Review of Rooker’s The Ten Commandments

by | Dec 2, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology

The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century

Mark F. Rooker

(Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010, 234pp.)

reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

Mark F. Rooker’s The Ten Commandments (TC) is volume 7 in the NAC Studies in Bible & Theology series put out by B&H Academic. Dr. Rooker is professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. TC is a nice, hardback volume with recommendations by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Jerry Vines, among others. It contains a bibliography and name, subject, and Scripture indices.

I first heard of this book when a student from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, emailed me asking if I thought Rooker quoted me in context while referencing my In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD). I did not even know who Rooker was, nor had I heard of the book. I immediately ordered a review copy and read the book this fall. I’ll comment on Rooker’s references to IDOTD later. In case you are wondering, I have no problem with his quotes in the context in which he used them, though I am sure we differ on some finer points.

Preface

Something in the one-page Preface that caught my eye was this: “The reader of this volume will clearly see that the Ten Commandments are founded on the creation account of Gen 1-2” (xi).

Introduction

The Introduction has the following headings: The Influence of the Ten Commandments; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in Judaism; The Significance of the Ten Commandments in Christianity; The Enumeration of the Ten Commandments; The Ten Commandments in their Ancient Near Eastern Background; The Context of the Ten Commandments; and The Addressees of the Ten Commandments. Rooker is clear that he thinks the Ten Commandments are important. He says, for instance:

…the Ten Commandments have stood the test of time and will continue as long as civilization exists. The influence of the Ten Commandments on the Western world is beyond doubt. No other document has had such a great influence on Western Culture. (1)

Rooker then gives historical examples in Western history where the Ten Commandments have influenced many (1-3). Though I appreciate Rooker’s desire to highlight the importance of the Ten Commandments, I do not find his examples compelling me to agree with such an assertion – i.e., “No other document has had such a great influence on Western Culture.”

Rooker sees special significance in the Ten Commandments. He argues that, in one sense, they are distinct from and foundational to all other laws of the Bible. He says:

The Ten Commandments are literally the “Ten Words” …in Hebrew. The use of the term dabar, “word,” in this phrase distinguishes these laws from the rest of the commandments (miswa), statues (hoq), and regulations (mispat) in the Old Testament. (3)

The Ten Commandments should be viewed as fundamental to all the laws of the Bible. They may be compared to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws that follow (Exod 21:1-23:19) as somewhat analogous to sections of federal law dealing with particular matters. (4; Rooker references D. Stuart, Exodus, NAC, 441.)

The special role of the Ten Commandments is seen in the fact that they were placed in the ark of the covenant, “the most holy article of the tabernacle/temple furniture…” (5). It is in this context of discussion that Rooker says, “The Ten commandments express the eternal will of God” (6). A little further on, he says that

the laws in the Decalogue are not entirely new to Israel. The Bible presupposes a moral code long before the theophany on Mount Sinai. This is indicated in earlier biblical events such as the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain (Gen 4), as well as the judgments of the flood (Gen 6-9) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). The expression of God’s will in the Decalogue is commensurate with His nature. (6)

While discussing the significance of the Ten Commandments in Christianity, Rooker distances himself from those who think that the Ten Commandments have served their purpose and are no longer relevant for Christian ethics. Rooker says:

The New Testament church accepted the Decalogue as the substance of Christian ethics at an early date. Early attestation of its importance is clear not only from the numerous citations of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament (Matt 5; 19; Mark 10; Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jas 2:11) but also from the apostle Paul stating emphatically that the tenth commandment convinced him he was a sinner (Rom 7:7-8). Under the teaching of the tenth commandment, sin stirred up a world of iniquity in his heart. The New Testament nowhere rescinds the ethics of the Ten Commandments. (9)

These words clearly distance Rooker from others in our day who see the function of the Decalogue as limited to old covenant Israel (i.e., New Covenant Theology).

The last page of the Introduction discusses the addressees of the Ten Commandments. Rooker says, “The Ten Commandments are addressed to the nation of Israel… ….The Ten Commandments were given directly to every individual Israelite…” (23) These statements might appear to be contradicting some of the things Rooker has already said. However, if one understands that the Ten Commandments have more than one function in the Bible, there is no contradiction in Rooker at this point. Rooker himself holds to a multifunctional utility of the Decalogue. He sees it related to creation and redemption; to Israel, to the Moral Law, to the Natural Law, and to Christian Ethics (175-199).

Chapters 1-10

Chapters 1-10 take up each commandment in order. Each chapter is outlined basically the same. The basic outline is as follows: introduction, the meaning of the commandment, the commandment elsewhere in the OT, the commandment in the NT, and a conclusion. I really appreciate this approach. It helps readers get a grasp of the usage of each commandment in both testaments. Rooker shows ample acquaintance with relevant contemporary, scholarly literature. I would have liked to see much more interaction with Reformed theologians on this issue (especially older ones). I found this lack somewhat of a disappointment, especially while dealing with the fourth commandment (see my comments below). All in all, though, the chapters are well-written and informed, full of Scripture, and easy to follow.

One chapter needing some comment on is chapter 4 on the fourth commandment. Something I appreciate much is this statement: “The oft-repeated notion that the Sabbath was originally only a day of rest without any worship activity is unfounded” (91). He made this statement after showing “[t]he association of the sanctuary and priestly ritual with the Sabbath day…” (90). The Sabbath day under the old covenant was a “holy convocation” or “sacred assembly” (90). It was a special day of rest and public worship.

While discussing the fourth commandment, Rooker makes these statements about the Sabbath and creation:

Unlike the previous commands, the fourth is stated positively. It is dependent on the creation account of Gen 1-2, which also describes the cessation of the Creator’s work and affirms that the Sabbath is sanctified… (92)

…at Mount Sinai Israel was commanded to honor this day that was established at the beginning (Gen 2:1-3). The Sabbath commandment is to be read in light of the creation account that focuses on the sanctification of the seventh day. (93-94)

…[the fourth commandment] is the only commandment specified in the creation account… (99)

The Sabbath is not only the focus of the Ten Commandments; it is also the climax of the creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) and suggests that creation and the giving of the Ten Commandments are related. (176)

Does Rooker hold that the Sabbath is, therefore, a creation ordinance and for all men of all time? The answer would seem to be yes, based on these words, “The Sabbath was made for man. The fact that the work and rest pattern was established in the work of God Himself indicates that this principle for mankind had universal significance and application” (102).

What place does Rooker  see for the fourth commandment in Christian ethics? He rightly sees the Sabbath as a type of Christ (99) and as a sign with Israel as God’s old covenant nation (99). He says:

In addition, it is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is not repeated in the New Testament. The New Testament instead speaks of its typical nature. As a shadow it was fulfilled in Christ’s ministry in giving rest, but it also awaits a future fulfillment. (99)

But he goes on to qualify as follows:

Yet the fourth commandment is not without relevance for the modern Christian. The principles involved in observance of the Sabbath law are applicable today. The principles of work, rest, and worship that emerge from the Sabbath law are extremely meaningful in their application to the contemporary Christian. (99-100)

There is much to agree with in these words.

Because Rooker sees the Sabbath as typological of Christ, he does not see it as binding (as such) on believers or anyone else today. I agree that the Christo-typical function of the Sabbath is no more. As he states in the quote above, however, there are abiding principles from the Sabbath law that are applicable today, but the Sabbath, in its Christo-typical function, is no more. But is that the only function of the Sabbath in the Bible? I think it has more than just a Christo-typical function.

A denial of an abiding new covenant Sabbath is further illustrated where Rooker argues against the Lord’s Day being the new covenant application of the Sabbath law (98-99). He says:

While there is solid evidence that the early Christians were beginning to worship on Sunday in honor of the resurrection, there is no evidence that Sunday was to be considered the new Sabbath day of rest and the way Christians would now keep the fourth commandment. Thus, Sunday did not replace the Sabbath… (99)

Obviously, Rooker does not see the Lord’s Day as a Sabbath under the new covenant in application of the fourth commandment. He sees practical application from the fourth commandment, but not an abiding Sabbath to be rendered for the people of God on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, Sunday.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Rooker says about the fourth commandment, but I also find myself wanting him to say more and qualify more carefully. As for me, if the Sabbath is grounded in creation, made for man, incorporated into (and thus predating and transcending) Israel’s Decalogue, part of the Decalogue (which has various functions, one of which is the heart of old covenant law another of which is the heart of new covenant law [Jer. 31:33]), related to redemption, and other things, I don’t see a problem with it being an abiding law for Christians, granting a change in its application due to the redemptive-historical shift brought on by the resurrection of Christ, the sign of the new creation and seal of redemption accomplished.

Conclusion

In the Conclusion, Rooker’s headings are as follows: Interrelationship of the Ten Commandments; Mosaic Covenant and the Plan of God; Israel and the Law; The Church and the Law; The New Testament and the Law; The New Testament and the Ten Commandments; The Ten Commandments and Moral Law; Moral Law and the Christian; The Moral Law and the Natural Law; and A Final Word. There is much good theological discussion in light of the main section of the book, but I can only comment on a two things.

Rooker has a great discussion on distinctions in the law of the OT on pp. 181-86. I will only whet your appetite with these words: “A distinction can be made between what is universal and what uniquely applied to Israel’s special circumstance” (182). I found this section very helpful.

It is in the Conclusion where Rooker references my IDOTD six times. Though I am sure we differ here and there on some issues, on the main, I found his use of IDOTD judicious.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in a contemporary scholar interacting with mostly contemporary sources on the place of the Ten Commandments in the Bible.

The Law in the thought of those worth hearing: Part II

by | Nov 25, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology

In part I of this series of posts, I said:

Too often while reading contemporary authors on the law in the life of believers, I find myself asking the question, “Haven’t these guys read the great minds of the past on this issue?” Sometimes I get the feeling (remember – feelings are “nothing more than feelings”) that much ink has been spilled prior to consulting the giants of church history and, in particular, Reformed theologians of previous eras. This series of posts will provide readers with some quotes from  and my interaction with some statments by a few guys I think are worth listening to on this issue. The reason why John Owen is prominant in the discussion below is becasue I wrote my dissertation on him (and Geerhardus Vos). The analysis below shows that Owen is main-stream Reformed orthodox in his view of the law.

Post I considered The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others.

This time we will look at: 

Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

 

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says: 

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8]

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.

[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

Pin It on Pinterest