Copyright © 1960 by
THE TWO TABLES OF THE
COVENANT
MEREDITH G.
KLINE
“AND
he declared unto you his covenant, which he com-
manded you to perform, even
ten commandments;
and he wrote them upon two tables of stone"
(Deut. 4:13).
It has been commonly assumed that
each of the stone tables
contained but a part of the total revelation
proclaimed by
the voice of God out of the fiery theophany on Sinai. Only the
subordinate question of the dividing point between
the "first
and second tables" has occasioned disagreement.1
A re-
examination of the biblical data, however,
particularly in the
light of extra-biblical parallels, suggests a
radically new
interpretation of the formal nature of
the two stone tables,
the importance of which will be found to lie
primarily in the
fresh perspective it lends to our understanding of
the divine
oracle engraved upon them.
Attention has been frequently
directed in recent years to
the remarkable resemblance between God's covenant
with
in the ancient Near East.2 Similarities
have been discovered
in the areas of the documents, the ceremonies of
ratification,
the modes of administration, and, most basically of
course,
1 The perashiyoth (pericopes
marked in the Hebrew text) apparently
reflect the opinion that the "second
table" begins with the fourth com-
mandment. (Here and elsewhere in
this article the designation of specific
commandments is based on the common
Protestant enumeration.) The
dominant opinion has been that the "second
table" opens with the fifth
commandment, but Jews usually count the fifth
commandment as the
last in the "first table", filial
reverence being regarded as a religious duty.
2 See G. E. Mendenhall,
"Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition",
The Biblical
Archaeologist,
XVII (1954) 3, pp. 50-76. D. J. Wiseman had
previously read a paper on some of the parallels to
the Society for Old
Testament
Studies (Jan. 1948). The most adequate documentation for
the suzerainty treaty, particularly in its classic
form, comes from the New
Hittite
Empire of the second millennium B.C., but there are references
to such international treaties in the late third
millennium B.C., and the
suzerainty type continues to be attested in its
essential form during the
early first millennium B.C.
133
134
the suzerain-servant relationship itself. On the
biblical side the
resemblance is most apparent in the accounts of the
theocratic
covenant as instituted through the mediatorship of Moses at
Sinai and as later renewed under both Moses and
Joshua.
Of
most interest for the subject of this article is the fact that
the pattern of the suzerainty treaty can be traced
in miniature
in the revelation written on the two tables by the
finger of God.
"I am the Lord thy God", the opening
words of the Sinaitic
proclamation (Exod.
20:2a), correspond to the preamble of
the suzerainty treaties, which identified the
suzerain and that
in terms calculated to inspire awe and fear. For
example, the
treaty of Mursilis with his
vassal Duppi-Tessub of Amurru
begins: "These are the words of the Sun Mursilis, the great
king, the king of the Hatti
land, the valiant, the favorite of
the Storm-god, the son of Suppiluliumas,
etc."3 Such treaties
continued in an "I-thou" style with an
historical prologue,
surveying the great king's previous relations
with, and espe-
cially his benefactions to,
the vassal king. In the treaty just
referred to, Mursilis
reminds Duppi-Tessub of the vassal
status of his father and grandfather, of their loyalty
and
enjoyment of Mursilis'
just oversight, and climactically there
is narrated how Mursilis,
true to his promise to Duppi-
Tessub's father, secured the dynastic succession
for Duppi-
Tessub, sick and ailing though he was. In the Bible
the
historical prologue is found in the further words
of the Lord:
"which have brought thee out of the
the house of bondage" (Exod.
20:2b). This element in the
covenant document was clearly designed to inspire
confidence
and gratitude in the vassal and thereby to dispose
him to
attend to the covenant obligations, which constitute
the third
element in both Exodus 20 and the international
treaties.
There are many interesting parallels to specific
biblical
requirements among the treaty
stipulations; but to mention
only the most prominent, the fundamental demand is
always
for thorough commitment to the suzerain to the
exclusion of
all alien alliances.4 Thus, Mursilis insists: "But you, Duppi-
3 Translation of A. Goetze in ed. James B. Pritchard: Ancient Near
Eastern Texts,
Staatsvertraege,
4 Cf. further, Korosec, op. cit.,
pp. 66 ff.; D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-
Treaties of Esarhaddon,
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 135
Tessub, remain loyal toward the king of the Hatti land, the
Hatti land, my sons (and) my grandsons forever.... Do
not
turn your eyes to anyone else!"5 And
Yahweh commands his
servant: "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me" (Exod.
20:3; cf. 4, 5). Stylistically, the
apodictic form of the decalogue
apparently finds its only parallel in the treaties,
which contain
categorical imperatives and prohibitions and a
conditional
type of formulation equivalent to the apodictic
curse (cf.
Deut.
27:15-26), both being directly oriented to covenant
oaths and sanctions. The legislation in the extant
legal codes,
on the other hand, is uniformly of the casuistic
type.
Two other standard features of the classic
suzerainty treaty
were the invocation of the gods of the suzerain and
(in the
Hittite
sphere) of the vassal as witnesses of the oath and the
pronouncing of imprecations and benedictions, which
the
oath deities were to execute according to the
vassal's
deserts.
Obviously in the case of God's covenant with
could be no thought of a realistic invocation of a
third party
as divine witness.6 Indeed, it is
implicit in the third word of
the decalogue that all
name of Yahweh (Exod.
20:7). The immediate contextual
application of this commandment is that the
Israelite must
remain true to the oath he was about to take at Sinai
in
accordance with the standard procedure in
ceremonies of
covenant ratification (cf. Exod.
24). Mendenhall7 finds no
reference to an oath as the foundation of the Sinaitic covenant;
he does, however, allow that the oath may have
taken the
form of a symbolic act rather than a verbal formula.
But
surely a solemn affirmation of consecration to God
made in
the presence of God to his mediator-representative
and in
response to divine demand, sanctioned by divine
threats
against the rebellious, is tantamount to an
oath. Moreover,
5 Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 204.
6 There is a formal literary
approximation to the invocation of the oath
witnesses in Deut. 4:26; 30:19; and. 31:28 where
by the rhetorical device
of apostrophe God calls heaven and earth to be
witnesses of his covenant
with
and rivers, etc.,
at the close of this section in the treaties. Cf. Matt. 5:34,
35;
23:16.
7 Op. cit., p. 66.
136
atives on the mount of God (Exod. 24:11) was a recognized
symbolic method by which people swore treaties.8
The curses and blessings are present in Exodus
20, though
not as a separate section. They are rather
interspersed
among the stipulations (cf. verses 5, 6, 7, 11, and
12). More-
over, an adaptation of the customary form of the
curses and
blessings to the divine nature of the suzerain who
here pro-
nounced them was necessary.
Thus, the usual invocative
form has yielded to the declarative, and that in the
style of
the motive clause, which is characteristic of Old
Testament
legislation and which is illustrative of what may be
called the
reasonableness of
There is one final point of material
correspondence. It
provides the key to the nature of the two tables
of stone and
to this we shall presently return. The parallelism
already
noted, however, is sufficient to demonstrate that the
revelation
committed to the two tables was rather a
suzerainty treaty
or covenant than a legal code. The customary exclusive
use
of "decalogue"
to designate this revelation, biblical ter-
minology though it is (cf.
"the ten words",10 Exod. 34:28;
Deut.
4:13; 10:4), has unfortunately served to obscure the
whole truth of the matter. That this designation is
intended
as only pars
pro toto is confirmed by the fact that
"covenant"
(tyriB;; Deut. 4:13) and
"the words of the covenant" (Exod.
34:28;
Deut. 28:69; 29:8; etc.) are alternate biblical ter-
minology. So too is
"testimony" (tUdfe; Exod.
25:16, 21;
40:20;
cf. II Kg. 17:15), which characterizes the stipulations
as oath-bound obligations or as a covenant order
of life.11
Consequently,
the two tables are called "the tables of the
8 Cf. Wiseman,
op. cit., p. 84 and lines 154-156 of
the Ramataia text.
9 Cf. B. Gemser,
"The importance of the motive clause in Old Testament
law", Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, I
(1953) pp. 50-66. It must be
borne in mind that the decalogue
does not stand alone as the total revela-
tion of the covenant at
Sinai. For curses and blessings see also the conclu-
sion of the Book of the
Covenant (Exod. 23:20-33) and especially Deut.
27-30.
10 The contents of the treaties
are also called the "words" of the suzerain.
11 tUdfe is related to the Akkadian ade, which is used as a general
appella-
tion for the contents of
suzerainty treaties. Wiseman (op. cit.,
p. 81),
defines adu (sing.) as "a law or commandment solemnly imposed
in the
presence of divine witnesses by a suzerain upon
an individual or people
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 137
covenant" (Deut. 9:9, 11, 15) and "the
tables of the tes-
timony" (Exod. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29); the ark, as the depos-
itory of the tables,
"the ark of the covenant" or "of the tes-
timony"; and the
tabernacle, where the ark was located, "the
tabernacle of the testimony".
The two stone tables are not, therefore, to be
likened to
a stele containing one of the half-dozen or so
known legal
codes earlier than or roughly contemporary with Moses
as
though God had engraved on these tables a corpus of law.12
The
revelation they contain is nothing less than an epitome
of the covenant granted by Yahweh, the sovereign
Lord of
heaven and earth, to his elect and redeemed servant,
Not
law, but covenant. That must be affirmed when we
are seeking a category comprehensive enough to do
justice
to this revelation in its totality. At the same
time, the
prominence of the stipulations, reflected in the
fact that "the
ten words" are the element used as pars pro toto,
signalizes
the centrality of law in this type of covenant.
There is
probably no clearer direction afforded the
biblical theologian
for defining with biblical emphasis the type of
covenant God
adopted to formalize his relationship to his
people than that
given in the covenant he gave
ten commandments". Such a covenant is a
declaration of
God's
lordship, consecrating a people to himself in a sov-
ereignly dictated order of life.
who have no option but acceptance of the terms. It
implies a ‘solemn
charge or undertaking an oath' (according to the view
of the suzerain or
vassal)."
22 There does appear to be some
literary relationship between the legal
codes and the suzerainty treaties. J. Muilenburg ("The form and structure
of the covenantal formulations", Vetus Testamentum,
IX (Oct. 1959) 4,
Pp. 347 ff.) classifies
both under "the royal message". Hammurapi
in his
code, which is still the most complete of the extant
ancient Oriental codes,
introduces himself in the prologue with a recital
of his incomparable
qualifications for the promulgation of
laws, then presents the laws, and in
the epilogue pronounces curses and blessings on
future kings as they
ignore or honor his code. The identity of the decalogue with the suzerainty
treaties over against such law codes is evidenced
by features like the
covenant terminology, the ade character of the
stipulations, the "I-thou"
formulation and the purpose of the whole as
manifested both in the
contents and the historical occasion, i. e., the establishment of a covenant
relationship between two parties.
138
But what now is the significance of the fact
that the cov-
enant was recorded not on one
but on two stone tables?
Apart
from the dubious symbolic propriety of bisecting a
treaty for distribution over two separate documents,
all the
traditional suggestions as to how the division
should be made
are liable to the objection that they do violence
to the formal
and logical structure of this treaty. The results
of the tradi-
tional type of cleavage are
not two reasonably balanced sets
of laws but one table containing almost all of
three of the
four treaty elements plus a part of the fourth, i. e., the stipula-
tions, and a second table
with only a fraction of the stipula-
tions and possibly a blessing
formula. The preamble and
historical prologue must not be minimized nor
ignored because
of their brevity for this is a covenant in
miniature. In com-
parison with the full scale
version, the stipulations are pro-
portionately as greatly reduced as
are the preamble and the
historical prologue. That would be even clearer if
the addi-
tional strand of the curses
and blessings were not interwoven
with the commandments. Certainly, too, there was no
phys-
ical necessity for
distributing the material over two stones.
One
table of such a size that Moses could carry, and the ark
contain, a pair of them would offer no problem
of spatial
limitations to prevent engraving the entire text
upon it, espe-
cially since the writing
covered both obverse and reverse
(Exod. 32:15). In fact, it seems unreasonable, judging from
the appearance of comparable stone inscriptions
from, antiq-
uity, to suppose that all
the area on both sides of two, tables
would be devoted to so few words.
There is, moreover, the comparative evidence of
the extra-
biblical treaties. Covenants, such as Exodus
20:2-17 has
been shown to be, are found written in their
entirety on one
table and indeed, like the Sinaitic
tables, on both its sides.13
As
a further detail in the parallelism of external appearance
it is tempting to see in the sabbath
sign presented in the midst
of the ten words the equivalent of the suzerain's
dynastic seal
found in the midst of the obverse of the
international treaty
documents.14 Since in the case of
the decalogue, the suzerain
13 Cf., e. g., Wiseman, op. cit., plates I
and IX.
