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.”

Decalogue (Introduction)

Before I begin this series of posts on the Decalogue, I feel compelled to take up a one issue first. Whenever mention is made of the Decalogue, also known as the Ten Commandments, someone will inevitably protest, “Christians aren’t under the law!” It seems rather humorous when people say this because I doubt that any of them means to be understood as saying that if a Christian murders, steals or commits adultery, he or she is not sinning.

I have never actually heard anyone actually explain what it is they mean when they cry that Christians are not “under the law.” Whatever they may mean by it, Scripture does not use this phrase to suggest that obedience to God’s revealed will is not required of believers. Paul reminds the children at Ephesus to obey the 5^th Command. In fact, every one of the “ten words” of the Decalogue is to be found somewhere in the New Testament.

Believers are not “under the law” in the sense that they are no longer condemned because they fail to keep it perfectly. Neither should believers strive to obey the law in order to merit salvation. The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 2 tells us that we obey God out of gratitude for His great deliverance from our sin and misery. The Westminster Confession says that the law is of great use to believers by showing them how they may express gratitude for their free salvation and pointing out their sins so they might flee to Christ continually. Being “under” the law does not mean not obligated to obey it. It means not being under condemnation for breaches of it.

In case you haven’t noticed, no one, not even the most devout, sincere and pious believer, perfectly obeys the law of God, despite what Wesley’s perfectionists claim. You might then be tempted to ask why God would still make His law binding upon us when He knows that we can’t obey. The answer to that is simply that God’s law is a reflection of His nature. Just because you are incapable of fulfilling all righteousness, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t require it and will not punish anything less than the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ.

The Decalogue is not a return to the Covenant of Works, either. The preface of the Decalogue shows that this is pure grace. God declares His relation to His people, His right over them as their God and Deliverer. It is on the basis of His undeserved favor toward His people that He gives the Decalogue. Moreover, the multitudinous sacrifices for sin prescribed throughout the Old Testament bear witness to the fact that the Law was meant to show God’s people that they must look to Him for both their righteousness and forgiveness for their inevitable violations of His will. If the Ten Commands were a reversion to the Covenant of Works, there would be no provision in it for sin.

The elect of all age have always lived under the Covenant of Grace wherein God has provided both their righteousness and atonement for their sins. This was pictured typologically in the Old Testament and set on a hilltop in the New Testament. It is the reprobate who are still obligated to God in the Covenant of Works. There is no provision for sin under the Covenant of Work. Its inexorable justice says, “Do this and live.” Perfect obedience is the only key to life under the Covenant of Works. This is why the reprobate are damned. They never have, nor ever will perfectly obey God; neither have they recourse to the imputed righteousness of Christ and His atoning death for sin. The same Gospel is both the odor of life and odor of death.

I felt compelled to preface the upcoming series on the Decalogue by the above remarks and now that I’ve written them, I feel better. However, I am sure someone will find something to complain about. So maybe I don’t feel better after all.