039. XXV. Man’s Individual Duties To God And Man
§ XXV. MAN’S INDIVIDUAL DUTIES TO GOD AND MAN Exodus 20:3-17 a God also spoke all these words:
1. THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.
2. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FOR THYSELF ANY GRAVEN IMAGE.
3. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.
4. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY.
5. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER.
6. THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
7. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
8. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
9. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
10. THOU SHALT NOT COVET.
I. Character of the Prophetic Decalogue. The laws considered in the preceding section define the obligations of the nation Israel to Jehovah. If they had stood alone in Exodus 20-34, no one would have failed to recognize in them the ten words originally promulgated by Moses. The decalogue, however, now most closely associated with Moses and the covenant at Sinai, contains the familiar ten words of Exodus 20. Its superior ethical value is incontestible. It represents “the com,” if not “ the full corn in the ear,” while the decalogue of Exodus 34 is but “the blade.” It defines religion in the terms of life and deed, as well as worship. The noble standards maintained by Amos and Isaiah are here formulated in short, forcible commands. This prophetic decalogue certainly represents one of the high water-marks of Old Testament legislation. It fully merits the commanding position at the head of the Old Testament laws and its unique place in the hearts of Jews and Christians.
II.Its Literary History. A careful examination of the context of Exodus 19-34 reveals much editorial revision. In view of the transcendent importance of Sinai and Moses in the thought of later generations, such revision was almost inevitable. In their present setting the presence of two distinct decalogues, written on tablets of stone, is explained by the story of the apostasy of the Israelites in connection with the golden calf. The evidence, however, is strong that the story of the golden calf is one of the later additions to Exodus, and that it was not found in the early Judean history. The earlier prophets, and even Elijah and Elisha, make no protest against the calves or bulls, overlaid with gold, which Jeroboam I set up in the national sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan (cf. § LXI). The obvious protest, which the story of the golden calf contains, clearly comes from the more enlightened age, when prophets like Amos and Hosea had begun to look askance at the practices which flourished at the popular shrines. A later compiler has found or made a place for the ancient decalogue of Exodus 34 in the light of the statement that Moses, at the sight of the golden calf, destroyed the first two tablets. The compiler fails, however, to explain why the two versions differ so widely in theme and content. When the late material has been removed, the original decalogue in Exodus 34 appears as the immediate sequel of the Judean account of the revelation at Sinai. Similarly the sequel of the Northern Israelite version of the revelation is not the decalogue in the first part of Exodus 20, but the closing verses of that chapter and the laws which follow. It would seem, therefore, that a later compiler made the words, “Moses spoke and God answered him” (at the close of chapter 19), the occasion for introducing the nobler ethical decalogue of Exodus 20.
III.The Parallel Version in Deuteronomy 5. This decalogue is found again in a very different setting in Deuteronomy 5. It is attributed to Moses, but the occasion is not the establishment of the covenant at Sinai but his farewell address on the plains of Moab. In the sabbath command the older term observe is used in the Deuteronomic version rather than remember, suggesting that the Deuteronomic version is the older of the two. Otherwise the original ten brief words in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are identical. Each version has, however, been supplemented by many explanatory and hortatory notes. Those in Deuteronomy 5 agree in part and differ in part from those in Exodus 20, showing that each version has passed through different hands. Thus, for example, to the exhortation in Exodus 20 to “honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long,” the version in Deuteronomy adds, “and that it may go well with thee.”
IV.The Real Character of the Decalogue in Exodus 20. As has been already noted, the decalogue in Exodus 34 defines the religious and ceremonial obligations of the nation to Jehovah. The ten words in Exodus 20 (Deuteronomy 5) define the obligations of the individual to God, to his parents and to other members of society. The two are not antithetic but rather supplement each other. While the decalogue of Exodus 34 was in all probability the basis of the original covenant at Sinai, the ten words of Exodus 20 may also represent the personal obligations which Moses impressed upon each individual Israelite.
