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).
:
Chestnut
Hill
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium