As I’ve studied and wrestled with various theological systems, I’ve found that any given system has a few statements about covenant theology that just tend to irk me. Things such as a dispensationals accusing us of being “replacement theologians” or romanists calling protestants “anti-tradition.” One of these statements is one I often hear from the New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism, which is “we don’t look back to Moses, we look to Christ.” While I can understand the sentiment behind this statement, and even to some extent where it comes from, it’s not a helpful statement when discussing the relevance of the moral law for Christians under the new covenant.
It’s not inaccurate to call the Old Testament law the “law of Moses.” Covenant theology consistently calls the old administration “the Mosaic covenant.” Indeed, there is scriptural precedent for attaching Moses’s name to it, as both Jesus and Paul do so. Yet, it also must be acknowledged that Moses was neither the giver nor the author of the law. The Old Testament, in the Psalms and prophetic writings makes clear that it is “the law of God.” God claims the commandments as His own when making judgement against His people for breaking them. Moses may have carried and presented the 10 commandments to God’s people, yet it was God’s finger who inscribed them on the tablets. God is the author and the source, Moses was the mouthpiece.
This being understood, we can now get into the problems with this statement. If indeed God is the giver of the old covenant law, the statement (at least in my mind) boils down to “we don’t look back to God, we look to Christ.” What this reveals, is a wrong understanding of the moral law. God did not give moral laws or principals to live by “just because” or arbitrarily, there are reasons why the 10 commandments (and indeed all other moral commandments) were given. The moral law points to God’s perfection and holiness. We are commanded to be honest, not because one day God decided that we should be, but because God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). We are not to make idols or graven images because God is glorious, beautiful, and uncreated, that to craft something into an image and say that it either is or represents God diminishes His glory – it portrays the eternal as finite. The 10 commandments are not arbitrary, they testify to the holiness of God.
Cain did not have the 10 commandments, yet he still sinned when murdering his brother Abel. Jacob’s rampant deception and lies was still sin, even without the ninth commandment. A gentile without the law is still found guilty of sinning. Why is this? Because God is holy and does not change. The standard of living for believers (and indeed all humanity) does not change. It always has been a sin to worship idols and indeed always will be, because God does not change. NCT loves to stress the portion of the New Covenant promise that says the new covenant will be “not like the old” yet they don’t put nearly as much emphasis on the part that says that God will “write my law on their hearts” (Jer. 31). This passage doesn’t seem to imply a new law, but an existing one being written on the heart. This is why the standard of living does not change from the old to the new administration, God does not change. Most will acknowledge that the New Testament repeats and affirms (at least) commandments 1-3 and 5-10 (I would argue that the command of the sabbath is implicitly affirmed through Paul’s commandments for parents and children as well as masters and slaves). This is because the moral law does not change.
I’ve heard an argument from NCT that attempts to explain why this is. They will say that if someone goes from the United States to the United Kingdom, it would be reasonable to expect that certain commandments would be the same. Yet one who is living in the UK is under the law of the UK, not the law of the US. Thus, we are not under the “law of Moses,” but the law of Christ. There are indeed similarities, but we are under a different law. This analogy breaks down for the same reason the statement under discussion does – the law giver does not change. If I go from the US to the UK the law changes because the ultimate giver of the law changes. As we saw, Moses was neither the author nor giver of the law, it was God (and therefore Jesus). Thus, this analogy does not accurately describe the reality of the new covenant and ultimately breaks down. We indeed are no longer under the civil aspects of the law as we are not living under the old nation of Israel (for that matter, no one is, after 70 AD), and the ceremonial aspects of the law are not applicable to us either as they were fulfilled in Christ. We are not under the moral law in the sense that our salvation is contingent on our keeping it perfectly, yet it still remains as a standard of living for us (not to be saved, but having been saved).
It would be more accurate to analogize an individual moving from one localized government to another. There are things that remain applicable and things that don’t. When I moved from Denver to Colorado Springs, I was no longer under the law of Denver, but Colorado Springs. I don’t have to pay income to Denver, I can drive 25 mph in a residential area instead of 20 (and countless other minuscule things I’m sure). Yet, I remain a resident of Colorado and a citizen of the United States and am obligated to follow their laws, even though I am no longer under the law of Denver. Likewise, the old covenant system had civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. The moral laws may have been presented in and alongside the old covenant, yet they were tied to the holiness of God. Thus with the coming of the new covenant, the civil and ceremonial laws are no longer applicable to us, yet the ultimate law giver is unchanging, therefore the moral law remains a standard of living.
It therefore is good and appropriate that we use the 10 commandments as a standard of living as well as the commandments given in the New Testament (and indeed the rest of the old). They are given by a perfect and holy God to reflect His holiness and perfection, thus they stand true and relevant in every age as a standard of living for God’s people. Not kept to be saved, but kept out of a love for God – having been saved.