external act. Christ does this with several of the Commands in His Sermon on the Mount. The Heidelberg Catechism states: In forbidding murder, God teaches us, that he abhors the causes thereof, such as envy, (a) hatred, (b) anger, (c) and desire of revenge; and that he accounts all these as murder. (d)

It goes one further to explain (in the same way that the Westminster Shorter Catechism) that the Command has a positive side as well as negative. This means that something positive is enjoined upon us, not simply is something prohibited. So the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner mentioned above?” (Q 107) To which questions, it replies, “No: for when God forbids envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness, towards him, and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; and that we do good, even to our enemies.”

Even in regards to a Command that seems so cut and dry, our culture’s sentimental understanding of both love and hate has colored our interpretation of this Command, often in ways directly at odds with its intent. What I have primarily in view is the tired-old, unbiblical refrain: “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” We must let Scripture define the terms. Let’s have an expert speak for us. Augustus Toplady writes that when love is ascribed to God it, “signifies his eternal benevolence, i.e., his everlasting will, purpose and determination to deliver, bless and save his people.” Later he writes, “When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies a negation of benevolence; or, a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men, not to endue them with any of those graces, which stand connected with eternal life.”

Someone is likely at this point and question my estimation of the “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” motto. What saith the Scripture? 

"The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity," Psalm 5:5

"The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates." Psalm 11:5

"There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers." Proverbs 6:16-19

Then, of course, there is Romans 9:13, “Esau I hated,” which simply means, “I did, from all eternity determine within Myself, not to have mercy on him.”

What is the point of this apparent digression? Simply this: We must never allow “love” for our fellow man to be an excuse for not rebuking and/or punishing sin. It is all too common to hear people equate biblical condemnation of sin with ‘judgmentalism.’ The implication is that any outspoken disapproval of sinful behavior is tantamount to damning to hellfire the sinner, who may yet after all be among the elect.  This is not a nation found anywhere in Scripture. The Bible is very cut and dry when it comes to naming and defining acts God classifies as sin. It is not hatred of our fellow man to point out his or her violation of God’s commands. This is what I meant when I mentioned our culture’s sentimentality. We have defined love as a maudlin, syrupy feeling that never permits its possessor to disagree, rebuke, censure or otherwise bring attention to faults, sins or errors. This is obviously not love in the biblical sense. How is it love to quietly let our neighbor persist in God-defying and soul-endangering behavior? Furthermore, if we love God we will be concerned about defending His honor than hurting our fellow man’s feelings. Actually, this is one of the reasons God has given the Decalogue! We are brought to a knowledge of sin and our need of Christ and His righteousness imputed to us precisely because the Decalogue exposes our sinful hearts. For God’s elect, this is a stupendous manifestation of His love.

(a) Prov.14:30; Rom.1:29

(b) 1 John 2:9-11

(c) James 1:20; Gal.5:19-21

(d) 1 John 3:15 

Decalogue: Fifth Command

Society as a whole lives in open rebellion against the commands of God. No surprise here. But this rebellion, especially when it is codified and enters the public psyche as ‘normal,’ often trickles into the Church’s mindset as well. One of the subtlest of such cases of such a corruption of the Church’s mindset regards the violation of the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and mother.”

When the Heidelberg Catechism expounds this command, it starts by asking what is actually required of us in this command. It says,

Question 104: What does God require in the fifth commandment?

Answer: That I show all honour, love and fidelity, to my father and mother, and all in authority over me, and submit myself to their good instruction and correction, with due obedience; and also patiently bear with their weaknesses and infirmities, since it pleases God to govern us by their hand.

It is to the last clause that I wish to draw attention, for it is I this regard that many Christians are guilty of violating God’s revealed will. I am referring, of course, to the popular psychological trend of blaming one’s parents for one’s own sinful behavior and/or attitudes. This is a direct violation of the 5th Command. And it has entered mainstream Evangelicalism with guns blazing.

This mentality is almost a given in much teaching, preaching, seminar lectures, books and Christian counseling. I do not mean to say that preachers, teachers and authors actually shift the blame for people’s sin onto their parents. But it is simply a given that such influence is real and is an acceptable explanation for sinful actions and attitudes.

What the Heidelberg Catechism so beautifully addresses is the attitude one is to have towards those under whose authority God has placed us. Honor and respect are to be given to our parents, not because they have earned it, but simply by virtue of the fact that God, in His sovereignty, has decreed that you be born into their home under their authority. Anything less is rank rebellion.

This is not a blanket condoning horrible behavior and lousy parenting skills. But God is God and He knows where He has placed everyone. Nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests that if your parents don’t measure up to your expectations, then you are justified in disobedience or disrespect. To think so would be to reject God’s authority and to deny His sovereignty.

Related to this is the notion we hear so often that respect has to be earned. While this principle may be generally true, in cases of authority it is an unbiblical philosophy. God commands us to respect our parents and our civil rulers, not because they are so wonderful and do everything right, but because He has seen fit to govern us “by their hand,” as the Heidelberg Catechism says.

A second way in which countless people violate this command is seen in the general status of men as fathers in society and in the Church. Fathers are constantly portrayed as little more than big kids that need Mom’s oversight at least as much as their own children. Men are so consistently excoriated in the media that it is little wonder that boys want to stay kids forever. TV sitcoms have portrayed dads as idiots that the family would be better off without for 50 years and video gaming has kept boys stuck in perpetual adolescence.

Again, it important to note that nowhere in Scripture is a father’s headship in the home staked upon his being the paragon of all virtue. This is not an excuse for lousy attitudes and sloth, but it is still the biblical standard. The Feminist movement started out ostensibly seeking “equal status” between the sexes. It has become clear though after decades of activism that the real objective seems to be to turn both sexes into females. And the Church has succumbed to this effeminizing influence as well.

When is the last time you have heard the ideal Christian husband portrayed as anything but Mom #2? He doesn’t lead family worship; he doesn’t oversee the discipline of the children; he doesn’t teach his family God’s Word; he doesn’t concern himself with anyone’s spiritual wellbeing, character development or intellectual growth. But he does cook, wash dishes, wash laundry, iron clothes, vacuum and feel guilty for not doing these things as good as Mom #1. I am neither denigrating these things nor the men who do them in a spirit of compassion for their wives and children; indeed, I often do these things. But I worry about the family who measures a father’s success in his family role by the how much he acts like Mom.  

This isn’t a slighted husband’s rant, nor is it tirade of a “woman’s place is in the kitchen” chauvinist. I am simply saying that when fathers are judged on how much they are like Mom, then they are not being honored according to God’s command. And for that matter mothers are not being honored according to God’s command either.

If this all sounds weird to you, that in itself, is evidence of how pervasive this thinking is. The very fact that such an organization as The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood exists shows how dire things are. That Christians have no idea of what God’s Word demands of them as men, women, husbands and wives, is surely a lamentable thing.

Before leaving this subject, we wish to point out one more issue related to this command. The Westminster Shorter Catechism explains to us that this Command requires the “preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.” The closing point I’d like to address s in regard to church discipline.

If the Fifth Command teaches us how to interact appropriately to those under whose care God has sovereignly placed us, it also teaches us that we are not God and do not have carte blanche to rule over those in our care in any way we wish. Nor does it mean that those under abusive rule have no recourse and must submissively be trampled upon.

Church discipline has fallen on hard times. I am personally aware of cases where members have been excommunicated from a church due to grievously immoral behavior, only to move to another church and have the leadership there thumb their noses at the previous church’s decision. Recidivistic behavior was the predictable result.

In response to this many pastors opt for a short-cut. Christian leaders increasingly apply principles from the corporate world to the Church. Thus they are often like elusive or self-important CEOs. It is assumed, rather erroneously, that this pompous air will fill people with fear or respect for the aloof leader. The people will be less likely to cause trouble thus lessening the need for his involvement in their daily lives.

A second short-cut is a megalomaniacal method that is becoming frighteningly more common. Many pastors enforce draconian policies through Machiavellian leadership tactics in order to attain discipline in the church. Rather than being servants of God and His people, they are “Kim Jung-Il” type dictators. This is the coward’s way of achieving discipline and it pushes the church in the realm of the cultic. This is a particular problem in countries where the Roman church is dominant. People are born and raised on the Romish philosophy that the priesthood speaks directly for God and must therefore never be doubted of questioned. As far as I know, no evangelical pastor would claim infallibility like the Pope, but many pastors behave as if they possess it. Matters of doctrine and practice can never be discussed because “Rome has spoken,” i.e., the pastor has given his declaration on the matter and any question is regarded as a challenge to his authority.

