The Puritan John Owen. What did he really believe regarding the Decalogue?

The Puritans are to be admired, although sometimes the admiration they are afforded crosses that unholy threshold into idolatry. ¹ We should always remember they had the same clay feet and tendency toward hypocrisy that all fallen creatures possess. They are esteemed for escaping persecution at great cost, only to themselves become persecutors of Baptists and Quakers.

The Puritans are often upheld as those who thought the Ten Commandments were binding. The actual answer, at least for some of them, was “yes and no.”

The Ten Commandments are in some sense binding, but not because they were written on tablets of stone and given by Moses, and not as Moses understood them, or at least all of them. They are binding because their equivalence, or near equivalence, was given by Christ.

Think of it this way. Suppose you are an immigrant to America from Pakistan. When in Pakistan it was a crime to murder, to criticize Islam, or to commit adultery. In America it is against the law to commit murder. You are free to (as far as the civil law goes) to commit adultery or criticize Islam.

When you arrived in America, it wasn’t the case that “you were under three types of laws before, but now two have them have been abrogated but the third is still in effect.” No, it is rather the case that none of the laws of your old administration (Pakistan) apply, and all (and only) the laws of your new administration (America) apply. There just happens to be some overlap. The fact that murder is illegal in America is not because that portion of Pakistani law is still binding.

The same is true for us. There are not four types of laws for the old covenant (civil, ceremonial, dietary, and moral) and three are done away in the new covenant but one type survives. Scripture teaches no such thing. Rather all the laws given by Moses, laws for the old covenant, are gone. Instead we have the better revelation of the law as given by Jesus, the laws of a new covenant, laws that have considerable overlap (and some differences) with the laws given by Moses.

We are told this explicitly, essentially warned that as great as Moses was he was only a man and his authority as a lawgiver, as a foreshadowing of Christ the perfect lawgiver, had a shelf-life. Moses himself tells us (Duet. 18:15) that a future prophet is coming, and he (not Moses) should be given heed. That this refers to Christ is beyond question, because Moses’ declaration is quoted by Peter in the New Testament:

Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. (Acts 3:22)

So Moses prophetically tells us to listen not to him but to Jesus. Peter affirms it. And not just Peter, but God himself at the transfiguration tells us:

³ And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. ⁴ And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” ⁵ He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son,with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Matt: 17:3-5)

So it is on Christ’s authority and Christ’s words (in the Sermon on the Mount) that we have a prohibition not to murder, not on Moses’ authority and lost tablets of stone.

The famous Puritan John Owen understood this. He has an extensive (to say the least) commentary on Hebrews. When discussing Heb 7:12-19, which begins with this critical passage:

¹² For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Heb 7:12)

 Owen writes, concerning verse 12:

[The writer of Hebrews] proves that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, because, after its institution, there was a promise of the introduction of another wherewith it was inconsistent. And herein observing the strict conjunction that was between the priesthood and the law, with their mutual dependence on one another, he proves from thence that the law itself was also to be abolished. (Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, kindle location 44099.)

Owen also wrote concerning the totality of the Mosaic law:

If anything be taken out of it [the law], if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the who fabric must of necessity fall unto the ground. (Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, kindle location 44185)

Owen is telling us that you cannot cherry-pick which of Moses’ laws you keep and which you throw away. It’s all or nothing.

Consider this passage, a few verses later:

¹⁸ For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness ¹⁹ (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. (Heb 7:18-19)

About this Owen is even more explicit, writing:

Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “this command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as under our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered. (Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, kindle location 44905.)

Still commenting on v. 18, Owen writes:

I have proved before that “the commandment” in [v. 18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next [v. 19]. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel. (Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, kindle location 45063.)

It is clear that the Puritan John Owen did not think the law of Moses, including the Decalogue, was binding. He believed that the Law of Christ was binding, and with regards to moral law it contained the moral law of Moses as a subset, or something close to a subset.

Beware of those who elevate the esteem-worthy puritans beyond their due. The tend not to hesitate in distorting what the Puritans taught to align their heroes with their own theology.

---

¹ In my experience the more dogmatic someone is, rather it be hard core Reformed, Catholic, Dispensational, or Arminian, the more likely one is to take self-serving liberties with history and to place one’s heroes on a pedestal that is too tall by far.