V.Date and Authorship of the Decalogue in Exodus 20. The date and authorship of the noblest of the decalogues can never be definitely determined. Because of its high ethical standards and its close relationship with the teachings of the later prophets, it has been assigned by many modern scholars to the eighth or seventh century B.C. The law against making graven images embodies a principle first clearly proclaimed in the seventh century before Christ. These wooden images apparently survived in the homes of the Hebrews long after the public idols were tom down. They correspond to the sacred pictures and images of the Virgin and saints that are still tolerated by certain Christian churches. Even such a spiritual prophet as Hosea continued in the eighth century to regard them as legitimate (Hosea 3:4). In its earliest form the second command, like the first, may have been a duplicate of the corresponding law in the older decalogue, and have read molten instead of graven image. The command not to covet reveals a highly developed moral sense; but otherwise there is no law in this decalogue, which might not in its extant form have come from Moses. Most of the principles which underlie it were already in force in the days of Hammurabi, although the great prophets of Israel were the first to make them the basis of religion. Although the settings of the different versions of this prophetic decalogue are late, the prominence which is given to it indicates that it is much older than its present literary settings. In the light of all these facts there is a strong probability that the traditions, which trace its origin back to Moses, are substantially historical; at least, it is more than probable that, as the judge and prophet of the Israelite tribes in the wilderness, he laid down and enforced the principles which are incorporated in these ten words.
VI.Meaning of the Different Commands. The laws fall into two groups. The first pentad defines the duties of the individual to his divine and human parents. The meaning of most of the commands is clear. Originally the first may have simply demanded that Jehovah be given the first place in the faith and worship of Israel. Later prophets, like Elijah, and Isaiah, interpreted it as excluding all other cults. The second command was made very explicit by later commentators. All attempts to represent the Deity by any image or likeness, or the worship of these sacred objects was absolutely forbidden. The strongest possible warnings and promises guard the observance of the law. In the third command the Hebrew idiom, “Thou shalt not take the name,” means, “thou shalt not invoke the name of Jehovah thy God in vain.” The meaning of the command turns on the expression “in vain.” The Hebrew term thus translated means, (1) purposelessly and therefore flippantly and irreverently; (2) for destruction, as, for example, in cursing another; (3) for nothing, that is in swearing to what is false, and (4) in connection with any form of sorcery or witchcraft. It is possible that the command was intended to include all these different ways in which the sacred name and reputation of Jehovah might be desecrated by his people. The later Hebrew law of Leviticus 24:16 made death the penalty for blaspheming the name of Jehovah.
VII.The Law of the Sabbath. The fourth command, like the fifth, emphasizes the obligation to observe the sabbath as a day holy to Jehovah. In this law the earliest significance of the institution is emphasized and its social and humane significance is only implied. The prophetic commentators, however, have brought out this later and nobler meaning very clearly. It is the day of rest for all who toil, whether master or slave or guest or wearied ox. A still later commentator has quoted, as an added reason for observing it, the late priestly account of Jehovah’s resting after he had completed the work of creation (Genesis 2:2-3). In the parallel version in Deuteronomy, however, the reason urged rests upon the noblest ethical basis; it is the responsibility of the employer to the employed. The motive is the debt of gratitude which the Israelites owe to Jehovah who delivered them, a race of slaves, from the bondage of Egypt.
VIII.The Obligation to Parents. In their oldest form the first four commands define those personal obligations to Jehovah which are to be expressed in personal loyalty, in the worship, in speech, and in the institution of the sabbath. The fifth command enjoins respect and loyalty to parents. It recognizes the fact that obedience to human parents was necessary to the development of the proper reverence and obedience to the Divine Parent. The primitive Hebrew laws (Exodus 21:15-17) punished by death the child who struck or cursed his father or his mother. The very old Sumerian law of Babylon made slavery the punishment for the son who repudiated his father. The fifth command provides no penalty, however, but appeals simply to the moral sense. The prophetic commentators add the promise of long life and prosperity to him who obeys.
IX.Obligations to Others. The second pentad deals with the relations of the individual to other members of society. All primitive peoples punished the crime of murder; but in dealing with lesser crimes most nations were more rigorous than the Hebrews, who ever had a high regard for the sanctity of human life (cf. St. O.T., IV. § 83). Adultery, with its baneful consequences, was also made a capital offence (cf. St. O.T., IV. §§ 70, 71). Not without reason, most primitive Semitic peoples punished this and kindred crimes against society even more severely than they did murder. The penalties for theft were double or fourfold restitution (cf.Deuteronomy 22:1-4 St. O.T., IV. § 90). The last command rises from the plane of action to the impelling motive. Even as did Jesus, it traces the crime back to the thought in the mind of man. To make the law definite later prophets have added a list of those things which the ordinary man was most in danger of coveting. In its simpler and original form the command is even more comprehensive and impressive.