This is a perilous situation – for both sides. Once people surrender their reasoning and discerning powers, there is no end to the evil they can be driven to do. Ron Enroth (1) has documented many churches and parachurch organizations that have run into the grossest of immorality (wife-swapping, incest, group sex, etc.) by the direct command of the leader/pastor, who usually claims to be speaking with full Divine inspiration and/or authority. Unquestioned power is a drug to its possessor, creating an insuperable addiction that, barring Divine intervention, is impossible to surrender.

(1) Ron Enroth, Churches That Abuse

Decalogue: Fourth Command

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-11 ESV)

The Sabbath is first described in Genesis 2:1-3. On the seventh day of Creation God rested. He also blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, that is, He set it apart. God wasn’t tired. His rest was one of satisfaction in a Creation that was “very good.” The Sabbath, coming AFTER the week of Creation was the rest of a work that was already done. It was a weekly commemoration of the first creation. This is an important fact to remember.

Adam was created on the sixth day of Creation, thus the Sabbath was his first full day of life. And he spent this day in fellowship with God. This is something that even the Rabbis noticed. The Talmud says that the reason God created Adam when He did was so that that he might immediately enter on performing the command of observing the Sabbath.

Louis de Dieu, the Dutch Orientalist mentioning these words, on Gen. 1:27, adds by way of explication; “for, since the Sabbath immediately succeeded the creation of man, he immediately entered on the command of sanctifying the Sabbath.”

We might ask if God intended for the first Sabbath to be a pattern for humanity. There are indeed several things that seem to point to this as true. The Sabbath is embedded in the middle of the Decalogue, and is actually enhanced in its presentation. Several references point to the Sabbath as a sign - a sign of sanctification and of the covenant. (Exodus 31:13, 17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20)

Two big issues come up among Evangelicals when the subject of the Sabbath is broached: (a) Do Christians have to observe it? And (b) Why do Christians observe it on Sunday, the first day of the week?

In answer to the first issue, the things Christians say are almost too humorous to be taken seriously. A common remark, made whenever observance of the Sabbath by Christians is insisted upon, is that Christians are not “under the law.” You will remember that we dealt with this objection in the first post in this series. It is absolute nonsense. Would any Christian, even a nominal one, have the panache to assert that Christians aren’t “under the law” with regard to the prohibition of murder, theft or adultery? Of course not! So what makes this particular command so unique? I know of no Christian who asserts that God doesn’t expect Christians to live in marital fidelity or that one can worship Shiva or Vishnu and maintain a credible profession of Christianity. So what is it about this one, and only this one command, that sets it apart from the Decalogue so that insistence upon its observance is deemed legalism? I have yet to be accused of legalism for not running around on my wife or killing someone in a drug-induced rage. So why would anyone (and many will) accuse me of legalism, if I were to insist that Christians are expected to observe the Christian Sabbath?

That is all I am going to say in respect to this issue. I trust that my readers can draw their own conclusions from what I have written, even if it raises more questions than it answers.

The second issue we handled in an earlier post dealing with certain side issues connected with the Decalogue, therefore we will not go down that road here.

I have heard Christians say that nowhere in the New Testament are believers aver commanded to observe the Sabbath. This, to me, is a terribly weak argument. Why would it need to be reasserted in the New Testament? If the New Testament contained to overt reiteration of the prohibition of adultery, would we trust the judgment of a man who argued that the New Testament never commands believers to abstain from adultery? Perhaps the question we should ask is: When was the command abrogated? If we find no such abrogation in the New Testament, then isn’t it more reasonable to assume its continuance?

Decalogue: Third Command

“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7 ESV)

Traditionally taking God’s name in vain has been understood of using God’s name in profanity, which is certainly one of the grosser examples of this sin, however, we wish to focus our attention on something a bit closer to home.

Remember what we have said in all the previous posts about the preface to the Decalogue being the grid or framework through which we are to understand it. Undoubtedly, God’s wrath is justly kindled against the reprobate who use God’s name as a cuss word. But it was not to the Hittites or Philistines that the Decalogue was given, rather to God’s covenant people. Therefore, we are lead to believe that, as far as believers are concerned, there is something else in view in this Command.

The second half of the answer to Question 99 of the Heidelberg Catechism strikes it on the head. It says, that this command requires that we, “use the holy name of God no otherwise than with fear and reverence; so that He may be rightly confessed and worshipped by us, and be glorified in all our words and works.” Interestingly, the Scripture proofs provided by the Catechism for this statement generally have to do with two things (1) reverent reference to God, and (2) not giving those outside the faith a reason to blaspheme God’s name. it would seem that these two things are intertwined. (cf. Ps.50:15; 1 Tim.2:8; Rom.2:24; 1 Tim.6:1; Col.3:16, 17)

Think for a moment of the treatment the majesty of God gets at the hand of the huckster televangelists. More respect is given to the family dog than to God by these men. God’s name and power are nothing more than a prop or gimmick for these men. Men the likes of Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Paul Crouch and the whole host of heretics darkening the airwaves on TBN have made a mockery of God by equating God and mammon in the public mind. These fraudulent ‘ministers’ squawk and cry for more money to ‘support this ministry’ and we all know that the money goes to keep up their lavish and garish lifestyles. This nonsense is so rampant that, to borrow a phrase from Poe, it would be supererogation to demonstrate.

My ire is definitely raised by villainous heathens like Bill Maher when they blaspheme my Lord and Savior. But my ire is more definitely raised at the used car salesmen that pass for preachers on so-called Christian TV. God’s name is mocked by atheists because it is mocked by shyster televangelists when they make Christianity a get-rich-quick scheme.

Much of “Evangelicalism,” lives in perpetual violation of this Command. God’s name is taken in vain by Joel Osteen when he makes the fulfilling of your dreams God’s sole purpose for existing. God’s name is taken in vain by liberal denominations that reinterpret Scripture to suit the vile and corrupt cultural whims of our degenerate society. God’s name is taken in vain by those who wish to make man and his feeble will the deciding factor in salvation.

God’s right to demand reverence for His name is based upon His sovereignty and majesty, but in the context of the Decalogue, it is based upon His covenantal right over His people. This is especially interesting when one remembers what we said at the outset: The Decalogue was given to God’s people. Bear that fact in mind when considering this fact: God considers the profaning of His name so heinous a sin that His wrath is kindled, not only against those who take His name in vain, but also against who do not endeavor to prevent such treatment of God’s name. The Heidelberg Catechism reminds us that God commanded this sin to be punished with death! (cf. Prov.29:24; Lev.5:1; Lev.24:15, 16)

Decalogue: Second Command

The Second Command reads, “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

Before discussing the Second Word of the Decalogue, I wish to reiterate what I said in the previous post regarding the preface to the Decalogue. God’s right to command such and the rationale behind such a command is His covenantal right over us as His people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Prefaced thus, we avoid two errors, (a) over-estimating our own obedience; and (b) under-estimating our own wickedness and depravity. Separating God’s law from His covenantal grace to sinners is a return to the Covenant of Works: obeying God’s law as if our conformity to His commands commends us to Him and merits His favor, aka, self-righteousness.

Calvin notes in Book 2, Chapter 8, of his Institutes, this command consists of two parts. The first is to put a curb on our desire to subject God to our senses (which is primarily what images do). The second part forbids the usage of any image in a religious context.

I have always thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated the wisdom shown by the Westminster Shorter Catechism, when handling the Decalogue, by asking both what is required and what is forbidden by each Command. It is rather easy to simply see the large “THOU SHALT NOT,” and failed to notice that this implied equally that something positive is required in the negative prohibition.

So, what does the Second Command require? If you’ve ever read one of the great catechisms of the Reformation, you might be surprised to see this command interpreted as requiring purity in God’s worship. If you have a background like mine, Pentecostal Arminian, this seems like a shocking way to understand the Command, especially since image-making is so explicitly denounced. However, the wisdom of Ursinus (the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism) and the Westminster Assembly can be seen in their grasp of the implications of this command. It is not simply about idolatry since that was already forbidden by the First Command. This is a question of syncretism: mixing foreign elements into the worship of God.

Granted there are various schools of thought among Christians of the Reformation in regard to this subject (regulative vs normative principle), yet we don’t even have to get within a country mile of that debate to make some very pertinent observations about worship. Worship is pure only so far as it pleases God. If the main objective of worship is to encourage audience participation by simple appeals to their cultural sensibilities and tastes, then the jig is up. God is no longer the object of worship, man is. I find it telling that much of the music which passes for Christian worship these days is characterized by the same egocentric, backslapping, self-congratulatory narcissism evident in contemporary pop music. There simply is no comparison between the lyrics written by Augustus Toplady and Darlene Zschech.

Lest you fear that I have forgotten this Command actually does prohibit images, let me reassure you, I haven’t. Again, this command is not so much concerned with idolatry as with divine worship. God’s people, fallen sinners that we are, are very prone to introducing false elements into the worship of God. When Israel made the Golden Calf, they declared a feast “to the LORD” (Ex. 32:5). 2 Kings 17:33 records a contradiction if ever there was one: So they feared the LORD but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away. The book of Judges is Exhibit A of this pitiful attempt at worshipping God yet doing it according to the dictates of one’s own imagination. It is not the plain and simply idolatry of having “other gods before Me” which is in view in the prohibition against images.

An image, mind you can be material or mental. A person can have a material image and a false mental image, representing God in a way not commanded in His Word. And I don’t simply mean picturing Jesus in your mind as Jim Caviezel, or picturing God as a white-bearded grandfather, though that is most definitely a violation of this command. I am referring to false ideas about God. Holding to a false belief about God, such as the Trinity-denying modalism of Oneness Pentecostalism, or the “God-is-my-bellhop” doctrines of the Word Faith perpetrators, is worship of God in a way contrary to His revealed will and is hence a violation of the Second Command.

Physical, material images are banned, as well. God cannot be represented by any image anyway, since He is spirit. Any physical representation is infinitely inferior, hence infinitely demeaning to the Divine Majesty. During the Middle Ages, it was common to refer to images of Christ and the saints as “books to the laity.” Illiteracy was rampant, so images were considered something like a book to the unlearned members of the congregation wherein there could learn of the Bible characters and emulate them. This is, of course, foolishness. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it, “We must not pretend to be wiser than God.” If the use of images was so beneficial to the Church, God would not have forbidden it. The Church should not be satisfied to have illiterate members, and happy to leave them in that condition. Christianity should educate men. This is why the Heidelberg Catechism continues by saying, “God will have His people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of His Word.” Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. This is why I do not see how any Christian can hold it to be anything but a violation of God’s Word to evangelize the lost with movies. An image of Christ is an image whether stationary or moving. I fail to see how an actor’s portrayal Christ makes it any less repugnant to God than a stone sculpture.

The Church in her best days has always known this. “But we have no sensible image of sensible matter, but an image that is perceived by the mind alone,—God, who alone is truly God.” Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 4 ANF vol. II., p. 186

“When I entered into the church of a village in Palestine called Anablatha, I found there a curtain hanging over the door whereon was painted an image like that of Jesus Christ or some saint – for I do not remember whose picture it was. But seeing in the church of Christ the image of a man, contrary to the authority of Holy Scripture, I tore it down and gave order to the church-warden to bury some dead body in this curtain…” Epiphanius, Letter to John of Jerusalem

“It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men prostrate themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true, as Augustine says (in Ps. 113), that no person thus prays or worships, looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea that he is heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will be performed by it. Why are such distinctions made between different images of the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives only common honour, another is worshipped with the highest solemnities? Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they have many similar ones at home?” Calvin, Institutes, pg 74.

Let me return momentarily to something we stated earlier. Calvin argued that part of this command was to put a curb on our desire to subject God to our senses. Is this not what the whole Charismatic movement consists of: subjecting God to our senses? To hear men and women describe their physical feelings while undergoing these so-called “manifestations” of the Spirit, you’d think that they were describing something sexual. I have actually heard these exact comparisons made. I’m sure others have too. Nearly everything about Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement is aimed at man’s senses: “feeling the Spirit,” “sensing God’s presence,” etc. This is exactly what God wishes to prohibit in the Second Command. God relates to use through His own appointed means, namely the Word and the Sacraments. Stepping outside these confines is stepping into a violation of God’s revealed will.

Decalogue: First Command

We’ve all seen one of those lists where several items are delineated under a single heading set-up line. For instance: “You know you’re old when…” – followed by a humorous list of indicators of old age. It would seem helpful when considering each one of the commands of the Decalogue to preface them with God’s own preface: And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

By starting here, we are reminded that the Decalogue really is part of the Covenant of Grace. Every single moral norm God lists for His covenant people is prefaced by the Gospel, i.e., I am the Lord your God.” Israel had never done anything worthy of God’s affection, a fact He reminds them of one more than one occasion (Num. 16:9; Deut. 7:6; Ezek. 16). God’s grace is demonstrated in His sovereign and powerful deliverance of His people from slavery.