14 The closing paragraph of the
Egyptian text of the parity treaty of
Hattusilis III and Ramses
II is a description of the seal, called "What is
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 139
is Yahweh, there will be no representation of him
on his seal.
But
the sabbath is declared his
"sign of the covenant" (Exod.
31:13-17).
By means of the sabbath,
God's image-bearer,
as a pledge of covenant consecration, images the
pattern of
the divine act of creation which proclaims God's
absolute
sovereignty over man. God has stamped on world
history
the sign of the sabbath
as his seal of ownership and authority.
That
is precisely what the pictures on the dynastic seals
symbolize and their captions claim in behalf of
the treaty
gods and their representative, the suzerain.
These considerations point to the conclusion
that each table
was complete in itself. The two tables were
duplicate copies
of the covenant. And the correctness of this
interpretation is
decisively confirmed by the fact that it was normal
procedure
in establishing suzerainty covenants to prepare
duplicate
copies of the treaty text.
Five of the six standard sections of the classic
suzerainty
treaty were mentioned above. The sixth section
contained
directions for the deposit of one copy of the
treaty document
in a sanctuary of the vassal and another in a
sanctuary of
the suzerain.15 For example, the treaty made by Suppiluliumas
with Mattiwaza states:
"A duplicate of this tablet has been
deposited before the Sun-goddess of Arinna.... In the
sub.... At regular intervals shall they read it in
the presence
of the king of the
sons of the Hurri country.”16 Deposit
of the treaty before
the gods was expressive of their role as witnesses
and avengers
of the oath. Even the vassal's gods were thereby
enlisted in
the foreign service of the suzerain.17
in the middle of the tablet of silver" (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p.201).
For
the Mitannian practice of placing the seal on the
reverse, cf. D. J.
Wiseman,
The Alalakh Tablets,
13 and 14.
15 Cf. Koroseg,
op. cit., pp. 100-101. On a stele
from Ras Shamra an
oath-taking ceremony is depicted with the two
parties raising their hands
over two copies of the treaty (Ugaritica III, plate VI).
16 Translation of A. Goetze, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, p. 205. In
various treaties the public reading requirement
specifies from once to
thrice annually.
17 Cf. II Kg. 18:25 and
observations of M. Tsevat, "The Neo-Assyrian
140
Similar instructions were given Moses at Sinai
concerning
the two tables. They were to be deposited in the
ark, which
in turn was to be placed in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:16, 21;
40:20;
Deut. 10:2). Because Yahweh was at once
covenant suzerain and God of Israel and
was but one sanctuary for the deposit of both
treaty du-
plicates. The specified location
of the documents as given in
Hittite
treaties can be rendered "under (the feet of)" the
god, which would then correspond strikingly to the
arrange-
ments in the Israelite holy
of holies.18 The two tables
do not
themselves contain instructions concerning their
disposition,
for the legislation regarding the ark and sanctuary
had not
yet been given. The same is true of the Book of the
Covenant
(Exod. 20:22-23:33). But it is significant that when such
legislation was given after the ceremony of covenant
ratifica-
tion (Exod.
24), the ark was the first object described in detail
and directions for the deposit of the two tables in
it were
included (Exod.
25:10-22).
As for the further custom of periodic public
reading of
treaty documents, the contents of the two tables were
of
course declared in the hearing of all
the Covenant was read to the people as part of the
ratification
ceremony (Exod. 24:7);
but the practice of periodic proclama-
tion was first formulated
some forty years later in the Book
of Deuteronomy when God was renewing the covenant
unto
the second generation. When suzerainty covenants,
were re-
newed, new documents were
prepared in which the stipula-
tions were brought up to
date. Deuteronomy is such a
covenant renewal document; hence its repetition
with mod-
ernizing modifications of the
earlier legislation, as found, for
example, in its treatment of the decalogue (5:6-21) or of the
passover (16:5 ff.; cf. Exod. 12:7, 46).19 Another case in point
and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet
Ezekiel", Journal of
Biblical Literature, LXXVIII (Sept. 1959)
III, p. 199.
18 See Exod.
25:22. Cf. Korosec, op. cit., p. 100.
