THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
A Public Response to Brian Schwertley
by Greg Loren Durand

Supporting Document:
Historical Commentary on the Second Giving of the Law

       In my 24 September 2007 email to Brian Schwertley, I wrote:

       Following the death of Joseph, the Israelites were enslaved for four hundred years in Egypt. During that time, they abandoned the faith of Abraham and substituted the worship of the Egyptian sun-god for that of the true God. By the time God raised up Moses as their deliverer, the Israelites were thoroughly pagan. At the exodus, God directed them to Horeb, where He entered into covenant with them, reaffirming and expanding the covenant previously made with Abraham. This was a blood covenant, sealed by a ceremonial sprinkling of the people (a clear symbol of Christ’s death in behalf of His elect), and it included the “first edition” of the Decalogue, written on stone tablets by the finger of God Himself. During Moses’ lengthy absence on the mountain-top, the Israelites grew impatient and quickly reverted back to their former worship of the sun-god (symbolized by Apis, the golden calf), to which defection Moses responded by smashing the stone tablets to pieces. I have come to the conclusion that this action was a public declaration that that specific covenant had been abolished as far as they were concerned, and the fact that Moses was required to go back up the mountain to receive a new set of commandments (this time dictated to Moses rather than being written with the finger of God Himself) lends support to my claim that the covenant thereafter made with Israel was substantially different from the initial one. The second covenant was also not ratified by the sprinkling of blood, as had been the first. Whereas the first covenant had been a continuation of the Abraham Covenant, the second was nothing more or less than the placing of the Israelites under the heavy yoke of a localized codification of the Covenant of Works, consisting of 613 statutes which regulated even the most mundane aspect of life, an intricate sacrificial system, an establishmentarian joining of the religious element to the civil, and, most importantly, clearly enumerated positive and negative sanctions for obedience and disobedience. This is the covenant which dominates the rest of the Old Testament and is the basis of all of God’s lawsuits against Israel through His prophets. This is the covenant which the unbelieving Jews, particularly the Pharisees, later came to believe would lead them to favor with God. This is the covenant referred to as a “parenthesis” between the Abrahamic Covenant and its fulfillment in Christ (Galatians 3:15-18). Even though it demanded perfect and perpetual obedience, and pronounced death and damnation for even the slightest infraction of its precepts, the Mosaic Law was nevertheless a gracious gift of God to His people because through it the elect within the nation would be driven to despair of their own righteousness and thus to faith in the promised Redeemer as He was foreshadowed in the ceremonies (Galatians 3:24). Other than testifying to the absolute holiness of God, this was the purpose of the Mosaic Law — it was never intended to be a “model” for the rest of the world. In fact, the Gentile nations were left by God under the broader, and unwritten, Adamic Covenant of Works and deprived of any true knowledge of a Redeemer (Ephesians 2:12).

       This was an expansion of a passage which appeared in my book, Judicial Warfare:

       Paul wrote that the law “was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (verse 19), which was apparently a reference to Israel’s making and worshipping of the golden calf during Moses’ first sojourn on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 9:12). The first covenant which God had made with the children of Israel bound them to observe the moral law written on the stone tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22). God’s promise to them was as follows: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). However, when the Israelites rebelled and broke this covenant, God placed them under a second covenant containing far greater restrictions and obligations — 613 in all (Deuteronomy 12-27). It was this second covenant that was temporary and served to “shut up” the Hebrew people until the object of the promise — Christ — should be revealed [page 33].

       I arrived at this conclusion when I wrote the book five years ago after reading the writings of Irenaeaus and then by studying the biblical account itself, comparing it with statements made in the Prophets and in the New Testament. With the exception of Brian Schwertley, not one of the several Reformed pastors and elders who have read my book has ever voiced an objection to what I had written. It should be noted, however, that this point is incidental to my entire thesis that the Mosaic covenant was a restatement of the covenant of works, especially designed to “shut up” the nation of Israel “unto the faith” until the coming of the Messiah. That the Mosaic covenant was indeed such a covenant of works is a view held by many within mainstream Covenant theology, so whether or not I am mistaken on this one particular point does not change the fact that my overall thesis has strong historical, not to mention biblical, support.
       On 30 September 2007, Schwertley said, “Greg Loren Durand says that the second giving of the law after the Ten Commandments were broken the first time, he actually teaches that it was a punishment. God punished Israel by giving them these laws, which is absolute nonsense. There’s nobody who agrees with that” [“Reformed View of the Judicial Law,” Part Six, 22:52]. On 7 October 2007, he further stated:

       ...[T]here’s the modified, completely unique, Dispensationalism of Greg Loren Durand who says that when Israel (and he’s the only person I know who believes this. Maybe he got this from Seventh-Day Adventists. I don’t know where he got it from. Maybe he just made it up) — but he says that when Israel rejected the original giving of the Ten Commandments, when Moses broke the tablets, the restating of the law after this was a putting the Israelites under a covenant of works. In other words, the judicial law was not a great blessing as we are told in Deuteronomy 4:6-8, but was a judgment placed upon the nation for their rebellion....
       [quote from my email omitted] That’s a completely unique position. I’ve never seen that anywhere, in any writings. In fact, I challenged him by email to show me five Reformed doctors who agreed with him and he of course didn’t respond.... Apparently Greg Durand simply made this up or got this view from a heretical source, for there are no Reformed commentators or theologians who have this view. None [ibid., Part Seven, 5:52].

       First of all, I never wrote or implied that “Israel rejected the original giving of the Ten Commandments.” That is Schwertley’s own interpolation and it is contrary to what I actually wrote in my 24 September 2007 email: “During Moses’ lengthy absence on the mountain-top, the Israelites grew impatient and quickly reverted back to their former worship of the sun-god (symbolized by Apis, the golden calf), to which defection Moses responded by smashing the stone tablets to pieces.” In other words, the “defection” was their idolatry and not any supposed “rejection of the original giving of the Ten Commandments.”
       Secondly, I never wrote that the “judicial law was not a great blessing... but was a judgment upon the nation for their rebellion,” or that “it was a punishment.” In the remainder of the paragraph from which Schwertley quoted, I wrote, “Even though it demanded perfect and perpetual obedience, and pronounced death and damnation for even the slightest infraction of its precepts, the Mosaic Law was nevertheless a gracious gift of God to His people because through it the elect within the nation would be driven to despair of their own righteousness and thus to faith in the promised Redeemer as He was foreshadowed in the ceremonies (Galatians 3:24).” His selective quoting of my words in this regard cannot be seen as anything other than deceptive.
       Thirdly, Schwertley draws an unwarranted conclusion from my not responding to his email. I did not respond to him for two reasons: (1) He was being confronted regarding his sin of publicly bearing false witness, and therefore he had no biblical right to lay any such conditions or demands upon the one calling him to repentance, and (2) I am the father of seven homeschooled children and the owner of several home businesses, and I cannot drop all my responsibilities to immediately comply with a demand that never should have been made in the first place.
       Schwertley admitted that he “had never heard” this position before, and that he did not know the source from which it was derived, and yet he nevertheless concluded that the position was “heretical.” A heretical doctrine, biblically and historically speaking, is that which denies an essential tenet of the Christian faith. Even if my position could be exegetically proven to be in error, it does not deny or even undermine a single essential doctrine of Christianity. Schwertley’s comment was clearly exaggerated and intended for the sole purpose of prejudicing his audience against my book. Finally, if Schwertley had a broader knowledge of the many nuances of historic Covenant theology, he would have known that other Reformed commentators in the past have made similar, if not identical, observations as myself on this particular point. Schwertley demanded that I produce five of such commentators, but according to the biblical principle of Matthew 18:16 and 2 Corinthians 13:1, I am only required to produce two or three witnesses.

       Reformed Witness #1: Johannes Cocceius, Seventeenth-Century Dutch Covenant theologian:

       Cocceius represented the whole history of the Old Testament as a mirror, which held forth an accurate view of the transactions and events that were to happen in the church under the dispensation of the New Testament, and unto the end of the world. He maintained that by far the greatest part of the ancient prophecies foretold Christ’s ministry and mediation....
       Cocceius also taught, that the covenant made between God and the Jewish nation, by the ministry of Moses, was of the same nature as the new covenant, obtained by the mediation of Jesus Christ. In consequence of this general principle, he maintained that the ten commandments were promulgated by Moses, not as a rule of obedience, but as a representation of the covenant of grace — that when the Jews had provoked the Deity by their various transgressions, particularly by the worship of the golden calf, the severe and servile yoke of the ceremonial law was added to the decalogue, as a punishment inflicted on them by the Supreme Being in his righteous displeasure — that this yoke, which was painful in itself, became doubly so on account of its typical signification; since it admonished the Israelites from day to day of the imperfection and uncertainty of their state, filled them with anxiety, and was a perpetual proof that they had merited the righteousness displeasure of God, and could not expect before the coming of the Messiah the entire remission of their iniquities — that indeed good men, even under the Mosaic dispensation, were immediately after death made partakers of everlasting glory; but that they were nevertheless, during the whole course of their lives, far removed from that firm hope and assurance of salvation, which rejoices the faithful under the dispensation of the Gospel — and that their anxiety flowed naturally from this consideration, that their sins, though they remained unpunished, were not pardoned; because Christ had not as yet offered himself up a sacrifice to the Father, to make an entire atonement for them [Rev. Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary (Philadelphia: Joseph J. Woodward, 1829), page 101].

       All the works of Cocceius that I have been able to locate were written in Latin, so I have supplied the above summary of his teachings from Buck’s Dictionary. I do not agree that the covenant of works that was added was merely the “ceremonial law,” as did Cocceius, but it can be seen that he held to the position that the second giving of the law was a punishment inflicted on the Israelites for their worship of the golden calf, which position Schwertley falsely attributed to me and thereafter used to determine my view to be “heretical.”

       Reformed Witness #2: Thomas Boston, Puritan Covenant theologian:

       The law from Mount Sinai was a covenant, Gal. iv. 24, “These are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai;” and such a covenant as had a semblance of disannulling the covenant of grace, Gal. iii. 17, “The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul it” yea, such a one as did, in its own nature, bear a method of obtaining the inheritance, so far different from that of the promise, that it was inconsistent with it; “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise,” Gal. iii. 18, wherefore the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai could not be the covenant of grace, unless one will make this last not only a covenant seeming to destroy itself, but really inconsistent: but it was the covenant of works, which indeed had such a semblance, and in its own nature did bear such a method as before noted; howbeit, as Ainsworth says, “The covenant of the law now given could not disannul the covenant of grace,” Gal. iii. 17, Annot. on Exod. xix. 1.
       Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, The covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the ten commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and sanction thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed; and yet were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour’s saying to him, Matt. xix. 17,18, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — Thou shall do no murder,” &e. The latter was a repetition of the former.
       Thus there is no confounding of the two covenants of grace and works; but the latter was added to the former as subservient unto it, to turn their eyes towards the promise, or covenant of grace: “God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? it was added, because of transgressions, till the Seed should come,” Gal. iii. 18, 19. So it was unto the promise given to Abraham, that this subservient covenant was added; and that promise we have found in the preface to the ten commands. To it, then, was the subservient covenant, according to the apostle, added, put, or set to, as the word properly signifies. So it was no part of the covenant of grace, the which was entire to the fathers, before the time that it was set to it; and yet is, to the New Testament church, after that it is taken away from it: for, says the apostle, “It was added till the seed should come.” Hence it appears that the covenant of grace was, both in itself, and in God’s intention, the principal part of the Sinai transaction: nevertheless, the covenant of works was the most conspicuous part of it, and lay most open to the view of the people.
       According to this account of the Sinai transaction; the ten commands, there delivered, must come under a twofold notion or consideration; namely, as the law of Christ, and as the law of works: and this is not strange, if it is considered, that they were twice written on tables of stone, by the Lord himself,­the first tables the work of God, Exod. xxxii. 16, which were broken in pieces, ver. 19, called the tables of the covenant, Deut. ix. 11, 15,­the second tables the work of Moses, the typical Mediator, Exod. xxxiv. 1, deposited at first (it would seem) in the tabernacle, mentioned chap, xxxiii. 7, afterward, at the rearing of the tabernacle with all its furniture, laid up in the ark within the tabernacle, chap. xxv. 16; and whether or not some such thing is intimated, by the double accentuation of the decalogue, let the learned determine; but to the ocular inspection it is evident, that the preface to the ten commands, Exod. xx. 2; and Deut. v. 6; stands in the original, both as a part of a sentence joined to the first commands and also as an entire sentence separated from it, and shut up by itself.
       I do not say, God made the covenant of works with them, that they might obtain life and salvation thereby; no, the law was become weak through the flesh, as to any such purpose, Rom. viii. 3. But he repeated, or gave a new edition of the law, and that as a covenant of works, for their humbling and conviction; and so do his ministers preach the law to unconverted sinners still, that they who ‘desire to be under the law may hear what Hie law says,’ Gal. iv. 21 [Thomas Boston, notes in Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1837), pages 36-37].

       Boston does not expressly distinguish between the first stone tables which were broken by Moses and the second which were placed within the ark, but the idea that two covenants were delivered on Mount Sinai — the first, a restatement of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, and the second, a restatement of the Adamic covenant of works — is still there. Again, it is the latter proposition that Schwertley sees as “heretical,” and yet here is a Puritan of impeccable credentials teaching precisely that doctrine.

       Reformed Witness #3: John Brown of Edinburgh, Scottish Covenanter and Covenant theologian:

       “The transgressions,” on account of which the law was added, refer, I apprehend, to the criminal conduct of the Israelites, which rendered the introduction of such a system as the law necessary in order to the attainment of the great object of the covenant about Christ, and justification by faith through him. This arrangement was first made known in the first promise, but from the prevalence of human depravity, it seems to have been in the course of ages almost entirely forgotten. “All flesh corrupted its way on the earth.” The deluge swept away the whole inhabitants of the ancient world, with the exception of one family, among whom the true religion was preserved. In the course of no very long period, the great body of their descendants, the inhabitants of the new world, became idolaters. To prevent the utter extinction from among mankind of the knowledge of God and the way of obtaining his favor, Abraham was called, and a plainer revelation made to him of the Divine purposes of mercy, and his descendants by Isaac and Jacob chosen as the depositories of this revelation, till He should come to whom the revelation chiefly referred. In consequence of the descendants of Jacob coming down into Egypt, they gradually contracted a fondness for Egyptian superstitions, and were fast relapsing into a state of idolatry, which must soon have terminated in their being lost among the nations, and the revelation with which they were entrusted being first corrupted and them forgotten, when God raised up Moses as their deliverer, brought them out of Egypt, and placed them under that very peculiar order of things, which we commonly term the Mosaic law — an order of things admirably adapted to preserve them a distinct and peculiar people — and by doing so, to preserve the revelation of mercy through the Messiah, of which they were the depositories, and to prepare abundant and satisfactory stores of evidence and illustration when the great Deliverer appeared — evidence that he was indeed the person to whom the hopes of mankind had from the beginning been directed, and illustration rendering in some measure level to human apprehension what otherwise would have been unintelligible.
       Every person acquainted with the principles of depraved human nature, and with the history of the Jews at and subsequent to their deliverances from Egypt, will see that their “transgressions” rendered some such arrangement as the Mosaic law absolutely necessary, on the supposition that the Messiah was not to appear for a course of ages, and that the revelation of salvation through him was to be preserved in the world by means of the Jewish people. We are not so much, if at all, to consider the Mosaic law as a punishment for the transgressions of the descendants of Abraham. We are rather to consider it as the means which their transgressions rendered necessary in order to secure the object of their being chosen to be God’s peculiar people. To be preserved from being involved in the ignorance, and idolatry, and vice in which the surrounding nations were sunk, was a blessing, at whatever expense it might be gained. At the same time, had it not been for the transgressions of the Israelites, the more spiritual and less burdensome order of things under which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob were placed, might have been continued, and the law as a distinct order of things never have existed because never needed [John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), pages 148ff].

       Once again, the idea that the “bondage of the law” was laid upon the Israelites in response to their rebellion at Horeb is clearly being taught here. Out of the above three Reformed witnesses, Brown’s position comes the closest to what I was trying convey in my book and my email to Schwertley.
       One may also refer to Christian sources that pre-date the Reformation by many centuries for further historical support for this idea of “deuterosis,” or “second legislation” being imposed upon the Israelites. Below is a lengthy quote from an ancient document entitled Didascalia Apostolorum, which dates from the Third Century. Chapter 26, entitled “On the Bonds of the Second Legislation,” states:

       The Law then consists of the Ten Words and the Judgements, which God spoke before that the People made the calf and served idols. For also that it is called the Law, (is) truly on account of the Judgments. This is the simple and light Law, wherein is no burden, nor distinction of meats, nor incensings, nor offerings of sacrifices and burnt offerings. In this Law accordingly He shows concerning the dispensation of the Church and concerning the uncircumcision of the flesh only. For He spoke concerning sacrifices thus: If thou shalt make me an altar, make it of earth: but if of stones, thou shalt make it of whole and unwrought, and not of wrought stones. Forasmuch as thou hast laid an iron (tool) upon it, thou hast also polluted it [Ex 20.24-25; Dt 27.5-6]: not (as speaking) concerning (the axe, but concerning) the iron of the knife which is the physician’s knife, with which he circumcises the foreskin. Wherefore He does not say, ‘Make for me’ but, If thou shalt make an altar. He did not impose this as a necessity, but showed what was about to be. For God had no need of sacrifices; as neither of old was it commanded Cain and Abel, but they of their own accord presented offerings: and their offering achieved a brother’s murder. And Noah likewise offered, and was blamed. Wherefore He signified here: ‘If thou desire to sacrifice, whereas I need it not thou sacrificest unto me.’ So then the Law is easy and light, of no weak voice.
       But when the People denied God, who by Moses visited them in their afflictions, who wrought signs by his hand and through his rod, who smote the Egyptians with the ten plagues and divided the Red Sea in two, who led them in the midst of the sea on dry land as in the desert, who drowned their enemies and them that hated them, who with wood made sweet the fountain of the bitter waters of Marah, who made water to flow for them in abundance from the rock that they might be satisfied, who with a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire overshadowed and guided them, who brought them down manna from heaven, and gave them flesh from the sea, who ordained the Law for them in the mount: Him they denied and said: We have no God to go before us; and they made them a molten calf and worshipped it [Ex 32.1, 8] and sacrificed to a graven image. Therefore the Lord was angry; and in His hot anger — (yet) with the mercy of His goodness — He bound them with the Second Legislation, and laid heavy burdens upon them, and a hard yoke upon their neck. And He says now no longer: If thou shalt make [cf. Ex 20.24-25; Dt 27.5-6], as formerly; but He said: ‘Make an altar, and sacrifice continually’ as though He had need of these things. Wherefore He laid upon them continual burnt offerings with a necessity, and caused them to abstain from meats by means of distinctions of meats. For from that time were animals discerned, and clean and unclean flesh; from that time were separations, and purifications, and baptisms, and sprinklings; from that time were sacrifices, and offerings, and tables; from that time were burnt offerings, and oblations, and shewbread, and the offering up of sacrifices, and firstlings, and redemptions, and he-goats for sin, and vows, and many other things marvellous. For because of manifold sins there were laid upon them customs unspeakable; but by none of them did they abide, but they again provoked the Lord. Wherefore He yet added to them by the Second Legislation a blindness worthy of their works, and spoke thus: If there be found in a man sins worthy of death, and he die, and ye hang him upon a tree; his body shall not remain the night upon the tree, but ye shall surely bury him the same day: for cursed is every one that is hanged upon a tree [Dt 21.22-23; cf. Gal 3.13]; that when Christ should come they might not be able to help Him, but might suppose that He was guilty of a curse. For their blinding therefore was this spoken, as Isaiah said: Behold, I show my righteousness, and thine evils: and they shall not help thee at all [Isa 57.12]. For the Lord [[224]] judged them with a just judgement, and dealt thus with them because of their wickedness, and hardened their heart [cf. Jn 12.40; Ex 4.21, etc.] like Pharaoh’s; as the Lord said to them by Isaiah: Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not know. For the heart of this people is waxed gross; and their eyes they have shut, and their ears they have stopped, that they may not be converted: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears [Isa 6.9-10; Acts 28.26-27]. And in the Gospel again He said: This people’s heart is waxed gross; and their eyes they have shut, and their ears they have stopped, lest at any time they should be converted. But blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that hear [Mt 13.15-16]. For you have been released from the bonds, and relieved of the Second Legislation, and set free from bitter slavery, and the curse has been taken off and put away from you.
       For the Second Legislation was imposed for the making of the calf and for idolatry. But you through baptism have been set free from idolatry, and from the Second Legislation, which was (imposed) on account of idols, you have been released. For in the Gospel He renewed and fulfilled and affirmed the Law; but the Second Legislation He did away and abolished. For indeed it was to this end that He came, that He might affirm the Law, and abolish the Second Legislation, and fulfil the power of men’s liberty, and show forth the resurrection of the dead. For even before His coming He foretold His coming through the prophets, and together with His coming He signified also the disobedience of the People, and preached the undoing of the Second Legislation; as He said by Jeremiah: Why bring ye me frankincense from Sheba, and cinnamon from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable unto me, and your sacrifices delight me not [Jer 6.20], And again He said: Bring together your burnt offerings with your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I gave you no command, when I brought you out from the land of Egypt, neither concerning burnt offerings nor concerning sacrifices [Jer 7.21-22]. Yea, verily, in the Law He gave no command, but in the bonds of the Second Legislation, after that they had served idols. And again by Isaiah also He said: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord, I am sated with burnt offerings of rams; and the fat of lambs and the blood of oxen I desire not. And when ye come to see my face, who hath required these things at your hands? Trample my courts no more. If ye will bring me fine flour, it is a vain oblation; and your new moons and your sabbaths and solemn days are rejected of me: your fasts and your restings are not acceptable unto me, and your festivals my soul hateth [Isa 1.11-14]. And in all the Scriptures He speaks thus; and through the sacrifices He abolishes the Second Legislation; for, as we have already said, it is in the Second Legislation that sacrifices are prescribed. If, then, even before His coming He made known and revealed His coming, and the disobedience of the People, and spoke of the abolition of the Second Legislation, much more, being come, did He fully and completely abolish the Second Legislation. For He did not use sprinklings, or baptisms, or other wonted rites; nor did He offer sacrifices or burnt offerings, or any thing that it is written in the Second Legislation to offer. And what else did He (hereby) signify but the abolition of the Second Legislation? as also He loosed you and called you from the bonds, and said: Come unto me, all ye that toil and are laden with heavy burdens; and I will give you rest [Mt 11.28]. Now we know that our Saviour did not say (this) to the Gentiles, but He said it to us His disciples from among the Jews, and brought us out from burdens and a heavy load.

       The rest of this chapter may easily be found and read online, so I will not include it here. It will be noticed that here is found precisely the same teaching that is later found in the writings of Johannes Cocceius: that the heavy ceremonial yoke of the “second legislation” was laid upon Israel as a direct punishment for their worship of the golden calf, and that it is this covenant which dominates the rest of the Old Testament record and which was later mixed with the Gospel by the Judaizers of the First Century. This same teaching is also found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew, Chapters XVIII ff. and Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 15. Eusebius, in The Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 6, also saw the second giving of the law as a direct response to the worship of the golden calf, but rather than it being punitive in nature, he saw in it a positive measure meant to raise the Israelites up from idolatry and fence them in to the worship of the true God. All of these early Christian writers were agreed that the Mosaic law was temporary and was therefore abolished by the New Covenant, returning God’s people to the pre-Sinaitic moral (natural) law, which is my own position.
       I have now provided seven witnesses — three Reformed commentators, one ancient Church document, and three early Christian writers — to support my contention that the second giving of the law on Mount Sinai was imposed upon Israel as a covenant of works, not so much as a punishment for their idolatry, but as a necessary measure to prevent their total apostasy. Schwertley is free to disagree with this interpretation of Scripture, but he is not free to use his disagreement as a platform to further slander me and bring disrepute upon my good name.