As we said above, let us keep in mind God’s preface to this statement. It is based upon His covenant of grace with His people. He has sovereignly chosen His people, and has therefore revealed what a life of covenant-keeping should look like. I will be greatly misunderstood if I am construed to imply the ridiculous error of Pelagius and Finney that just because God commands something, it is automatically implied that man has the innate ability to obey. A large purpose of the Decalogue is to show us how great our sins and miseries are, being in the corrupt state of Original Sin, as we are. A man who looks at God’s law and confidently assumes, “I can do that,” is either crazy or grossly mistaken about his own depravity.

Heidelberg Catechism Question 114 asks, “But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?” To which it replies, “No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.” I can just picture someone jumping to the opposite assumption and saying, “Well, if we can’t obey God’s law, and He knows it, then why does He even command it in the first place?” The Heidelberg has this one covered too. The very next question is: “Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?” The succinct answer to this is, “First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavor and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come.”

Paul tells us that the Law is a pedagogue to bring us to Christ. It is not that God purposefully places us under a moral code that He knows we can’t live up to simply so that He can damn us to Hell. He has graciously revealed something of His own moral perfections in the Decalogue. Surely we should appreciate it for that reason alone. But just as important is the service it does by making us despair of ever pleasing God in our own strength. Christ’s righteousness is the only righteousness good enough for God. In grace, God imputes this very righteousness to His elect. Hence, they are reckoned by God to be perfectly righteous, as if they had, in their own persons, perfectly obeyed every jot and tittle of God’s law. This holds true without respect to their actual deeds. I know that this sounds scary to some of you, but it is actually true. I cannot and do not obey God’s law perfectly, but that’s ok because the obedience by which I am accepted of God is the perfect passive and active obedience of Christ.

Having said all that, we can proceed to the first Command: - “You shall have no other gods before me.” What does this first Word of the Decalogue enjoin? Again, to quote the Heidelberg Catechism, “That I, as sincerely as I desire the salvation of my own soul, avoid and flee from all idolatry, sorcery, soothsaying, superstition, invocation of saints, or any other creatures; and learn rightly to know the only true God; trust in him alone, with humility and patience submit to him; expect all good things from him only; love, fear, and glorify him with my whole heart; so that I renounce and forsake all creatures, rather than commit even the least thing contrary to his will.”

The Westminster Shorter Catechism notes that the words, “before Me,” in this command are to remind us that we are always before God. Everything we say and do is exposed and open before Him. Though many people bristle at divine sovereignty, it is based upon God’s being Creator. How could God be in possession of the infinite wisdom and power required to create the universe ex nihilo, and yet while sustaining it and preserving its existence moment by moment, fail to rule it sovereignly? As the Sovereign Creator, Sustainer, Ruler and Judge of the universe, He has the right to choose a people for Himself, and by making Himself their God, enjoin worship.

We often rather simplistically picture idolatry as a man falling prostrate before an image of stone. While that most certainly is idolatry. Idolatry can be more accurately defined as having any other object of trust besides God.  Ephesians 5:5 literally equate covetousness with idolatry. And speaking of Ephesians 5, God often uses adultery as a metaphor for idolatry. The sacred covenant between God and His people is violated just as foully by idolatry as the sacred bond of matrimony is violated by adultery.  

One more thing should perhaps be said now, which while it applies to this particular command, it has an equal bearing on all Ten Words, namely, all of God’s commands as revealed in the Decalogue have a two-fold application. To God’s covenant people, the Decalogue drives them graciously to Christ. We are constantly reminded of our native enmity toward God, and our heinous violations of His revealed will. But rather than casting us into despair, we are driven to trust in Christ because He fulfilled all righteousness for His people and bore the punishment which their sin richly deserved. To the unregenerate, God’s law is an unflinching standard of inexorable justice by which they will one day give an account to God. Being weighed and found wanting, they will deservedly be damned to eternal punishment for defying God and trampling on the righteousness of Christ.

A trustworthy Savior is provided by God for the elect. We need never look elsewhere. That is what the prologue to the Decalogue tells us. God is our God. However, to the reprobate, His law still demands worship, and there will literally be hell to pay for their lives of incessant idolatry. Man’s mind, as Calvin reminds us, is a perpetual forge of idols. All idolatry is ultimately self-worship, whether realized or not. The worship of the Biblical God is the only worship imposed upon man from an outside source. In all other religions, a man chooses whom to worship. The choice may be largely dictated by his culture, but at the end of the day, it is a human choice to worship this or that deity. Only the God of the Bible enters man’s existence and imposes Himself upon us. He reveals Himself to fallen, vile, degenerate sinners, enters into covenant with them, based solely on His own pleasure, and by making Himself their God, demands to be worshipped.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. 1 John 5:21 (KJV)

Decalogue: Three Prefatory Issues

Rather than interject unrelated questions into the body of my exposition of the Decalogue, I thought it better to treat these few issues now beforehand so as to handle them better, and to keep them from having an overbearing presence in the following articles. There are three issues related to the Decalogue that I wish to handle here separately so that they do not need to be discussed in the exposition of the actual Ten Words. The three issues are: my wording, the numbering of the Decalogue (especially as regards the 1^st and 2^nd Commands), and the change of the Sabbath.

Related Decalogue Issues

A. My wording.

Throughout this series of posts, even the casual reader will note that I do not use the word “Commandment.” I opt for “Command” instead. My reason is that I deem the word “commandment” to be an archaic word, virtually obsolete. It is never used by anyone in any other context outside of discussions regarding the Decalogue. “Command” is the current English equivalent. It has the advantage, also of sounding less esoteric. Conformity to God’s revealed will is not an esoteric enterprise, but something highly practical. If this bothers anyone, or seems like a silly semantic issue, feel free to substitute the word “commandment” for “command” whenever you encounter the latter in the course of these posts.

B. The Numbering of the Decalogue

Many of my readers may be aware that there is a difference in the division of the Ten Commands between how they are enumerated by the Reformed (which is the traditional numbering most of us are familiar with) and the Roman Catholic numbering, which is also followed by Luther. The difference in numbering occurs in what the Reformed take to be the 1^st and 2^nd Commands. Luther, and Rome, takes this to be one. 

The Reformed have always considered the command against image usage to be a separate command from the “no others gods before Me” command. The numbering of the Decalogue which Rome uses conflates the first two Commands into one and then forces an artificial division into the Tenth Command. I say artificial because Paul, in Romans 7:7, treats it as one.

The division of the Decalogue followed by Rome and by Luther has its origin in Augustine (Quaest, in Exodus 71, and Ep. 119 to Januarius). In these passages, Augustine omits the Second Command in order to make the “first table” consist of three Commands so as to make an allusion to the Trinity. Augustine contradicts himself elsewhere, however (cf. Quaest. Vet. et Novi Test., lib. 1:7). But it seems that Peter Lombard (Sentences, Book 3.37,40) picked up this numbering, divided the prohibition of “coveting” into two commands, and, as they say, the rest is history. Augustine had no intention of downplaying the prominent prohibition against images. Nevertheless, his, what shall we call it – over-zealousness, left an opening which later writers would exploit to their advantage. It may also be worth noting that the Reformed numbering follows both the Jewish and Patristic numberings (Jospehus, Ant. 3.5.5).

There are clearly two issues in view here anyway. One is the issue of idolatry, i.e., the worship of anything else besides God. This is covered in the First Command. But separate from this is the issue of a proper perception of God. And that is what is in view in the Second Command. Both Jewish and Patristic writers correctly understood the visual as a threat to a proper perception of God. Rome, on the other hand excels in such a representation of God. Hence they love Lombard’s innovative numbering of the Decalogue. By subsuming the ban on images under the ban on idolatry, the door is left open to the use of images in the worship of God. This is exactly what was defended in 787 AD at Nicaea II. That was a perverse assembly if ever there was one. John, one of the delegates from the east, went so far as to say that it would be better to fill every city on earth with brothels than to do away with icons! Their assertion that icons are valid because of the Incarnation is idiotic, charitably put. In other words, God represented Himself under a visible form in the Incarnation, therefore it is lawful to make visible representations of Christ. On the strength of this wonder of logic they go on to assert that rejection of icons is tantamount to Docetism. This is a statement, the stupidity of which is unmatched in the annals of Church history.

This is not to say that there is nothing ‘visible’ in the Christian religion. The sacraments are, after all, visible representations. But they are not visible representations of God! They are visible signs and seals of God’s covenant with us.  Baptism signifies and seals to us the Spirit’s application of the mediatorial work of Christ signified and sealed to us in the Lord’s Supper. But neither are an image of God, for this is explicitly forbidden (Deut. 4:12, 15-18).

I might also interject that perhaps too much time has been spent on discussing which commands belong to which table. The two “tables” of the Law, if I understand anything about covenant making in Scripture, would have been two identical copies of the same exact document: one for both parties. The tablets were written on both sides however; hence it may still be a fair question which commands were on which side (which is the same as asking what was on which table). In other words, God wrote two tables, which were identical copies of all Ten Commands. One was for Him, and one was for Israel. A covenant is not exactly like a contract, but there is a point of similarity here. Both parties have a copy of the stipulations and conditions as a witness to both for or against their respective fidelity.

C. The Change of the Sabbath.  

The question of the change of the Sabbath seems better handled here as well rather than cumbering up a discussion about the Lord’s Day.

What do we say about the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to Sunday, the first day of the week? How did this occur? On what grounds is the change of day based? And on whose authority was it done?

The Puritan Thomas Shepherd has an excellent treatise on the change of the Sabbath. He notes that first and foremost, the primary cause of the change of the Sabbath is the resurrection of Christ. I doubt that are many Christians who are not aware of this fact. The Sabbath under the old administration was a commemoration of the first Creation. The Christian Sabbath commemorates the new Creation which has its origin in Christ’s resurrection. It is surely significant that the first full day of Adam’s life was the first Sabbath. Likewise, the first day of Christ’s resurrected life, as the Second Adam, was the Christian Sabbath.

I think it would be helpful at this point to cut to the chase and eliminate all the erroneous views about the change of the Sabbath by stating as directly as possible the basis of the change. The basis for the change is none other than the teaching of Christ Himself. Accept any other theory and you are forced to make it a man-made innovation to the worship of God. We know that the early Christians met on the Lord’s Day, which Paul tells us is the “first day of the week.” If this habit came from any other source than Christ’s own command, we must ask where the Apostles’ got the gall to tamper with God’s Word.

Jesus commanded the apostles to “teach all nations that which I command you.” We must either hold that Christ commanded the Apostles in regard to the Sabbath, or we must maintain that the Apostles went beyond their authority and commission by teaching that which Christ never commanded. We know that the Apostles’ doctrine and practice was only correct so far as it conformed to the teaching of Christ. Hence we see Peter in Antioch, acting in a way which did not accord with Christ’s teaching. The spat between Paul and Barnabas can hardly be said to be Christ-like. Let me hasten to say, however, that when the Apostles acted in the public function as messengers of Christ, they were extraordinarily guided by God’s Spirit so that their practice may and must be considered the pattern for all successive ages.

Along these lines, Shepherd writes, “[I]f, therefore, the primitive churches thus honoured the first day of the week above any other day for Sabbath services, then certainly they were instituted and taught thus to do by the apostles approving of them herein; and what the apostles taught the churches, that the Lord Jesus commanded to the apostles. So that the approved practice of the churches herein shows what was the doctrine of the apostles; and the doctrine of the apostles shows what was the command of Christ; so that the sanctification of this first day of the week is no human tradition, but a divine institution from Christ himself.”

I am very tempted (a poor word choice, perhaps, in a theological discussion) to launch in a full-scale defense of the change of the Sabbath, but I fear that would carry us to far afield. To quote Shepherd again, “To know when and where the Lord Christ instructed his disciples concerning this change, is needless to inquire. It is sufficient to believe this: that what the primitive churches exemplary practised, that was taught them by the apostles who planted them; and that whatsoever the apostles preached, the Lord Christ commanded, as has been shown. Yet if the change of the Sabbath be a matter appertaining to the kingdom of God, why should we doubt but that, within the space of his forty days' abode with them after his resurrection, he then taught it them? for it is expressly said, that he then taught them such things. (Acts 1:3)”

Establishing the Christian observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day throughout the earliest ages of the Church is a cakewalk. Ignatius writes to the Magnesians (Ch. 9), “If they who were concerned in old things, arrived at a newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s day, by which our life sprung from him and by his death (whom certain persons deny)…we have been made his disciples, let us live according to Christianity."

The Epistle of Barnabas says, "Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead"

Justin Martyr writes, "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior, on the same day rose from the dead."

And the anonymous Didache, written perhaps as early as 80 or 90 AD, affirms, "And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s Day meet more diligently."

The Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation follow the same beat. The Heidelberg Catechism affirms that on the Christian Sabbath we are to, “diligently frequent the church of God, to hear his word, to use the sacraments, publicly to call upon the Lord, and contribute to the relief of the poor. Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.”

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts, “From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.”