19 Taking Pentateuchal
history at its face value, we discover that the
Book
of Deuteronomy exhibits precisely the legal form which contemporary
second millennium B.C. evidence indicates a suzerain
would employ in
his rule of a vassal nation like
no longer suffice for negative critics to grant
only that certain individual
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 141
is Deuteronomy's addition of this requirement for
the regular
public reading of the covenant law at the feast of
tabernacles
in the seventh year of release (31:9-13), a
requirement that
became relevant and applicable here on the threshold
of
be brought forth and read was not one of the stone
tables but
the "book of the law" which Moses wrote
and had placed by
the side of the ark (31:9, 26). However, even if
"this book
of the law" is identified with Deuteronomy
alone, reading it
would have included a re-proclamation of the contents
of
the tables.
The relevance of the foregoing for higher
critical conclu-
sions concerning the decalogue may be noted in passing.
Along
with a decreasing reluctance in negative critical studies
to accept the Mosaic origin of the decalogue20
the judgment
continues that the present form of the Sinaitic decalogue is an
expansion of the original, which is then reduced
to an abridged
version of the ten words, without preamble,
historical prologue,
or curses and blessings, and often without even an
abridged
form of the second and fourth words. Similarly, even
where
there is no bias against the Bible's representations
concerning
its own origins, the supposition has gained
currency that it
was an abbreviated version of the decalogue which was en-
graved on the stone tables. Such estimates of the
contents
of the Mosaic tables are clearly unsatisfactory,
since the
supposed abbreviated forms lack those very
features which
distinguish the tables as that which comparative
study in-
dicates was called for by the
historical occasion, and biblical
ancient laws and cultic patterns are preserved
in Deuteronomy; for the
fact is that its total structure conforms to the
classic structure of suzerainty
treaties, all six standard sections being
represented. The implications of
this for the unity and authenticity of Deuteronomy
are clear. While the
suzerainty pattern has been widely recognized in
the Decalogue and in
Joshua
24, there has been a strange lack of acknowledgment of all the
obvious facts in the case of Deuteronomy. It is
to be hoped that the
traditionalistic higher criticism will
not long indulge in obscurantism out
of regard for the unfortunate circumstance that
its seventh century date
for Deuteronomy is the pivot of the massive volume
of modern historical
studies of Israelite literature and religion.
20 Cf. H. H. Rowley, "Moses
and the Decalogue", Bulletin of the
John
Rylands Library, xxxiv, 1951-52, pp. 81 ff.
142
exegesis indicates the tables to be—not a brief
ethical
catechism but copies of the Sinaitic
covenant.
The purpose of
a documentary witness (Deut. 31:26).21 It was witness to
and against
rebuking for obligations violated; declaring the hope of cov-
enant beatitude and
pronouncing the doom of the covenant
curses. The public
proclamation of it was designed to teach
the fear of the Lord to all
Both copies of the covenant were laid before Yahweh as
God of the
oath. But what was the purpose of
Yahweh’s
own copy in his capacity as covenant surzerain? In the case
of the international treaties, the suzerain would
naturally
want to possess, preserve, and protect a sealed legal
witness
to the traty. It would remind
him of the vassal’s ade for
the
purpose of enforcement and punishment; for he would be
the actual avenger of the oath, the instrument of the
oath
deities according to the religious theory which was the legal
fiction lending sacred sanction to the treaty. It would also
remind him of his suzerain’s role as protector of the vassal
and of the various specific promises of assistance often
con-
tained in the
treaties. He had not, however, like the vassal
taken a covenant oath and human lords being what they are
he would have considerably less interest in the benefits
he
might bestow than in the amount of annual tribute he was
entitled to exact from the vassal.
21 Various types of covenant witnesses other
than the divine witness
are mentioned. Cf.
the song of Moses, which he had
(Deut. 31:19, 22; 32); the
stones with the law written upon them erected
on Ebal (Deut. 27: Josh.
8:30-35); and the stone witness of covenant
renewal at Shechem (Josh. 24:26,
27).
22 Deut. 31:13, Ps. 78:5ff. The treaties and
the biblical covenant share
a perspective of family solidarity reflected in
numerous references to the
sons and grandsons of the vassal. In the treaties, sworn commitment is in
the terms: “we,
our sons, and our grandsons” and agreeably both curses
and blessings are pronounced unto children’s children.
“Visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth genera-
tion of them that
hate me” (Exod. 20:5b) is the biblical counterpart,
defining the bounds of corporate responsibility in guilt under
this covenant
administration by the utmost limits of contemporaneity
(here described
by means of numerical climax, a popular device of Hebrew
and Canaanite
literature.
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 143
Such mutatis mutandis was the purpose of Yahweh’s own
stone table of covenant witness. However, even from the
formal point of view there is here a remarkable shift in
emphasis arising from the fact that God’s suzerainty covenant
with
the blessing suggests the unique emphasis: “showing
mercy”,
and that not merely to the third and fourth generation of
them that love him but, contrary to the balance observed
in this
respect in the curse and blessing formulae of the
international
treaties, “to a thousand generations” (Cf. Deut. 7:9). This
much
more abounding of grace is evidenced even in connection
with
the function of the stone tables as witnesses against
for since the divine throne under which the tables are
located
is the place of atonement, the witness of the tables
against
the blood advocating mercy.
The divine suzerain’s condescension in the Covenant of
Grace at the time of its Abrahamic administration extended
to the humiliation of swearing himself to covenant
fidelity as
lord of the covenant and fulfiller of the promises (cf.
Gen. 15).
Mendenhall23 mistakenly regards the Abrahamic
covenant as
completely different in kind from the Sinaitic,
partly because
of God’s oath and partly because of an alleged absence
of
obligations imposed on Abraham.
Actually, the total alle-
giance to his Lord
demanded of Abraham (cf. Gen. 12:1;
17:1) was precisely that
fealty which the treaty stipulations
were designed to secure. Moreover, it is demonstrable that
an oath on the part of the suzerain is not incompatible
with
the genius of the relationship governed by a suzerainty
treaty.
There are, for example, a
treaty and a related deed from
Alalakh,24 both
concerned with one Abban, the vizier of
Hattusa, and his bestowment of
certain cities upon his polit-
ical “servant” Iarimilim. The
treaty states that Abban con-
firmed the gift in perpetuity by a self-maledictory
oath
accompainied by the
symbolism of slaughtering a sheep. It
also stipulates that the territorial gift is forfeit if Iarimlim
23 Op.
cit., p. 62.
24 Published by D. J. Wiseman in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies XII
(Dec. 1958) 4, pp. 124-29 and
in The Alalakh Tablets
(
pp. 25, 26, plate I, respectively.
144
is disloyal to Abban.
The text deeding Alalakh (part of
Abban's gift) pronounces curses upon any who
would alter
Abban's purpose by hostilities against Iarimlim. All this
corresponds perfectly to God's dealings with
Abraham. The
Lord
covenanted territory to his servant Abraham as an
everlasting possession (Gen. 12:1, 2; 13:14-17;
15:16, 18) and
did so by a self maledictory
oath symbolized by the slaying
of animals (Gen. 15:9 ff.). Moreover, it is clear
that by
rebellion against Yahweh's word Abraham would
forfeit the
promise (Gen. 22:16, 17a; cf. Deut. 28, especially verses 63ff.);
and finally, the Egyptians and Canaanites who
oppose this
territorial grant are cursed (Gen. 12:36; 15:14, 16,
19-21).
God's oath is, therefore, in keeping with the
suzerain-vassal
relationship and simply enhances the
condescension and
graciousness of God's covenant
reign. Considered in relation
to the divine oath and promise, Yahweh's duplicate
table of
the covenant served a purpose analogous to that of
the rain-
bow in his covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:13-16). This
divine
condescension anticipated the
humiliation of the Incarnation,
and this divine oath contemplated the ultimate
humiliation
of the accursed death of him who should be
"found in fashion
as a man".
There remains the question of the relevance of
our inter-
pretation of the duplicate tables
of the covenant for the
understanding of their law content.
The increased emphasis
on the covenantal context of the law underscores
the essential
continuity in the function of law in the Old and
New Tes-
taments. The decalogue is not offered fallen
man as a genuine
soteric option but is presented
as a guide to citizenship within
the covenant by the Saviour-Lord,
who of his mercy delivers
out of the house of bondage into communion in the
life of the
covenant--a communion which eventuates in perfect
con-
formity of life to the law of
the covenant. To stress the
covenantal "I-thou" nature of this law is
also to reaffirm the
personal-religious character of biblical
ethics at the same time
that it recognizes that covenantal religion and its
ethic are
susceptible to communication in the form of
structured truth.
Yahweh
describes the beneficiaries of his mercy as "them that
love me and keep my commandments" (Exod. 20:6; cf.
John
14:15).
THE TWO TABLES OF THE COVENANT 145
Recognition of the completeness of each of the
tables
provides a corrective to the traditional view's
obscuration of
the covenantal-religious nature of the laws in
"the second
table". An hegemony of
religion over ethics has, indeed,
always been predicated on the basis of the priority in
order
and verbal quantity of the laws of "the first
table", analyzed
as duty or love to God, over the laws of "the
second table",
analyzed as duty or love to man. Nevertheless,
this very
division of the ten words into "two
tables" with the category
"love of God" used as a means of separating one "table"
from the other suggests that the fulfillment of the
demands
of "the second table" is to some degree,
if not wholly, in-
dependent of the principle of love for God.
Our Lord's familiar teaching concerning a
"first and great
commandment" and a "second like unto
it" (Matt. 22:37-40;
Mk.
12:29-31) has figured prominently in the speculation
about the contents of "the two tables".25
It is, however,
gratuitous to suppose that Jesus was epitomizing in
turn a
"first table" and "second table" as traditionally
conceived.26
Furthermore,
it must be seriously questioned whether Jesus'
commandment to love God's image-bearer, ourselves
and our
neighbors alike, can properly be restricted after
the dominant
fashion to the fifth through the tenth laws. The
nearest
parallel in the decalogue
to the specific language of Jesus is
found in the fourth law as formulated in Deuteronomy
(5:14):
The
sabbath is to be kept
"that thy manservant and thy
maidservant may rest as well as thou". And does
man not
best serve the eternal interests of himself and his
neighbor
when he promotes obedience to the first three
commandments?
Is
that not the ethical justification of the great commission?
But beyond all doubt Jesus' "great
commandment" must
be the heart motive of man in the whole compass of
his life.
Restricting
the principle of love of God to the sphere of
25 In the Westminster Confession
of Faith, for example, it is the only
proof text cited 'for distinguishing between the
"tables" in terms of duty
towards God and duty to man (chap. XIX, sect.
II).
26 There is no explicit
reference to the two stone tables in the context,
which is broadly concerned with the generality of
scriptural legislation.
Jesus
relates his two commandments to the totality of Old Testament
revelation (Matt. 22:40).
146
worship prejudices the comprehensiveness of
God's absolute
lordship which is the foundation of the covenant
order.
That the love of God with heart, soul, mind, and
strength
is as relevant to the tenth commandment as it is
to the first is
evident from the fact that to violate the tenth
is to worship
Mammon, and ye cannot love and serve God and
Mammon.
Or
consider the tenth word from the viewpoint of the principle
of stewardship, the corollary of the principle of
God's covenant
lordship. Property in the Israelite theocracy was
held only
in fief under the Lord who declared: "For the
land is mine;
for ye are strangers and sojourners with me"
(Lev. 25:23b).
Therefore
to covet the inheritance of one's neighbor was to
covet what was God's27 and so betray want
of love for him.
The
application of this is universal because not just
but "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world
and they that dwell therein" (Ps. 24:1).
The comprehensiveness of Jesus' "first and
great command-
ment" is evident from
the preamble and historical prologue of the covenant
document. Being introductory to the whole body of
stipulations which
follow, they are manifestly intended to inculcate the
proper motivation for
obedience not to three or four or five of the
stipulations but to them all;
and the motivation they inspire is that of love to
the divine Redeemer.
Why
are we to love our neighbors? Because we love the God who loves
them and, according to the principle articulated in
the sabbath commandment
(Exod. 20:11), the imperative to love God is also a demand
to be like him.
The two commandments of Jesus do not distinguish
two
separable areas of human life but two
complementary aspects
of human responsibility. Our Lord's perspective is
one with
that of the duplicate tables of the covenant which
comprehend
the whole duty of man within the unity of his
consecration to
his covenant Lord.
27 Considered in this light,
there is an exact equivalent to the tenth
commandment in a Hittite treaty where the suzerain
charges the vassal:
"Thou
shalt not desire any territory of the
Mendenhall,
"Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law," The Biblical Archaeol-
ogist XVII (May, 1954) 2, p.
30).
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Chestnut
Hill
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: