Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 20:1

And God spoke all these words, saying,

1. The Ten Words: Deu 4:13; Deu 10:4; and probably (see the note Exo 34:28.

The Greek equivalent, ‘Decalogue’ ( ), is used first be Clem. Al. [ Paedag. iii. 89 al.).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

1. And God spake, &c.] the sequel in E to Exo 19:19.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The Hebrew name which is rendered in our King James Version as the ten commandments occurs in Exo 34:28; Deu 4:13; Deu 10:4. It literally means the Ten Words. The Ten Commandments are also called the law, even the commandment Exo 24:12, the words of the covenant Exo 34:28, the tables of the covenant Deu 9:9, the covenant Deu 4:13, the two tables Deu 9:10, Deu 9:17, and, most frequently, the testimony (e. g. Exo 16:34; Exo 25:16), or the two tables of the testimony (e. g. Exo 31:18). In the New Testament they are called simply the commandments (e. g. Mat 19:17). The name decalogue is found first in Clement of Alexandria, and was commonly used by the Fathers who followed him.

Thus we know that the tables were two, and that the commandments were ten, in number. But the Scriptures do not, by any direct statements, enable us to determine with precision how the Ten Commandments are severally to be made out, nor how they are to be allotted to the Two tables. On each of these points various opinions have been held (see Exo 20:12).

Of the Words of Yahweh engraven on the tables of Stone, we have two distinct statements, one in Exodus Exo. 20:1-17 and one in Deuteronomy Deu 5:7-21, apparently of equal authority, but differing principally from each other in the fourth, the fifth, and the tenth commandments.

It has been supposed that the original commandments were all in the same terse and simple form of expression as appears (both in Exodus and Deuteronomy) in the first, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, such as would be most suitable for recollection, and that the passages in each copy in which the most important variations are found were comments added when the books were written.

The account of the delivery of them in Exo. 19 and in Exo 20:18-21 is in accordance with their importance as the recognized basis of the covenant between Yahweh and His ancient people (Exo 34:27-28; Deu 4:13; 1Ki 8:21, etc.), and as the divine testimony against the sinful tendencies in man for all ages. While it is here said that God spake all these words, and in Deu 5:4, that He talked face to face, in the New Testament the giving of the law is spoken of as having been through the ministration of Angels Act 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2. We can reconcile these contrasts of language by keeping in mind that God is a Spirit, and that He is essentially present in the agents who are performing His will.

Exo 20:2

Which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage – It has been asked: Why, on this occasion, was not the Lord rather proclaimed as the Creator of Heaven and Earth? The answer is, Because the Ten Commandments were at this time addressed by Yahweh not merely to human creatures, but to the people whom He had redeemed, to those who had been in bondage, but were now free men Exo 6:6-7; Exo 19:5. The commandments are expressed in absolute terms. They are not sanctioned by outward penalties, as if for slaves, but are addressed at once to the conscience, as for free men. The well-being of the nation called for the infliction of penalties, and therefore statutes were passed to punish offenders who blasphemed the name of Yahweh, who profaned the Sabbath, or who committed murder or adultery. (See Lev 18:24-30 note.) But these penal statutes were not to be the ground of obedience for the true Israelite according to the covenant. He was to know Yahweh as his Redeemer, and was to obey him as such (Compare Rom 13:5).

Exo 20:3

Before me – Literally, before my face. The meaning is that no god should be worshipped in addition to Yahweh. Compare Exo 20:23. The polytheism which was the besetting sin of the Israelites did not in later times exclude Yahweh, but associated Him with false deities. (Compare the original of 1Sa 2:25.)

Exo 20:4

Graven image – Any sort of image is here intended.

As the first commandment forbids the worship of any false god, seen or unseen, it is here forbidden to worship an image of any sort, whether the figure of a false deity Jos 23:7 or one in any way symbolic of Yahweh (see Exo 32:4). The spiritual acts of worship were symbolized in the furniture and ritual of the tabernacle and the altar, and for this end the forms of living things might be employed as in the case of the Cherubim (see Exo 25:18 note): but the presence of the invisible God was to be marked by no symbol of Himself, but by His words written on stones, preserved in the ark in the holy of holies and covered by the mercy-seat. The ancient Persians and the earliest legislators of Rome also agreed in repudiating images of the Deity.

A jealous God – Deu 6:15; Jos 24:19; Isa 42:8; Isa 48:11; Nah 1:2. This reason applies to the First, as well as to the second commandment. The truth expressed in it was declared more fully to Moses when the name of Yahweh was proclaimed to him after he had interceded for Israel on account of the golden calf (Exo 34:6-7; see the note).

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children – (Compare Exo 34:7; Jer 32:18). Sons and remote descendants inherit the consequences of their fathers sins, in disease, poverty, captivity, with all the influences of bad example and evil communications. (See Lev 26:39; Lam 5:7 following) The inherited curse seems to fall often most heavily on the least guilty persons; but such suffering must always be free from the sting of conscience; it is not like the visitation for sin on the individual by whom the sin has been committed. The suffering, or loss of advantages, entailed on the unoffending son, is a condition under which he has to carry on the struggle of life, and, like all other inevitable conditions imposed upon men, it cannot tend to his ultimate disadvantage, if he struggles well and perseveres to the end. The principle regulating the administration of justice by earthly tribunals Deu 24:16, is carried out in spiritual matters by the Supreme Judge.

Exo 20:6

Unto thousands – unto the thousandth generation. Yahwehs visitations of chastisement extend to the third and fourth generation, his visitations of mercy to the thousandth; that is, forever. That this is the true rendering seems to follow from Deu 7:9; Compare 2Sa 7:15-16.

Exo 20:7

Our translators make the Third commandment bear upon any profane and idle utterance of the name of God. Others give it the sense, Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of Jehovah thy God. The Hebrew word which answers to in vain may be rendered either way. The two abuses of the sacred name seem to be distinguished in Lev 19:12 (see Mat 5:33). Our King James Version is probably right in giving the rendering which is more inclusive. The caution that a breach of this commandment incurs guilt in the eyes of Yahweh is especially appropriate, in consequence of the ease with which the temptation to take Gods name in vain besets people in their common conversation with each other.

Exo 20:8

Remember the sabbath day – There is no distinct evidence that the Sabbath, as a formal ordinance, was recognized before the time of Moses (compare Neh 9:14; Eze 20:10-12; Deu 5:15). The word remember may either be used in the sense of keep in mind what is here enjoined for the first time, or it may refer back to what is related in Exo 16:22-26.

Exo 20:10

The sabbath … – a Sabbath to Yahweh thy God. The proper meaning of sabbath is, rest after labor. Compare Exo 16:26.

Thy stranger that is within thy gates – Not a stranger, as is an unknown person, but a lodger, or sojourner. In this place it denotes one who had come from another people to take up his permanent abode among the Israelites, and who might have been well known to his neighbors. That the word did not primarily refer to foreign domestic servants (though all such were included under it) is to be inferred from the term used for gates, signifying not the doors of a private dwelling, but the gates of a town or camp.

Exo 20:12

Honour thy father and thy mother – According to our usage, the fifth commandment is placed as the first in the second table; and this is necessarily involved in the common division of the commandments into our duty toward God and our duty toward men. But the more ancient, and probably the better, division allots five commandments to each table (compare Rom 13:9), proceeding on the distinction that the First table relates to the duties which arise from our filial relations, the second to those which arise from our fraternal relations. The connection between the first four commandments and the fifth exists in the truth that all faith in God centers in the filial feeling. Our parents stand between us and God in a way in which no other beings can. On the maintenance of parental authority, see Exo 21:15, Exo 21:17; Deu 21:18-21.

That thy days may be long upon the land – Filial respect is the ground of national permanence (compare Jer 35:18-19; Mat 15:4-6; Mar 7:10-11). The divine words were addressed emphatically to Israel, but they set forth a universal principle of national life Eph 6:2.

Exo 20:13-14

Mat 5:21-32 is the best comment on these two verses.

Exo 20:15

The right of property is sanctioned in the eighth commandment by an external rule: its deeper meaning is involved in the tenth commandment.

Exo 20:17

As the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments forbid us to injure our neighbor in deed, the ninth forbids us to injure him in word, and the tenth, in thought. No human eye can see the coveting heart; it is witnessed only by him who possesses it and by Him to whom all things are naked and open Luk 12:15-21. But it is the root of all sins of word or deed against our neighbor Jam 1:14-15.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Exo 20:1-2

God spake all these words.

The Ten Words of God

I. Those Ten Commandments were to the Jews the very utterance of the Eternal, and they hold in their grand imagination that the souls of all Jews even yet unborn were summoned to Sinai in their numbers numberless to hear that code; so that, in the East, to this day, if a Jew would indignantly deny the imputation of a wrong, he exclaims, My soul too has been on Sinai. And not to Jews only but to all mankind there is this proof that the Ten Words were indeed the oracles of God, that, if they be written upon the heart, they are an It is written sufficient for our moral guidance–they are a great non licet strong enough to quell the fiercest passions. For the laws of the natural universe may mislead us. One tells us that they are just and beneficent; another that they are deadly and remorseless: but of these moral Laws we know that they are the will of God. No man has seen His face at any time. He seems far away in His infinite heaven; clouds and darkness are round about Him. Yes; but righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His seat. And this was the very idea which the Jews wished to symbolize in the building of their Tabernacle. They hung it with purple curtains; they overlaid it with solid gold; they filled its outer court with sacrifices, its inner chambers with incense;–but when the High Priest passed from the Holy into the Holy of Holies–when on the great Day of Atonement he stood with the censer in his hands, and the ardent Urim on his breast, before what did he stand? Not before Visible Epiphany; not before sculptured image. There was total darkness in the shrine; no sunlight streamed, no lamp shed its silver radiance; through the awful silence no whisper thrilled; but, through the dim gleam of the glowing thurible and the smoke of the wreathing incense, he saw only a golden Ark over which bent the golden figures of adoring Cherubim–and within that Ark, as its only treasure, lay two rough hewn tables of venerable stone, on which were carved the Ten Commandments of the fiery Law. Those stony Tables, that Ark, that Mercy-seat, those adoring Cherubim seen dimly through the darkness, were to him a visible symbol of all creation, up to its most celestial hierarchies, contemplating, with awful reverence, and on the basis of mans spiritual existence, the moral Law of God.

II. And is that Law abrogated now, or shorn of its significance? Nay, it remains for the Gentile no less than for the Jew–for the nineteenth century after Christ no less than for the fifteenth before Him–the immutable expression of Gods will. God, as the Italian proverb says, does not pay on Saturdays. He is very patient, and men may long deny His existence or blaspheme His name, but more than in the mighty strong wind which rent the mountains, and more than in fire, and more than in earthquake, is God in that still small voice which is sounding yet. Oh, it is not in Exodus alone, or in Deuteronomy alone, but in all nature that we hear His voice. In scene after scene of history, in discovery after discovery of science, in experience after experience of life, have we heard these words rolling in thunder across the centuries the eternal distinction of right and wrong. Confidently I appeal to you, and ask, Have you not, at some time in your lives, heard the voice of God utter to you distinctly these Commandments of the moral Law? Is there one here who has ever disobeyed that voice and prospered? If there be one here who feels, at this moment, in the depths of his soul, a peace which the world can neither give nor take away, is it not solely because by the aid of Gods Holy Spirit he has striven to obey it? Yes, its infinite importance is that it is as old not as Sinai, but as humanity, and represents the will of God to all His children in the great family of man; so that if in this life we be passing from mystery to mystery, it is our surest proof that we are passing also from God to God. What matters it that we know not either whence we came or what we are, if He hath shown thee, oh, man! what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

III. And thus it is, lastly, that if we be faithful the Law may lead us to the Gospel. For his must indeed be a shallow soul who thinks it an easy thing to keep the Commandments. When we observe that the summary of the first Table is that life is worship, and of the second that life is service; when we notice that the first Table forbids sin against God, first in thought, then in word, then in deed; while the second, proceeding in a reverse order, forbids sins against our neighbour first in deed, then in word, and then in thought; so that, unlike every other code that the world has ever known, the Commandments begin and end with the utter prohibition of evil thoughts, which of us is not conscious that we have utterly broken Gods Law in this, that out of the heart proceed evil thoughts? And when we go from Moses to Jesus, from Sinai to Galilee, will Christ abolish the Law? will He teach us that we may keep both our sin and our Saviour, and that there is no distinction between a state of sin and a state of grace? There are no dim presences, no thundering clouds, no scorching wilderness, no rolling darkness around the trembling hill, but the sweet human voice of one seated in the dawn on the lilied grass that slopes down to the silver lake–but does that voice abrogate the Law? Nay, more stringently than to them of old time come the ten commandments now. Murder is extended to a furious thought; adultery to a lascivious look; and at first it might seem as if our last hope were extinguished, as if now our alienation from God be permanent, since admitted into a holier sanctuary we are but guilty of a deadlier sin. And when this has been indeed brought home to us, and we see the unfathomable gulf which yawns before a God of infinite holiness and a heart of desperate corruption, then indeed–and above all in the meeting of calamity with crime–then cometh the midnight. But after that midnight to the faithful soul there shall be light. With the personal conviction that the Law worketh wrath, come also the personal experience that Christ hath delivered us from its curse. In Him comes the sole antidote to guilt, the sole solution to the enigma of despair. True, He deepened the obligation of the Law, but for our sake He also fulfilled it. And thus by love, and hope, and gratitude, and help, He gives us a new impulse, a new inspiration, and this is Christianity; and this Christianity has redeemed, has ennobled, has regenerated the world. The thou must of Sinai becomes the I ought, I will, I can. I can do all things through Him that strengtheneth me. And then for us the Law has done its work. It has revealed to us the will of God, it has revealed to us the apostacy of man, it has driven us to know and to embrace the deliverance of Christ. (Archdeacon Farrar.)

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments bold a conspicuous position in that prolonged revelation of Himself–His character, His will, and His revelations to mankind–which God made to the Jews. They can, therefore, never become obsolete.

I. The Ten Commandments rest on the principle that God claims authority over the moral life of man.

II. There can be no doubt that God intended that these commandments should be kept. They are not merely to bring us to a sense of our guilt, as some seem to imagine.

III. These commandments deal chiefly with actions, not with mere thought or emotion.

IV. Before God gave these commandments to the Jewish people, He wrought a magnificent series of miracles to effect their emancipation from miserable slavery and to punish their oppressors. He first made them free, and then gave them the law. (R. W. Dale, D. D.)

Comprehensive summary of the Ten Commandments

1. Its uniqueness: Compare this law with other so-called legislations–e.g., Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, the Twelve Tables. There is found no counterpart; there is a gulf betwixt them and it.

2. Its origin: What is it that makes this separation but its divinity? Said a lawyer of eminence, who was led to renounce his infidelity by the study of the Decalogue: I have been looking into the nature of that law: I have been trying to see whether I can add anything to it, or take anything from it, so as to make it better. Sir, I cannot; it is perfect. And then, having shown this to be so, he concluded: I have been thinking where did Moses get that law? I have read history. The Egyptians and the adjacent nations were idolaters: so were the Greeks and Romans: and the wisest and best Greeks and Romans never gave a code of morals like this. Where did he get it? He could not have soared so far above his age as to have devised it himself. It came down from heaven. I am convinced of the truth of the religion of the Bible.

3. Its scope: Were we to keep this law, we should need no other codes and edicts:–no courts and prisons. It would fill the sky with sunshine and the earth with righteousness.

4. Its simplicity: It is so easily interpreted.

5. But the attempt to keep the law in its spirit will lead to the revelation of self, and disclose both a disinclination and an inability; and, when this is the case, the law becomes a schoolmaster to lead to Christ. (L. O. Thompson.)

Negative Commandments

The emphatic and repeated Thou shalt not from God teaches–

I. Mans capacity for evil.

II. Mans tendency to evil.

III. Gods knowledge of this capacity and tendency of man.

IV. God, knowing this, nevertheless prohibits sin. This indicates–

1. The guilt of sin.

2. The care of God. (U. R. Thomas.)

The Commandments

I. The origin of these commandments.

1. The Bible thus commits itself unequivocally to the highest origin for these laws.

(1) Their Divine origin bespeaks their holy and righteous nature, and their absolute authority.

(2) Their Divine origin bespeaks the deep interest we should take in their study, as well as in obeying them.

2. Divine as they are in their origin, they were transmitted first by the ministry of angels to Moses, and by Moses to us. (Psa 78:17; Act 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2; Deu 5:5; Deu 10:1-4.)

II. The nature of these commandments. Lessons:

1. The awe-inspiring circumstances of the giving of the law suggest the solemnity of our relations to God.

2. Positive institutions of religion are a necessity.

3. They must be of God, or they are worse than worthless.

4. Those which bear the evidence of their Divine origin are alone worthy of obedience.

5. The only worthy obedience is that which is hearty and complete. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)

The character of the Decalogue

I. The Decalogue is in form prohibitive. A solemn witness to the Fall. A bell to awaken conscience.

II. Although the Decalogue is in form prohibitive, yet in spirit it is affirmative. A negative pole implies a positive. The Ten Words are divinely covenantal, rather than divinely statutory. Law is never as imperial as love.

III. The Ten Words or Commandments are in their character germinal and suggestive, rather than unfolded and exhaustive. They are the rudimental principles of morality, the germs of ethics, the seminary, or seedplot, of religion.

IV. But although the Ten Commandments are rudimental in their form, they are also elemental in their meaning, and therefore universal and immortal in their application. Just because they are germs, they are capable of all growth, or unfolding along the lines suggested in the embryo. In brief, the Ten Commandments are the axioms of morals, the summary of ethics, the itinerary of mankind, the framework of society, the vertebral column of humanity. (G. D. Boardman.)

Characteristics of the Decalogue

The Law of the Ten Words constitutes the very heart or kernel of the entire Mosaic system. It was the Law which lent to Mosaism its peculiar character as a temporary interlude in the history of revelation.

I. In the first place, every circumstance attending its promulgation was adjusted so as to lend to it a solemn and awful emphasis.

II. The sanction of the Decalogue was fear. In the infancy of the individual, when as yet the immature, conscience lacks the power to enforce its convictions of duty upon the untutored passions, the first step in moral training consists in impressing upon the childs mind a wholesome dread for the constituted authorities of the home. Love is a preferable impulse to law-keeping, no doubt; but love cannot be wholly depended on till the habit of obedience has been formed and principle has come to the aid of affection.

III. It belongs to the same juvenile or primary character of this code, as designed for an infant people, that its requirements are concrete, and expressed in a negative or prohibitory form. When you have to deal with children, you do not enunciate principles but precepts. You do not bid a child revere all that is venerable in the social order; but you say: Honour thy father and mother. You do not tell a rude populace that hatred drives God out of the soul, but you say simply: Do not kill! Everything must be, at such a stage of moral education, concrete, portable, and unmistakable. For the same reason, it will usually take the shape of a prohibition rather than of a command: a Do not rather than a Do.

IV. While these remarks must be borne in mind if we would understand the archaic mould in which this code is cast, there is at the same time an admirable breadth and massiveness about its contents. In Ten Words it succeeds in sweeping the whole field of duty.

V. I have assumed above–what is indeed apparent to every careful reader–that the Decalogue was designed primarily to be the code of a commonwealth. In the ancient world, and perhaps in the infancy of all societies, the idea of the community takes precedence over the idea of the individual. The family, the clan, the tribe, the nation: these are the ruling conceptions to which the interests of the private individual are subordinated. Then, each man exists as one of a larger body–heir of its past and parent of its future.

VI. It is when one views the Decalogue under this aspect, that one can best see how it came to include two parts, a sacred and a civil. In a theocracy there can be no such sharp distinction as we make between Church and State. Indeed, such a distinction would have been unintelligible to any ancient people. So far from comprehending the modern ideal of a free Church in a free State, every people of antiquity took for granted that the Church and the State were one. Every public function was discharged, every expedition undertaken, every victory gained, under the immediate counsel and patronage of the Deity. All this was just as strongly felt by the devotees of Bel or Nebo, of Osiris, Chemosh or Baal, of Athene or Jove, as by the Hebrew worshippers of Jehovah. So that, again, when it pleased God to throw into the form of a theocracy His peculiar relationship to Israel as a vehicle for teaching to the world a world-wide revelation of grace, He was simply accommodating His gracious ways to the thoughts of men and the fashions of the age that then was. (J. O. Dykes, D. D.)

The Law given from Mount Sinai suited to the circumstances of man, and of universal adoption

I. Some preliminary remarks.

1. Man is a being possessed of a religious capacity.

2. Man is a moral agent.

3. It is possible for the reason the understanding, and the moral sense of man to be brought to such a state, that he can have a right to have an opinion both upon morals and religion.

II. The law itself (verses 3-17). There are two parts of this law–that relating to–

1. Religion. Here are four things–

(1) The object of worship.

(2) A mode of worship.

(3) The inculcation of habitual reverence with respect to sacred things.

(4) An appointed season for the cultivation and perfection of the religious capacity.

2. Morals. Here is–

(1) Filial honour.

(2) Respect for life.

(3) Reverence for purity.

(4) Respect for property.

(5) Respect for reputation.

(6) Respect and regard to the source of all virtue–thine own heart.

III. A few observations tending to show that this Law, as we have it here, is suited to the circumstances of man, and of universal adaptation. It is suited to humanity–

1. In that it meets the essential capacities and elements of human nature.

2. In its accidents; that is, not only in its principles, but also in the mode in which these principles are to be carried out.

3. In spite of some of the accidental and peculiar topics which are here and there introduced into it.

4. If we consider what the world would be were this law universally obeyed; and what if it were universally disobeyed.

IV. The preceding point being made out, then I think the presumptions are in favour of this Law having been given by God.

1. The history of man and the tendencies of human nature show that, if the original state of man had been barbarism, he never would have risen out of it by his own efforts, and never would have discovered such principles as are here put forth.

2. In the most refined ages of ancient times, no moral system equal or even approaching in rationality, purity, and simplicity to this was ever taught either by philosopher, statesman, or priest.

3. Even in our own times our philosophers, they who have rejected revelation and have given us moral systems, have taught principles subversive of these–Bolingbroke, Blount, Hume.

4. This law unquestionably was given about the time it was said to be. We find that it must have been given by Moses. From whom did he obtain it?

5. We now have the fact–God spake all these words.

V. Practical remarks.

1. Reflect on the internal evidence of the superhuman character of the Bible.

2. Notice that infidelity is always associated with impurity and blasphemy.

3. Meditate deeply how you stand in relation to the Law.

4. Accept, in addition to the law of judgment, the gospel of mercy. (T. Binney.)

The composition of the Law of God

There is a bell in the cathedral of Cologne, made by the melting together of French cannon. It would have been a very difficult task, indeed, to analyze the bell and determine whence the cannon came. Something like this, however, is the task before those who adopt the extreme theories of the rationalistic critics of the Pentateuch. You must be supposed to show in the minute literary traits of this series of documents the dates of their origin, the dates of their combination, and the dates of subsequent editorial supervisions. Even if it were to be granted that documents drawn from many polytheistic nations and ages were the original constituents of the Pentateuch, we have not touched the doctrine of the inspiration of the combined mass at all. The mass is strangely purified from all false doctrine. A Divine fire has burned all adulterate elements wholly out of it, and fused the constituents in a combination wholly new. These cannon are one set of objects; melted together into a bell, hung in a cathedral tower, they are another object altogether. Mere white dust is one thing; compacted into marble, in a vase, it has a ring, and is quite another. These cannon, melted and hung aloft in the form of a bell, are no longer cannon. They are an inspired work. It is our business, indeed, to know all we can as to the composition of this bronze; but our highest business is to ring the bell in the cathedral tower. The moral law, and the ethical monotheism of the Pentateuch, have proved their resonance as often as they have been put in practice, age after age. The Pentateuch hung in the cathedral tower of the world has uttered Gods voice, and it is our business to ask how we can ring the bell in the heights of history, rather than how it originated by the melting together, of many fragments. (Joseph Cook.)

The inexhaustibility of the Law of God

I have many times essayed thoroughly to investigate the Ten Commandments, but at the very outset, I am the Lord thy God, I stuck fast; that very one word, I, put me to a non-plus. He that has but one word of God before him, and out of that word cannot make a sermon, can never be a preacher. (Luthers Table Talk.)

Usefulness of Gods Commandments

Reconciliation to God is like entering the gate of a beautiful avenue, which conducts to a splendid mansion. But that avenue is long, and in some places it skirts the edge of dangerous cliffs, and, therefore, to save the traveller from falling over where he would be dashed to pieces, it is fenced all the way by a quick-set edge. That edge is the Commandments. They are planted there that we may do ourselves no harm. But, like a fence of the fragrant briar, they regale the pilgrim who keeps the path, and they only hurt him when he tries to breakthrough. Temperance, justice, truthfulness; purity of speech and behaviour; obedience to parents; mutual affection; sanctification of the Sabbath; the reverent worship of God; all these are righteous requirements, and in keeping them there is a great reward. Happy he who only knows the precept in the perfume which it sheds, and who, never having kicked against the pricks, has never proved the sharpness of its thorns. (J. Hamilton, D. D.)

The Lawgiver

1. Let us recognize that this Law has its source in God. It comes to us from His will whose authority is beyond question, and our obligation to obey is complete. Since God spake all these words, we find in them the law of our being. The conscience hears His voice, acknowledges His rightful authority, and bows before Him.

2. There is great need of the I ought power being developed in our nature so that it controls our lives; a need at least as great in this age and in this country as it was in that early age and in the wilderness of Sinai. To be swayed not by impulse, nor by intense desire, nor by aroused wilfulness, but by a sense of obligation to God, insures a manhood which is a success in itself. What better start in life can the young have than a firm determination to obey God? Can there be a better guide in life, in the perplexities of society, of business or of politics, than this same principle of obedience to God?

3. While this law coming from God binds the conscience, it at the same time secures true liberty of conscience. Nothing can bind the conscience beyond or contrary to this law. It is the comprehensive and only law of the conscience.

4. This law coming from God repels many of the assaults of infidelity upon the Bible. Infidelity finds it impossible to account for the existence of this law in the Bible. Besides, infidelity is forced to honour the moral law in making it its standard of criticism. Much of its fault-finding of lives and measures is an unintended tribute to the law of God.

5. The fact that this law comes from God, carries with it another lesson and one of the utmost importance to us. His authority runs through all the divisions of the law.

(1) Both tables must be fully observed, or the whole law is broken. We cannot be devoted to God, correct in matters of faith and zealous in His worship, while we neglect charity of feeling, word and act toward our brother. Neither can we truly love our neighbour while we neglect God, for we cannot keep any part of the law without supreme reverence for Him who commands. Neither can we truly love our neighbour with recognizing that we are both and equally creatures of God.

(2) There is a tendency also to separate the commandments, and to claim virtue for keeping some while we make light of breaking others. Now, the violation of one precept is not an actual violation of another, but it is the breaking of the whole law in that it sets aside the authority of God. If he keeps other commandments, it must be from other considerations. By breaking one commandment he shows he has the spirit of breaking them all, for he does not submit to the authority of God. (F. S. Schenck.)

For whom is the Law intended

In the preface to the Law, God describes Himself not only as the self-existing Creator, but as having entered into close personal relation with the Israelites through promises made to their fathers, some of which had just been faithfully fulfilled in conferring great blessings upon them. So He appeals not only to their respect for His authority, but to the relation to Him which they had inherited and accepted, and to the gratitude they should have for such benefits received. This preface does not limit the following law to the Israelites, but makes a special appeal to them. The law is general, for all mankind, the original law of their being, since it appeals to and arouses the universal conscience; but a special revelation of God and rich favours bestowed form a strong appeal for the most hearty obedience. God describes Himself to the full extent in which He had at that time revealed Himself. Whatever increase of revelation we have received strengthens the appeal. This shows the kind of obedience we should give: not reluctant, but eager; not forced, but spontaneous; not irksome, but with delight; not heartless, but with the enthusiasm of love. Created things obey the laws of their being joyously. Stars shine, flowers bloom, birds sing. Surely intelligent beings, recognizing the law of their being, should joyously obey it, especially when God reveals Himself fully and confers richest blessings upon them. (F. S. Schenck.)

Of the Commandments

I. Questions.

1. What is the difference between the moral law and the gospel?

(1) The law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel requires that we worship God in and through Christ. God in Christ is propitious; out of Christ we may see Gods power, justice, holiness, in Christ we see His mercy displayed.

(2) The moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength, as Pharaoh required brick, but gave no straw, but the gospel gives strength.

2. Of what use, then, is the moral law to us? A glass to show us our sins, and drive us to Christ.

3. Is the moral law still in force to believers? In some sense it is abolished to believers.

(1) In respect of justification; they are not justified by their obedience to the moral law. Believers are to make great use of the moral law, but they must trust only to Christs righteousness for justification; as Noahs dove made use of her wings to fly, but trusted to the ark for safety.

(2) The moral law is abolished to believers, in respect of the malediction of it; they are freed from the curse and damnatory power of it (Gal 3:13).

4. How was Christ made a curse for us? As our pledge and surety. Though the moral law be not their saviour, yet it is their guide; though it be not a covenant of life, yet it is a rule of living; every Christian is bound to conform to the moral law, and write, as exactly as he can, after this copy: Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Though a Christian is not under the condemning power of the law, yet he is under the commanding power.

II. Rules for the right understanding of the Decalogue.

1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.

2. In the commandments there is a synecdoche, more is intended than is spoken. Where any duty is commanded, there the contrary sin is forbidden, etc.

3. Where any sin is forbidden in the commandment, there the occasion of it is also forbidden.

4. There one relation is named in the commandment, there another relation is included.

5. Where greater sins are forbidden, there lesser sins are also forbidden.

6. The law of God is copulative. The first and second tables are knit together,–piety to God, and equity to our neighbour; these two tables which God hath joined together must not be put asunder.

7. Gods law forbids not only the acting of sin in our own persons, but being accessory to, or having any hand in the sins of others.

8. The last rule about the commandments is this, that though we cannot, by our own strength, fulfil all these commandments, yet doing what we are able, the Lord hath provided encouragement for us. There is a threefold encouragement.

(1) That though we have not ability to obey any one command, yet God hath, in the new covenant, promised to work that in us which He requires: I will cause you to walk in My statutes. The iron hath no power to move, but when the loadstone draws it, it can move; Thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

(2) Though we cannot exactly fulfil all the moral law, yet God will, for Christs sake, mitigate the rigour of the law, and accept of something less than He requires.

(3) Wherein our personal obedience comes short, God will be pleased to accept us in our surety: He hath made us accepted in the beloved. (T. Watson.)

I am the Lord thy God.

The preface of the Law

In this style or authority are three parts, according to three titles.

1. The first title, of His name–Jehovah.

2. Secondly, the title of His jurisdiction–thy God.

3. Thirdly, the title of that notable act He did last–which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, etc. (Bishop Andrewes.)

The preface

I. The speaker and giver of these commandments.

1. It is the Lord, particularly Jesus Christ, who gave this Law in the name of the Trinity. This is plain from the Scripture (Act 7:38; Heb 12:24-26).

2. The speech itself, wherein we have a description of the true God, bearing three reasons for the keeping His commands.

(1) From His sovereignty; He is the Lord.

(2) From His covenant-relation to His people–thy God.

(3) From the great benefit of redemption, and deliverance wrought for them.

The preface

I. I begin with the first, the preface to the preface: God spake all these words, saying, etc. This is like the sounding of a trumpet before a solemn proclamation, God spake; other parts of the Bible are said to be uttered by the mouth of the holy prophets, but here God spake in His own Person.

1. The Lawgiver: God spake. There are two things requisite in a lawgiver.

(1) Wisdom. Laws are founded upon reason; and he must be wise that makes laws. God, in this respect, is most fit to be a lawgiver: He is wise in heart; He hath a monopoly of wisdom: the only wise God.

(2) Authority. God hath the supreme power in His hand; and He who gives men their lives hath most right to give them their laws.

2. The Law itself: all these words; that is, all the words of the moral Law, which is usually styled the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. It is called the moral Law, because it is the rule of life and manners. St. Chrysostom compares the Scripture to a garden, the moral Law is a chief flower in it; the Scripture is a banquet, the moral Law the chief dish in it.

(1) The moral Law is perfect: The Law of the Lord is perfect. It is an exact model and platform of religion; it is the standard of truth, the judge of controversies, the polestar to direct us to heaven.

(2) The moral Law is unalterable; it remains still in force.

(3) The moral Law is very illustrious and full of glory. See Exo 19:10; Exo 19:12; Exo 31:18; Deu 32:1-52.

Use 1. Here we may take notice of Gods goodness who hath not left us without a Law: therefore the Lord doth often set it down as a demonstration of His love in giving His Commandments. See Psa 147:20; Neh 9:13; Rom 7:14. The Law of God is a hedge to keep us within the bounds of sobriety and piety.

Use 2. If God spake all these words, viz., of the moral Law, then this presseth upon us several duties:

(1) If God spake all these words, then we must hear all these words. The words which God speaks are too precious to be lost.

(2) If God spake all these words, then we must attend to them with reverence.

(3) If God spake all these words of the moral Law, then we must remember them. Those words are weighty which concern salvation.

(4) If God spake all these words, then we must believe them. Shall we not give credit to the God of heaven?

(5) If God spake all these words, then love the Commandments: Oh, how love I Thy Law! it is my meditation all the day.

(6) If God spake all these words, then teach your children the Law of God: These words which I command thee this day shall be in thy heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children. He who is godly, is both a diamond and a loadstone; a diamond for the sparkling of his grace, and a loadstone for his attractive virtue in drawing others to the love of Gods precepts; a good man doth more good to his neighbours than to himself.

(7) If God spake all these words, then the moral Law must be obeyed.

II. The preface itself.

1. I am the Lord thy God. Here we have a description of God–

(1) By His essential greatness: I am the Lord–Jehovah. Let us fear Him (Deu 28:58).

(2) By His relative goodness: Thy God. How? Through Jesus Christ–Emmanuel.

(3) How may we come to know this covenant union, that God is our God?

(a) By having His grace planted in us. Kings children are known by their costly jewels: it is not having common gifts which shows we belong to God, many have the gifts of God without God, but it is grace gives us a true genuine title to God. In particular, faith is the grace of union; by this we may spell out our interest in God.

(b) We may know God is our God, by having the earnest of His Spirit in our hearts. God often gives the purse to the wicked, but the Spirit only to such as He intends to make His heirs. Have we had the consecration of the Spirit?

(c) We may know God is our God, if He hath given us the hearts of children. Have we obediential hearts? do we subscribe to Gods commands, when His commands cross our will? A true saint is like the flower of the sun: it opens and shuts with the sun, he opens to God and shuts to sin. If we have the hearts of children, then God is our Father.

(d) We may know God is ours, and we have an interest in Him, by our standing up for His interest.

(e) We may know God is ours, and we have an interest in Him, by His having an interest in us: My beloved is Mine, and I am His.

Use 1. Above all things, let us get this great charter Confirmed, that God is our God. Deity is not comfortable without propriety. Use

Use 2. To all such as can make out this covenant union, it exhorts to several things.

(1) If God be our God, let us improve our interest in Him, cast all our burdens upon Him, the burden of our fears, wants, sins.

(2) If God be our God, let us learn to be contented, though we have the less of other things. Contentment is a rare jewel; it is the cure of care. If we have God to be our God, well may we be contented.

(a) God is a sufficient good. Not only full as a vessel, but as a spring. The heart is a triangle, which only the Trinity can fill.

(b) God is a sanctifying good. He sanctifies all our comforts, and turns them into blessings. He sanctifies all our crosses; they shall polish and refine our grace. The more the diamond is cut it sparkles the more. Gods stretching the strings of His viol, is to make the music the better.

(c) God is a choice good. All things under the sun are but the blessings of the footstool; but to have God Himself to be ours is the blessing of the throne.

(d) God is the chief good. In the chief good there must be, first, delectability. At Gods righthand are pleasures. Secondly, in the chief good there must be transcendency, it must have a surpassing excellency. Thus God is infinitely better than all other things; it is below the Deity to compare other things with It. Who would go to weigh a feather with a mountain of gold? Thirdly, in the chief good there must be not only fulness, but variety; where variety is wanting we are apt to nauseate; to feed only on honey would breed loathing; but in God is all variety of fulness.

(3) If we can clear up this covenant union that God is our God, let this cheer and revive us in all conditions. To be content with God is not enough, but to be cheerful. What greater cordial can you have than union with Deity?

(4) If God be our God, then let us break forth into doxology and praise (Psa 118:28).

(5) Let us carry ourselves as those who have God to be their God. Live holily.

2. The second part of the preface: which have brought, etc. God mentions this deliverance, because of

(1) Its strangeness.

(2) Greatness.

3. The third part of the preface: out of the house of bondage.

(1) Gods children may sometimes be under sore afflictions.

(a) For probation, or trial. Affliction is the touchstone of sincerity.

(b) For purgation; to purge our corruption. Gods fire is in Zion. This is not to consume, but to refine; what if we have more affliction, if by this means we have less sin.

(c) For augmentation; to increase the graces of the Spirit. Grace thrives most in the iron furnace; sharp frosts nourish the corn, so do sharp afflictions grace: grace in the saints is often as fire hid in the embers, affliction is the bellows to blow it up into a flame.

(d) For preparation: to fit and prepare us for glory.

(2) God will in His due time bring His people out of their afflicted state. The tree which in the winter seems dead, in the spring revives: after darkness cometh sunshine. Affliction may leap on us as the viper did on Paul, but at last this viper shall be shaken off. (T. Watson.)

The revelation of the Divine Name

I. God in covenant with man is the condition of the existence and development of mans spiritual life. The despair of the sinner, but for Gods mercy, would crush him. And what know we of Gods mercy? For ages our forefathers have been living consciously in a covenant, and all our ideas of God have been formed by it. But ask that agonized father, plunging the bare knife into the throat of his daughter, or flinging his tender infant into that seething cauldron of fire, what man, ignorant of the covenant, knows of the mercy and forgiveness of God. Man lives on the covenant; he builds his life on the promises; it is the condition of his living at all in the sense in which a man may live.

II. God was seeking the covenant, not man. It is God who acts, man who accepts; God who gives, man who receives; and thus the hope of man has its strong resting-place, not on the strivings of his own weak will, not on the searchings of his own too easily bewildered and blinded intellect, but on the eternal purpose and love of God. God cannot dispense with mans heart, will, and intellect; He led that people there that He might engage them in His service. Refuse Him that service, and the covenant is worthless to you, nay, is a witness against you to condemnation; yield them to Him, and rest in the assurance that your salvation depends not on your own weak work but on the strong arm of God.

III. You will find two grand features in that which was transacted there on the Mount of God: God revealing Himself–God declaring His Law. This was Gods covenant; the people had but to say in heart and with voice Amen.

1. Nature, circumstance, the currents of life, master us, till we know the Divine Name. We know ourselves in knowing Him, and find in ourselves the broken features of His likeness. The first step towards the establishment of the covenant was the revelation of the Divine name.

2. It was a merciful name which the Lord made known: I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. I am the God of thy fathers. How tender, how blessed the assurance!

3. The Lords name is holy. The Lord thy God is a holy Lord. A sensual-hearted man will fashion gods like unto himself. A wise and earnest-hearted man will give thanks at the remembrance of Gods holiness. (J. B. Brown, B. A.)

The Jewish knowledge of God

To the Jews, Jehovah was not a mere idea or a system of attributes. They did not think of Him as the Necessary Cause of the universe, or as a Being inaccessible to human knowledge, but whom it was their duty to invest with whatever perfections could exalt and glorify Him:–infinite wisdom, infinite power, awful righteousness, inflexible truth, and tenderest love. It never occurred to them to suppose that they had to think out a God for themselves any more than it occurred to them that they had to think out a king of Egypt. They knew Jehovah as the God who had held back the waves like a wall while they fled across the sea to escape the vengeance of their enemies; they knew Him as the God who had sent thunder, and lightning, and hail, plagues on cattle, and plagues on men, to punish the Egyptians and to compel them to let the children of Israel go; they knew Him as the God whose angel had slain the firstborn of their oppressors, and filled the land from end to end with death, and agony, and terror. He was the same God, so Moses and Aaron told them, who by visions and voices, in promises and precepts, had revealed Himself long before to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We learn what men are from what they say and what they do. A biography of Luther gives us a more vivid and trustworthy knowledge of the man than the most philosophical essay on his character and creed. The story of his imprisonment and of his journey to Worms, his Letters, his Sermons, and his Table Talk, are worth more than the most elaborate speculations about him. The Jews learnt what God is, not from theological dissertations on the Divine attributes, but from the facts of a Divine history. They knew Him for themselves in His own acts and in His own words. (R. W. Dale, D. D.)

Mans religious craving satisfied

Mans nature is religious. He instinctively worships some being, whom he regards as God. It is the nature of religious worship to assimilate the character of the worshipper to that of the being worshipped. The objects of worship, everywhere throughout the ancient world, were corrupt and corrupting. In order to mans moral improvement, he must have a holy object of worship. It is obviously impossible for an imperfect and sinful man to originate the idea of a perfect and sinless God. The gods whom men invented and set up were as imperfect and wicked as themselves; and from the nature of the case, they could not be otherwise. Moses, on the contrary, revealed a holy and a perfect God. How pure, how amiable, how sublime, how transcendently glorious the character with which this God is invested by the Hebrew lawgiver! How striking the contrast which his sublime delineation of Jehovah as the Maker, Proprietor, and Sovereign of the universe, invested with every conceivable excellence, presents to the grovelling mythology of the most enlightened portions of the ancient world, in which the objects of religious worship were pictured with the passions and vices of the fierce and licentious chieftains of the primitive ages! The publication of such a theology in such an age, when polytheism bad covered the earth with the temples and altars of its monster gods, cannot be satisfactorily accounted for without allowing, and is satisfactorily accounted for by allowing, the truth of the Mosaic history, and the establishment of the Mosaic constitution by Divine authority. (E. C. Wines, D. D.)

I am the Lord thy God-a word to rest on in death

When Ebenezer Erskine lay on his deathbed, one of his elders said to him, Sir, you have given us many good advices; may I ask what you are now doing with your own soul? I am just doing with it, he replied, what I did forty years ago: I am resting on that word–I am the Lord thy God.

Out of the land of Egypt.–

Gods deliverance of His people

Bearing in mind the universality of the Decalogue, this land of Egypt and house of bondage must have a far deeper and wider signification than the valley of the Nile. Egypt is a synonym for an ungodly world, which captivates the heart of man, and from which the grace of God releases the renewed soul. The Law of God is, therefore, in its holiness, justice, and goodness, held up to those who have been delivered from the bondage of sin. It is not so held up to the ungodly–they cannot love it, they cannot see its beauty. By the Lords telling us that He has already brought us out of Egypt and bondage, He does not say when He gives us the Law: Do this and live, but Since ye live, do this; Since My grace has redeemed you, and you rejoice in the liberty of the children of God, use My Law, the reflection of My perfections, as your beloved guide. There is one other expression in this preface which should be noted. It is the use of the second person singular, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. There are two thoughts connected with this use.

1. The first is that God deals with all Israel as one man. He expects them to be one, of one mind and one heart, before Him. There must be no antagonisms among Gods people. He has taken us out of the contentious world, not that we should be only another contentious world, but that we should show our distracted earth the harmony of heaven. He wishes to reconcile all things unto Himself. Sin divides men, grace unites them.

2. The other thought regarding the use of the second person singular here is this: God treats man individually. Man enters heaven or hell, not in companies or battalions, but in naked individuality. It was thyself personally that wert delivered from that dark Egypt of condemnation, was it not? And so you can say: Who loved me and gave Himself for me. (H. Crosby, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XX

The preface to the ten commandments, 1, 2.

The FIRST commandment, against mental or theoretic

idolatry, 3.

The SECOND, against making and worshipping images, or

practical idolatry, 4-6.

The THIRD, against false swearing, blasphemy, and irreverent

use of the name of God, 7.

The FOURTH, against profanation of the Sabbath, and

idleness on the other days of the week, 8-11.

The FIFTH, against disrespect and disobedience to

parents, 12.

The SIXTH, against murder and cruelty, 13.

The SEVENTH, against adultery and uncleanness, 14.

The EIGHTH, against stealing and dishonesty, 15.

The NINTH, against false testimony, perjury, c., 16.

The TENTH, against covetousness, 17.

The people are alarmed at the awful appearance of God on the

mount, and stand afar off, 18.

They pray that Moses may be mediator between God and them, 19.

Moses encourages them, 20.

He draws near to the thick darkness, and God communes with

him, 21, 22.

Farther directions against idolatry, 23.

Directions concerning making an altar of earth, 24

and an altar of hewn stone, 25.

None of these to be ascended by steps, and the reason given, 26.

NOTES ON CHAP. XX

Verse 1. All these words] Houbigant supposes, and with great plausibility of reason, that the clause eth col haddebarim haelleh, “all these words,” belong to the latter part of the concluding verse of chap. xix., which he thinks should be read thus: And Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them ALL THESE WORDS; i.e., delivered the solemn charge relative to their not attempting to come up to that part of the mountain on which God manifested himself in his glorious majesty, lest he should break forth upon them and consume them. For how could Divine justice and purity suffer a people so defiled to stand in his immediate presence? When Moses, therefore, had gone down and spoken all these words, and he and Aaron had reascended the mount, then the Divine Being, as supreme legislator, is majestically introduced thus: And God spake, saying. This gives a dignity to the commencement of this chapter of which the clause above mentioned, if not referred to the speech of Moses, deprives it. The Anglo-Saxon favours this emendation: [Anglo-Saxon], God spoke THUS, which is the whole of the first verse as it stands in that version.

Some learned men are of opinion that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were delivered on May 30, being then the day of pentecost.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The laws delivered on Mount Sinai have been variously named. In De 4:13, they are called asereth haddebarim, THE TEN WORDS. In the preceding chapter, Ex 19:5, God calls them eth berithi, my COVENANT, i.e., the agreement he entered into with the people of Israel to take them for his peculiar people, if they took him for their God and portion. IF ye will obey my voice indeed, and KEEP my COVENANT, THEN shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me. And the word covenant here evidently refers to the laws given in this chapter, as is evident from De 4:13: And he declared unto you his COVENANT, which he commanded you to perform, even TEN COMMANDMENTS. They have been also termed the moral law, because they contain and lay down rules for the regulation of the manners or conduct of men. Sometimes they have been termed the LAW, hattorah, by way of eminence, as containing the grand system of spiritual instruction, direction, guidance, c. See on the word LAW, Ex 12:49. See Clarke on Ex 12:49. And frequently the DECALOGUE, , which is a literal translation into Greek of the asereth haddebarim, or TEN WORDS, of Moses.

Among divines they are generally divided into what they term the first and second tables. The FIRST table containing the first, second, third, and fourth commandments, and comprehending the whole system of theology, the true notions we should form of the Divine nature, the reverence we owe and the religious service we should render to him. The SECOND, containing the six last commandments, and comprehending a complete system of ethics, or moral duties, which man owes to his fellows, and on the due performance of which the order, peace and happiness of society depend. By this division, the FIRST table contains our duty to GOD the SECOND our duty to our NEIGHBOUR. This division, which is natural enough, refers us to the grand principle, love to God and love to man, through which both tables are observed.

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.

2. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two hang all the law and the prophets. See Clarke on Mt 22:37; and “Mt 22:38“. See Clarke on Mt 22:39; and “Mt 22:40“.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Or, Then, to wit, when Moses was returned into the mount.

God spake immediately, and not by an angel. For though an ambassador or messenger may act in the name of his master, yet it is against the use of all ages and places for such to call themselves by his name. As well might an ambassador of France say, I am the king of France, which all men would account absurd, arrogant, and ridiculous, as an angel might say,

I am the Lord. All these words, i.e. commands, for so the word is used, Deu 17:19; Est 1:12.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. And God spake all these wordsTheDivine Being Himself was the speaker (Deu 5:12;Deu 5:32; Deu 5:33),in tones so loud as to be heardso distinct as to be intelligibleby the whole multitude standing in the valleys below, amid the mostappalling phenomena of agitated nature. Had He been simply addressingrational and intelligent creatures, He would have spoken with thestill small voice of persuasion and love. But He was speaking tothose who were at the same time fallen and sinful creatures, and acorresponding change was required in the manner of God’s procedure,in order to give a suitable impression of the character and sanctionsof the law revealed from heaven (Ro11:5-9).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And God spake all these words,…. Which follow, commonly called the decalogue, or ten commands; a system or body of laws, selected and adapted to the case and circumstances of the people of Israel; striking at such sins as they were most addicted to, and they were under the greatest temptation of falling into the commission of; to prevent which, the observation of these laws was enjoined them; not but that whatsoever of them is of a moral nature, as for the most part they are, are binding on all mankind, and to be observed both by Jew and Gentile; and are the best and shortest compendium of morality that ever was delivered out, except the abridgment of them by our Lord, Mt 22:36, the ancient Jews had a notion, and which Jarchi delivers as his own, that these words were spoken by God in one word; which is not to be understood grammatically; but that those laws are so closely compacted and united together as if they were but one word, and are not to be detached and separated from each other; hence, as the Apostle James says, whosoever offends in one point is guilty of all, Jas 2:10, and if this notion was as early as the first times of the Gospel, one would be tempted to think the Apostle Paul had reference to it, Ro 13:9 though indeed he seems to have respect only to the second table of the law; these words were spoke in an authoritative way as commands, requiring not only attention but obedience to them; and they were spoken by God himself in the hearing of all the people of Israel; and were not, as Aben Ezra observes, spoken by a mediator or middle person, for as yet they had not desired one; nor by an angel or angels, as the following words show, though the law is said to be spoken by angels, to be ordained by them, in the hands of a mediator, and given by the disposition of them, which perhaps was afterwards done, see Ac 7:53.

[See comments on Ac 7:53].

[See comments on Ga 3:19].

[See comments on Heb 2:2].

saying; as follows.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And God spake all these words, saying, The promulgation of the ten words of God, containing the fundamental law of the covenant, took place before Moses ascended the mountain again with Aaron (Exo 19:24). “ All these words ” are the words of God contained in vv. 2-17, which are repeated again in Deu 5:6-18, with slight variations that do not materially affect the sense,

(Note: The discrepancies in the two texts are the following: – In Deu 5:8 the cop. (“ or,” Eng. Ver.), which stands before (any likeness), is omitted, to give greater clearness to the meaning; and on the other hand it is added before in Deu 5:9 for rhetorical reasons. In the fourth commandment (Deu 5:12) is chosen instead of in Exo 20:8, and is reserved fore the hortatory clause appended in Deu 5:15: “and remember that thou wast a servant,” etc.; and with this is connected the still further fact, that instead of the fourth commandment being enforced on the ground of the creation of the world in six days and the resting of God on the seventh day, their deliverance from Egypt is adduced as the subjective reason for their observance of the command. In Deu 5:14, too, the clause “nor thy cattle” (Exo 20:10) is amplified rhetorically, and particularized in the words “thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle.” So again, in Deu 5:16, the promise appended to the fifth commandment, “that thy days may be long in the land,” etc., is amplified by the interpolation of the clause “and that it may go well with thee,” and strengthened by the words “as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee.” In Deu 5:17, instead of (Exo 20:16), the more comprehensive expression is chosen. Again, in the tenth commandment (Deu 5:18), the “neighbour’s wife” is placed first, and then, after the “house,” the field is added before the “man-servant and maid-servant,” whereas in Exodus the “neighbour’s house” is mentioned first, and then the “wife” along with the “man-servant and maid-servant;” and instead of the repetition of , the synonym is employed. Lastly, in Deuteronomy all the commandments from onwards are connected together by the repetition of the cop. before every one, whereas in Exodus it is not introduced at all. – Now if, after what has been said, the rhetorical and hortatory intention is patent in all the variations of the text of Deuteronomy, even down to the transposition of wife and house in the last commandment, this transposition must also be attributed to the freedom with which the decalogue was reproduced, and the text of Exodus be accepted as the original, which is not to be altered in the interests of any arbitrary exposition of the commandments.)

and are called the “words of the covenant, the ten words,” in Exo 34:28, and Deu 4:13; Deu 10:4. God spake these words directly to the people, and not “through the medium of His finite spirits,” as v. Hoffmann, Kurtz, and others suppose. There is not a word in the Old Testament about any such mediation. Not only was it Elohim, according to the chapter before us, who spake these words to the people, and called Himself Jehovah, who had brought Israel out of Egypt (Exo 20:2), but according to Deu 5:4, Jehovah spake these words to Israel “face to face, in the mount, out of the midst of the fire.”

Hence, according to Buxtorf ( Dissert. de Decalogo in genere, 1642), the Jewish commentators almost unanimously affirm that God Himself spake the words of the decalogue, and that words were formed in the air by the power of God, and not by the intervention and ministry of angels.

(Note: This also applies to the Targums. Onkelos and Jonathan have in Exo 20:1, and the Jerusalem Targum . But in the popular Jewish Midrash, the statement in Deu 33:2 (cf. Psa 68:17), that Jehovah came down upon Sinai “out of myriads of His holiness,” i.e., attended by myriads of holy angels, seems to have given rise to the notion that God spake through angels. Thus Josephus represents King Herod as saying to the people, “For ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law through angels ” ( Ant. 15, 5, 3, Whiston’s translation).)

And even from the New Testament this cannot be proved to be a doctrine of the Scriptures. For when Stephen says to the Jews, in Act 7:53, “Ye have received the law” (Eng. Ver. “by the disposition of angels”), and Paul speaks of the law in Gal 3:19 as (“ordained by angels”), these expressions leave it quite uncertain in what the of the angels consisted, or what part they took in connection with the giving of the law.

(Note: That Stephen cannot have meant to say that God spoke through a number of finite angels, is evident from the fact, that in Act 7:38 he had spoken just before of the Angel (in the singular) who spoke to Moses upon Mount Sinai, and had described him in Act 7:35 and Act 7:30 as the Angel who appeared to Moses in the bush, i.e., as no other than the Angel of Jehovah who was identical with Jehovah. “The Angel of the Lord occupies the same place in Act 7:38 as Jehovah in Ex 19. The angels in Act 7:53 and Gal 3:19 are taken from Deut 33. And there the angels do not come in the place of the Lord, but the Lord comes attended by them” (Hengstenberg).)

So again, in Heb 2:2, where the law, “the word spoken by angels” ( ), is placed in contrast with the “salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord” ( ), the antithesis is of so indefinite a nature that it is impossible to draw the conclusion with any certainty, that the writer of this epistle supposed the speaking of God at the promulgation of the decalogue to have been effected through the medium of a number of finite spirits, especially when we consider that in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking is the term applied to the divine revelation generally (see Exo 1:1). As his object was not to describe with precision the manner in which God spake to the Israelites from Sinai, but only to show the superiority of the Gospel, as the revelation of salvation, to the revelation of the law; he was at liberty to select the indefinite expression , and leaven it to the readers of his epistle to interpret it more fully for themselves from the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament, however, the law was given through the medium of angels, only so far as God appeared to Moses, as He had done to the patriarchs, in the form of the “Angel of the Lord,” and Jehovah came down upon Sinai, according to Deu 33:2, surrounded by myriads of holy angels as His escort.

(Note: Lud. de Dieu, in his commentary on Act 7:53, after citing the parallel passages Gal 3:19 and Heb 2:2, correctly observes, that “ horum dictorum haec videtur esse ratio et veritas. S. Stephanus supra 5:39 dixit, Angelum locutum esse cum Mose in monte Sina, eundem nempe qui in rubo ipsa apparuerat, v. 35 qui quamvis in se Deus hic tamen tanquam Angelus Deit caeterorumque angelorum praefectus consideratus e medio angelorum, qui eum undique stipabant, legem i monte Mosi dedit…. Atque inde colligi potest causa, cur apostolus Heb 2:2-3, Legi Evnagelium tantopere anteferat. Etsi enim utriusque auctor et promulgator fuerit idem Dei filius, quia tamen legem tulit in forma angeli e senatu angelico et velatus gloria angelorum, tandem vero caro factus et in carne manifestatus, gloriam prae se ferens non angelorum sed unigeniti filii Dei, evangelium ipsemet, humana voce, habitans inter homines praedicavit, merito lex angelorum sermo, evangelium autem solius filii Dei dicitur .”)

The notion that God spake through the medium of “His finite spirits” can only be sustained in one of two ways: either by reducing the angels to personifications of natural phenomena, such as thunder, lightning, and the sound of a trumpet, a process against which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews enters his protest in Exo 12:19, where he expressly distinguishes the “voice of words” from these phenomena of nature; or else by affirming, with v. Hoffmann, that God, the supernatural, cannot be conceived of without a plurality of spirits collected under Him, or apart from His active operation in the world of bodies, in distinction from which these spirits are comprehended with Him and under Him, so that even the ordinary and regular phenomena of nature would have to be regarded as the workings of angels; in which case the existence of angels as created spirits would be called in question, and they would be reduced to mere personifications of divine powers.

The words of the covenant, or ten words, were written by God upon two tables of stone (Exo 31:18), and are called the law and the commandment ( ) in Exo 24:12, as being the kernel and essence of the law. But the Bible contains neither distinct statements, nor definite hints, with reference to the numbering and division of the commandments upon the two tables, – a clear proof that these points do not possess the importance which has frequently been attributed to them. The different views have arisen in the course of time. Some divide the ten commandments into two pentads, one upon each table. Upon the first they place the commandments concerning (1) other gods, (2) images, (3) the name of God, (4) the Sabbath, and (5) parents; on the second, those concerning (1) murder, (2) adultery, (3) stealing, (4) false witness, and (5) coveting. Others, again, reckon only three to the first table, and seven to the second. In the first they include the commandments respecting (1) other gods, (2) the name of God, (3) the Sabbath, or those which concern the duties towards God; and in the second, those respecting (1) parents, (2) murder, (3) adultery, (4) stealing, (5) false witness, (6) coveting a neighbour’s house, (7) coveting a neighbour’s wife, servants, cattle, and other possession, or those which concern the duties towards one’s neighbour. The first view, with the division into two fives, we find in Josephus (Ant. iii. 5, 5) and Philo ( quis rer. divin. haer. 35, de Decal. 12, etc.); it is unanimously supported by the fathers of the first four centuries,

(Note: They either speak of two tables with five commandments upon each ( Iren. adv. haer. ii. 42), or mention only one commandment against coveting ( Constit. apost. i. 1, vii. 3; Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 50; Tertull, adv. Marc. ii. 17; Ephr. Syr. ad Ex. 20; Epiphan. haer. ii. 2, etc.), or else they expressly distinguish the commandment against images from that against other gods ( Origen, homil. 8 in Ex.; Hieron. ad Ephes. vi. 2; Greg. Naz. carm. i. 1; Sulpicius Sev. hist. sacr. i. 17, etc.).)

and has been retained to the present day by the Eastern and Reformed Churches. The later Jews agree so far with this view, that they only adopt one commandment against coveting; but they differ from it in combining the commandment against images with that against false gods, and taking the introductory words “I am the Lord thy God” to be the first commandment. This mode of numbering, of which we find the first traces in Julian Apostata (in Cyrilli Alex. c. Julian l. V. init.), and in an allusion made by Jerome (on Hos 10:10), is at any rate of more recent origin, and probably arose simply from opposition to the Christians. It still prevails, however, among the modern Jews.

(Note: It is adopted by Gemar. Macc. f. 24 a; Targ. Jon. on Ex. and Deut.; Mechilta on Exo 20:15; Pesikta on Deu 5:6; and the rabbinical commentators of the middle ages.)

The second view was brought forward by Augustine, and no one is known to have supported it previous to him. In his Quaest. 71 on Ex., when treating of the question how the commandments are to be divided (“ utrum quatuor sint usque ad praeceptum de Sabbatho, quae ad ipsum Deum pertinent, sex autem reliqua, quorum primum: Honora patrem et matrem, quae ad hominem pertinent: an potius illa tria sint et ipsa septem ”), he explains the two different views, and adds, “ Mihi tamen videntur congruentius accipi illa tria et ista septem, quoniam Trinitatem videntur illa, quae ad Deum pertinent, insinuare diligentius intuentibus .” He then proceeds still further to show that the commandment against images is only a fuller explanation of that against other gods, but that the commandment not to covet is divided into two commandments by the repetition of the words, “ Thou shalt not covet, ” although “concupiscentia uxoris alienae et concupiscentia domus alienae tantum in peccando differant.” In this division Augustine generally reckons the commandment against coveting the neighbour’s wife as the ninth, according to the text of Deuteronomy; although in several instances he places it after the coveting of the house, according to the text of Exodus. Through the great respect that was felt for Augustine, this division became the usual one in the Western Church; and it was adopted even by Luther and the Lutheran Church, with this difference, however, that both the Catholic and Lutheran Churches regard the commandment not to covet a neighbour’s house as the ninth, whilst only a few here and there give the preference, as Augustine does, to the order adopted in Deuteronomy.

Now if we inquire, which of these divisions of the ten commandments is the correct one, there is nothing to warrant either the assumption of the Talmud and the Rabbins, that the words, “I am Jehovah thy God,” etc., form the first commandment, or the preference given by Augustine to the text of Deuteronomy. The words, “I am the Lord,” etc., contain no independent member of the decalogue, but are merely the preface to the commandments which follow. “Hic sermo nondum sermo mandati est, sed quis sit, qui mandat, ostendit” ( Origen, homil. 8 in Ex.). But, as we have already shown, the text of Deuteronomy, in all its deviations from the text of Exodus, can lay no claim to originality. As to the other two views which have obtained a footing in the Church, the historical credentials of priority and majority are not sufficient of themselves to settle the question in favour of the first, which is generally called the Philonian view, from its earliest supporter. It must be decided from the text of the Bible alone. Now in both substance and form this speaks against the Augustinian, Catholic, and Lutheran view, and in favour of the Philonian, or Oriental and Reformed. In substance; for whereas no essential difference can be pointed out in the two clauses which prohibit coveting, so that even Luther has made but one commandment of them in his smaller catechism, there was a very essential difference between the commandment against other gods and that against making an image of God, so far as the Israelites were concerned, as we may see not only from the account of the golden calf at Sinai, but also from the image worship of Gideon (Jdg 8:27), Micah (Jdg 17:1-13), and Jeroboam (1Ki 12:28.). In form; for the last five commandments differ from the first five, not only in the fact that no reasons are assigned for the former, whereas all the latter are enforced by reasons, in which the expression “Jehovah thy God” occurs every time; but still more in the fact, that in the text of Deuteronomy all the commandments after “Thou shalt do no murder” are connected together by the copula , which is repeated before every sentence, and from which we may see that Moses connected the commandments which treat of duties to one’s neighbour more closely together, and by thus linking them together showed that they formed the second half of the decalogue.

The weight of this testimony is not counterbalanced by the division into parashoth and the double accentuation of the Masoretic text, viz., by accents both above and below, even if we assume that this was intended in any way to indicate a logical division of the commandments. In the Hebrew MSS and editions of the Bible, the decalogue is divided into ten parashoth, with spaces between them marked either by ( Setuma) or ( Phetucha); and whilst the commandments against other gods and images, together with the threat and promise appended to them (Exo 20:3-6), form one parashah, the commandment against coveting (Exo 20:14) is divided by a setuma into two. But according to Kennicott (ad Exo 10:17; Deu 5:18, and diss. gener. p. 59) this setuma was wanting in 234 of the 694 MSS consulted by him, and in many exact editions of the Bible as well; so that the testimony is not unanimous here.It is no argument against this division into parashoth, that it does not agree either with the Philonian or the rabbinical division of the ten commandments, or with the Masoretic arrangement of the verses and the lower accents which correspond to this. For there can be no doubt that it is older than the Masoretic treatment of the text, though it is by no means original on that account. Even when the Targum on the Song of Sol. (Son 5:13) says that the tables of stone were written in ten or , i.e., rows or strophes, like the rows of a garden full of sweet odours, this Targum is much too recent to furnish any valid testimony to the original writing and plan of the decalogue. And the upper accentuation of the decalogue, which corresponds to the division into parashoth, has must as little claim to be received as a testimony in favour of “a division of the verses which was once evidently regarded as very significant” ( Ewald); on the contrary, it was evidently added to the lower accentuation simply in order that the decalogue might be read in the synagogues on particular days after the parashoth.

(Note: See Geiger (wissensch. Ztschr. iii. 1, 151). According to the testimony of a Rabbin who had embraced Christianity, the decalogue was read in one way, when it occurred as a Sabbath parashah, either in the middle of January or at the beginning of July, and in another way at the feast of Pentecost, as the feast of the giving of the law; the lower accentuation being followed in the former case, and the upper in the latter. We may compare with this the account given in En Israel, fol. 103, col. 3, that one form of accentuation was intended for ordinary or private reading, the other for public reading in the synagogue.)

Hence the double accentuation was only so far of importance, as showing that the Masorites regarded the parashoth as sufficiently important, to be retained for reading in the synagogue by a system of accentuation which corresponded to them. But if this division into parashoth had been regarded by the Jews from time immemorial as original, or Mosaic, in its origin; it would be impossible to understand either the rise of other divisions of the decalogue, or the difference between this division and the Masoretic accentuation and arrangement of the verses. From all this so much at any rate is clear, that form a very early period there was a disposition to unite together the two commandments against other gods and images; but assuredly on no other ground than because of the threat and promise with which they are followed, and which must refer, as was correctly assumed, to both commandments. But if these two commandments were classified as one, there was no other way of bringing out the number ten, than to divide the commandment against coveting into two. But as the transposition of the wife and the house in the two texts could not well be reconciled with this, the setuma which separated them in Exo 20:14 did not meet with universal reception.

Lastly, on the division of the ten covenant words upon the two tables of stone, the text of the Bible contains no other information, than that “the tables were written on both their sides” (Exo 32:15), from which we may infer with tolerable certainty, what would otherwise have the greatest probability as being the most natural supposition, viz., that the entire contents of the “ten words” were engraved upon the tables, and not merely the ten commandments in the stricter sense, without the accompanying reasons.

(Note: If the whole of the contents stood upon the table, the ten words cannot have been arranged either according to Philo’s two pentads, or according to Augustine’s division into three and seven; for in either case there would have been far more words upon the first table than upon the second, and, according to Augustine’s arrangement, there would have been 131 upon one table, and only 41 upon the other. We obtain a much more suitable result, if the words of Exo 20:2-7, i.e., the first three commandments according to Philo’s reckoning, were engraved upon the one table, and the other seven from the Sabbath commandment onwards upon the other; for in that case there would be 96 words upon the first table and 76 upon the second. If the reasons for the commandments were not written along with them upon the tables, the commandments respecting the name and nature of God, and the keeping of the Sabbath, together with the preamble, which could not possibly be left out, would amount to 73 words in all, the commandment to honour one’s parents would contain 5 words, and the rest of the commandments 26.)

But if neither the numbering of the ten commandments nor their arrangement on the two tables was indicated in the law as drawn up for the guidance of the people of Israel, so that it was possible for even the Israelites to come to different conclusions on the subject; the Christian Church has all the more a perfect right to handle these matters with Christian liberty and prudence for the instruction of congregations in the law, from the fact that it is no longer bound to the ten commandments, as a part of the law of Moses, which has been abolished for them through the fulfilment of Christ, but has to receive them for the regulation of its own doctrine and life, simply as being the unchangeable norm of the holy will of God which was fulfilled through Christ.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Ten Commandments.

B. C. 1491.

      1 And God spake all these words, saying,   2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.   3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.   4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:   5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;   6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.   7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.   8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.   9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:   10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:   11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

      Here is, I. The preface of the law-writer, Moses: God spoke all these words, v. 1. The law of the ten commandments is, 1. A law of God’s making. They are enjoined by the infinite eternal Majesty of heaven and earth. And where the word of the King of kings is surely there is power. 2. It is a law of his own speaking. God has many ways of speaking to the children of men (Job xxxiii. 14); once, yea twice–by his Spirit, by conscience, by providences, by his voice, all which we ought carefully to attend to; but he never spoke, at any time, upon any occasion, as he spoke the ten commandments, which therefore we ought to hear with the more earnest heed. They were not only spoken audibly (so he owned the Redeemer by a voice from heaven, Matt. iii. 17), but with a great deal of dreadful pomp. This law God had given to man before (it was written in his heart by nature); but sin had so defaced that writing that it was necessary, in this manner, to revive the knowledge of it.

      II. The preface of the Law-maker: I am the Lord thy God, v. 2. Herein, 1. God asserts his own authority to enact this law in general: “I am the Lord who command thee all that follows.” 2. He proposes himself as the sole object of that religious worship which is enjoined in the first four of the commandments. They are here bound to obedience by a threefold cord, which, one would think, could not easily be broken. (1.) Because God is the Lord–Jehovah, self-existent, independent, eternal, and the fountain of all being and power; therefore he has an incontestable right to command us. He that gives being may give law; and therefore he is able to bear us out in our obedience, to reward it, and to punish our disobedience. (2.) He was their God, a God in covenant with them, their God by their own consent; and, if they would not keep his commandments, who would? He had laid himself under obligations to them by promise, and therefore might justly lay his obligations on them by precept. Though that covenant of peculiarity is now no more, yet there is another, by virtue of which all that are baptized are taken into relation to him as their God, and are therefore unjust, unfaithful, and very ungrateful, if they obey him not. (3.) He had brought them out of the land of Egypt; therefore they were bound in gratitude to obey him, because he had done them so great a kindness, had brought them out of a grievous slavery into a glorious liberty. They themselves had been eye-witnesses of the great things God had done in order to their deliverance, and could not but have observed that every circumstance of it heightened their obligation. They were now enjoying the blessed fruits of their deliverance, and in expectation of a speedy settlement in Canaan; and could they think any thing too much to do for him that had done so much for them? Nay, by redeeming them, he acquired a further right to rule them; they owed their service to him to whom they owed their freedom, and whose they were by purchase. And thus Christ, having rescued us out of the bondage of sin, is entitled to the best service we can do him, Luke i. 74. Having loosed our bonds, he has bound us to obey him, Ps. cxvi. 16.

      III. The law itself. The first four of the ten commandments, which concern our duty to God (commonly called the first table), we have in these verses. It was fit that those should be put first, because man had a Maker to love before he had a neighbour to love; and justice and charity are acceptable acts of obedience to God only when they flow from the principles of piety. It cannot be expected that he should be true to his brother who is false to his God. Now our duty to God is, in one word, to worship him, that is, to give to him the glory due to his name, the inward worship of our affections, the outward worship of solemn address and attendance. This is spoken of as the sum and substance of the everlasting gospel. Rev. xiv. 7, Worship God.

      1. The first commandment concerns the object of our worship, Jehovah, and him only (v. 3): Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The Egyptians, and other neighbouring nations, had many gods, the creatures of their own fancy, strange gods, new gods; this law was prefixed because of that transgression, and, Jehovah being the God of Israel, they must entirely cleave to him, and not be for any other, either of their own invention or borrowed from their neighbours. This was the sin they were most in danger of now that the world was so overspread with polytheism, which yet could not be rooted out effectually but by the gospel of Christ. The sin against this commandment which we are most in danger of is giving the glory and honour to any creature which are due to God only. Pride makes a god of self, covetousness makes a god of money, sensuality makes a god of the belly; whatever is esteemed or loved, feared or served, delighted in or depended on, more than God, that (whatever it is) we do in effect make a god of. This prohibition includes a precept which is the foundation of the whole law, that we take the Lord for our God, acknowledge that he is God, accept him for ours, adore him with admiration and humble reverence, and set our affections entirely upon him. In the last words, before me, it is intimated, (1.) That we cannot have any other God but he will certainly know it. There is none besides him but what is before him. Idolaters covet secresy; but shall not God search this out? (2.) That it is very provoking to him; it is a sin that dares him to his face, which he cannot, which he will not, overlook, nor connive at. See Psa 44:20; Psa 44:21.

      2. The second commandment concerns the ordinances of worship, or the way in which God will be worshipped, which it is fit that he himself should have the appointing of. Here is,

      (1.) The prohibition: we are here forbidden to worship even the true God by images, Exo 20:4; Exo 20:5. [1.] The Jews (at least after the captivity) thought themselves forbidden by this commandment to make any image or picture whatsoever. Hence the very images which the Roman armies had in their ensigns are called an abomination to them (Matt. xxiv. 15), especially when they were set up in the holy place. It is certain that it forbids making any image of God (for to whom can we liken him?Isa 40:15; Isa 40:18), or the image of any creature for a religious use. It is called the changing of the truth of God into a lie (Rom. i. 25), for an image is a teacher of lies; it insinuates to us that God has a body, whereas he is an infinite spirit, Hab. ii. 18. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination. They must not make such images or pictures as the heathen worshipped, lest they also should be tempted to worship them. Those who would be kept from sin must keep themselves from the occasions of it. [2.] They must not bow down to them occasionally, that is, show any sign of respect or honour to them, much less serve them constantly, by sacrifice or incense, or any other act of religious worship. When they paid their devotion to the true God, they must not have any image before them, for the directing, exciting, or assisting of their devotion. Though the worship was designed to terminate in God, it would not please him if it came to him through an image. The best and most ancient lawgivers among the heathen forbade the setting up of images in their temples. This practice was forbidden in Rome by Numa, a pagan prince; yet commanded in Rome by the pope, a Christian bishop, but, in this, anti-christian. The use of images in the church of Rome, at this day, is so plainly contrary to the letter of this command, and so impossible to be reconciled to it, that in all their catechisms and books of devotion, which they put into the hands of the people, they leave out this commandment, joining the reason of it to the first; and so the third commandment they call the second, the fourth the third, c. only, to make up the number ten, they divide the tenth into two. Thus have they committed two great evils, in which they persist, and from which they hate to be reformed; they take away from God’s word, and add to his worship.

      (2.) The reasons to enforce this prohibition (Exo 20:5; Exo 20:6), which are, [1.] God’s jealousy in the matters of his worship: “I am the Lord Jehovah, and thy God, am a jealous God, especially in things of this nature.” This intimates the care he has of his own institutions, his hatred of idolatry and all false worship, his displeasure against idolaters, and that he resents every thing in his worship that looks like, or leads to, idolatry. Jealousy is quicksighted. Idolatry being spiritual adultery, as it is very often represented in scripture, the displeasure of God against it is fitly called jealousy. If God is jealous herein, we should be so, afraid of offering any worship to God otherwise than as he has appointed in his word. [2.] The punishment of idolaters. God looks upon them as haters of him, though they perhaps pretend love to him; he will visit their iniquity, that is, he will very severely punish it, not only as a breach of his law, but as an affront to his majesty, a violation of the covenant, and a blow at the root of all religion. He will visit it upon the children, that is, this being a sin for which churches shall be unchurched and a bill of divorce given them, the children shall be cast out of covenant and communion together with the parents, as with the parents the children were at first taken in. Or he will bring such judgments upon a people as shall be the total ruin of families. If idolaters live to be old, so as to see their children of the third or fourth generation, it shall be the vexation of their eyes, and the breaking of their hearts, to see them fall by the sword, carried captive, and enslaved. Nor is it an unrighteous thing with God (if the parents died in their iniquity, and the children tread in their steps, and keep up false worships, because they received them by tradition from their fathers), when the measure is full, and God comes by his judgments to reckon with them, to bring into the account the idolatries their fathers were guilty of. Though he bear long with an idolatrous people, he will not bear always, but by the fourth generation, at furthest, he will begin to visit. Children are dear to their parents; therefore, to deter men from idolatry, and to show how much God is displeased with it, not only a brand of infamy is by it entailed upon families, but the judgments of God may for it be executed upon the poor children when the parents are dead and gone. [3.] The favour God would show to his faithful worshippers: Keeping mercy for thousands of persons, thousands of generations of those that love me, and keep my commandments. This intimates that the second commandment, though, in the letter of it, it is only a prohibition of false worships, yet includes a precept of worshipping God in all those ordinances which he has instituted. As the first commandment requires the inward worship of love, desire, joy, hope, and admiration, so the second requires the outward worship of prayer and praise, and solemn attendance on God’s word. Note, First, Those that truly love God will make it their constant care and endeavour to keep his commandments, particularly those that relate to his worship. Those that love God, and keep those commandments, shall receive grace to keep his other commandments. Gospel worship will have a good influence upon all manner of gospel obedience. Secondly, God has mercy in store for such. Even they need mercy, and cannot plead merit; and mercy they shall find with God, merciful protection in their obedience and a merciful recompence of it. Thirdly, This mercy shall extend to thousands, much further than the wrath threatened to those that hate him, for that reaches but to the third or fourth generation. The streams of mercy run now as full, as free, and as fresh, as ever.

      3. The third commandment concerns the manner of our worship, that it be done with all possible reverence and seriousness, v. 7. We have here,

      (1.) A strict prohibition: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. It is supposed that, having taken Jehovah for their God, they would make mention of his name (for thus all people will walk every one in the name of his god); this command gives a needful caution not to mention it in vain, and it is still as needful as ever. We take God’s name in vain, [1.] By hypocrisy, making a profession of God’s name, but not living up to that profession. Those that name the name of Christ, but do not depart from iniquity, as that name binds them to do, name it in vain; their worship is vain (Matt. xv. 7-9), their oblations are vain (Isa 1:11; Isa 1:13), their religion is vain, Jam. i. 26. [2.] By covenant-breaking; if we make promises to God, binding our souls with those bonds to that which is good, and yet perform not to the Lord our vows, we take his name in vain (Matt. v. 33), it is folly, and God has no pleasure in fools (Eccl. v. 4), nor will he be mocked, Gal. vi. 7. [3.] By rash swearing, mentioning the name of God, or any of his attributes, in the form of an oath, without any just occasion for it, or due application of mind to it, but as a by-word, to no purpose at all, or to no good purpose. [4.] By false swearing, which, some think, is chiefly intended in the letter of the commandment; so it was expounded by those of old time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, Matt. v. 33. One part of the religious regard the Jews were taught to pay to their God was to swear by his name, Deut. x. 20. But they affronted him, instead of doing him honour, if they called him to be witness to a lie. [5.] By using the name of God lightly and carelessly, and without any regard to its awful significancy. The profanation of the forms of devotion is forbidden, as well as the profanation of the forms of swearing; as also the profanation of any of those things whereby God makes himself known, his word, or any of his institutions; when they are either turned into charms and spells, or into jest and sport, the name of God is taken in vain.

      (2.) A severe penalty: The Lord will not hold him guiltless; magistrates, who punish other offences, may not think themselves concerned to take notice of this, because it does not immediately offer injury either to private property or the public peace; but God, who is jealous for his honour, will not thus connive at it. The sinner may perhaps hold himself guiltless, and think there is no harm in it, and that God will never call him to an account for it. To obviate this suggestion, the threatening is thus expressed, God will not hold him guiltless, as he hopes he will; but more is implied, namely, that God will himself be the avenger of those that take his name in vain, and they will find it a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

      4. The fourth commandment concerns the time of worship. God is to be served and honoured daily, but one day in seven is to be particularly dedicated to his honour and spent in his service. Here is,

      (1.) The command itself (v. 8): Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy; and (v. 10), In it thou shalt do no manner of work. It is taken for granted that the sabbath was instituted before; we read of God’s blessing and sanctifying a seventh day from the beginning (Gen. ii. 3), so that this was not the enacting of a new law, but the reviving of an old law. [1.] They are told what is the day they must religiously observe–a seventh, after six days’ labour; whether this was the seventh by computation from the first seventh, or from the day of their coming out of Egypt, or both, is not certain: now the precise day was notified to them (ch. xvi. 23), and from this they were to observe the seventh. [2.] How it must be observed. First, As a day of rest; they were to do no manner of work on this day in their callings or worldly business. Secondly, As a holy day, set apart to the honour of the holy God, and to be spent in holy exercises. God, by blessing it, had made it holy; they, by solemnly blessing him, must keep it holy, and not alienate it to any other purpose than that for which the difference between it and other days was instituted. [3.] Who must observe it: Thou, and thy son, and thy daughter; the wife is not mentioned, because she is supposed to be one with the husband and present with him, and, if he sanctify the sabbath, it is taken for granted that she will join with him; but the rest of the family are specified. Children and servants must keep the sabbath, according to their age and capacity: in this, as in other instances of religion, it is expected that masters of families should take care, not only to serve the Lord themselves, but that their houses also should serve him, at least that it may not be through their neglect if they do not, Josh. xxiv. 15. Even the proselyted strangers must observe a difference between this day and other days, which, if it laid some restraint upon them then, yet proved a happy indication of God’s gracious purpose, in process of time, to bring the Gentiles into the church, that they might share in the benefit of sabbaths. Compare Isa 56:6; Isa 56:7. God takes notice of what we do, particularly what we do on sabbath days, though we should be where we are strangers. [4.] A particular memorandum put upon this duty: Remember it. It is intimated that the sabbath was instituted and observed before; but in their bondage in Egypt they had lost their computation, or were restrained by their task-masters, or, through a great degeneracy and indifference in religion, they had let fall the observance of it, and therefore it was requisite they should be reminded of it. Note, Neglected duties remain duties still, notwithstanding our neglect. It also intimates that we are both apt to forget it and concerned to remember it. Some think it denotes the preparation we are to make for the sabbath; we must think of it before it comes, that, when it does come, we may keep it holy, and do the duty of it.

      (2.) The reasons of this command. [1.] We have time enough for ourselves in those six days, on the seventh day let us serve God; and time enough to tire ourselves, on the seventh it will be a kindness to us to be obliged to rest. [2.] This is God’s day: it is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, not only instituted by him, but consecrated to him. It is sacrilege to alienate it; the sanctification of it is a debt. [3.] It is designed for a memorial of the creation of the world, and therefore to be observed to the glory of the Creator, as an engagement upon ourselves to serve him and an encouragement to us to trust in him who made heaven and earth. By the sanctification of the sabbath, the Jews declared that they worshipped the God that made the world, and so distinguished themselves from all other nations, who worshipped gods which they themselves made. [4.] God has given us an example of rest, after six days’ work: he rested the seventh day, took a complacency in himself, and rejoiced in the work of his hand, to teach us, on that day, to take a complacency in him, and to give him the glory of his works, Ps. xcii. 4. The sabbath began in the finishing of the work of creation, so will the everlasting sabbath in the finishing of the work of providence and redemption; and we observe the weekly sabbath in expectation of that, as well as in remembrance of the former, in both conforming ourselves to him we worship. [5.] He has himself blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it. He has put an honour upon it by setting it apart for himself; it is the holy of the Lord and honourable: and he has put blessings into it, which he has encouraged us to expect from him in the religious observance of that day. It is the day which the Lord hath made, let not us do what we can to unmake it. He has blessed, honoured, and sanctified it, let not us profane it, dishonour it, and level that with common time which God’s blessing has thus dignified and distinguished.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

EXODUS – CHAPTER TWENTY

Verses 1-3:

God prefaced the giving of the Law by establishing Himself as the authority. “I am Jehovah thy Elohe,” the One who delivered Israel from Egypt and slavery.

The “Commandments,” lit., “the Words,” begin with God’s claim to priority. “Thou” in the text is singular, meaning that the “Word” was directed to each individual in the nation, as well as to the nation as a whole.

“Before” is “beside” or “in addition to.” This “Word” requires the worship of Jehovah alone. He confirmed this claim in His superiority over Egypt’s gods.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

1. And God spoke. I am aware that many agree in reading this verse and the next in connection with each other, and thus making them together the first of the ten commandments. Others taking them separately, consider the affirmation to stand in the place of one entire commandment; but since God neither forbids nor commands anything here, but only comes forth before them in His dignity, to devote the people to Himself, and to claim the authority He deserves, which also He would have extended to the whole Law, I make no doubt but that it is a general preface, whereby He prepares their minds for obedience. And surely it was necessary that, first of all, the right of the legislator should be established, lest what He chose to command should be despised, or contemptuously received. In these words, then, God seeks to procure reverence to Himself, before He prescribes the rule of a holy and righteous life. Moreover, He not merely declares Himself to be Jehovah, the only God to whom men are bound by the right of creation, who has given them their existence, and who preserves their life, nay, who is Himself the life of all; but He adds, that He is the peculiar God of the Israelites; for it was expedient, not only that the people should be alarmed by the majesty of God, but also that they should be gently attracted, so that the law might be more precious than gold and silver, and at the same time “sweeter than honey,” (Psa 119:72😉 for it would not be enough for men to be compelled by servile fear to bear its yoke, unless they were also attracted by its sweetness, and willingly endured it. He afterwards recounts that special blessing, wherewith He had honored the people, and by which He had testified that they were not elected by Him in vain; for their redemption was the sure pledge of their adoption. But, in order to bind them the better to Himself, He reminds them also of their former condition; for Egypt was like a house of bondage, from whence the Israelites were delivered. Wherefore, they were no more their own masters, since God had purchased them unto Himself. This does not indeed literally apply to us; but He has bound us to Himself with a holier tie, by the hand of His only-be-gotten Son; whom Paul teaches to have died, and risen again, “that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living.” (Rom 14:9.) So that He is not now the God of one people only, but of all nations, whom He has called into His Church by general adoption.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES.

Exo. 20:1. All these words.] Concerning which observe

(1.) That they form the basis of the covenant, of which ch. Exo. 19:3-6 offers the first proposal; chs. 2123, the detailed sketch; and ch. Exo. 24:1-8, the formal ratification.

(2.) That they are all grounded upon the existing relationship between Jehovah and Israel announced in Exo. 20:1; so that THE LAW, par excellence, is itself founded upon redeeming grace.

(3.) That thus they may all be united by the principle to which they owe their privileged positionfaithfulness to Him who has redeemed Israel, shown directly towards God Himself in matters of worship (four commands. 311); and indirectly towards manfor whom Jehovah caresin matters of social intercourse (six commands. 1217).

(4.) That, nevertheless, they reveal the immeasurable inferiority of the old covenant to which they give character, as compared with the new: the leading note of the former being Thou shalt, that of the latter I will (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Hebrews 8).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 20:1-3

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

The recollection, and admiration, and love, and worship, and obedience, and fellowship of God, form the substance of true religion. Salvation is God revealed in Christ.

I. Every man must have a godoriginally.

1. Man must draw enjoyment from withoutGod alone is independent.
2. Man has capacities which are exercised on something external.

3. Man must now have many gods (Jer. 2:28).

II. Jehovah claims to be the God of each individual. The grounds of this claim are stated in the Preface to the Ten Commandments. I am the Lord thy God.

1. His intrinsic excellence.
2. His relation to mento His peopleto all.

3. God willingly submits to comparison (1 Kings 18).

III. Jehovahs claims to be the God of His creatures are generally overlooked and rejected. The forms of human idolatry are very numerous.

1. The creature is deified (Rom. 1:25).

2. God Himself is made after the fancies and tastes of depraved men.
3. God is contemplated out of Christ.

IV. Jehovah observes and marks the manner in which His Divine claims are disposed of by men.

1. He observes it as omniscient.
2. He observes it as jealous of His glory.
3. He observes it as forming a righteous judgment respecting the conduct of all His creatures.
4. He observes it that He may deal with men accordingly.
5. Prepare to meet thy God.Outlines by Stewart.

ILLUSTRATIONS

BY
THE REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON

Law Divine! Exo. 20:1. A converted infidel exclaimed on reading Exodus 20, Where did Moses get this law? The Egyptians and the adjacent nations were idolaters. So were the Greeks and Romans. The wisest Greeks and the best Romans never gave a code of morals like this. Where did Moses get this Law, which surpasses the wisdom and philosophy of the most enlightened age? He lived at a period comparatively barbarous; yet he has given a law in which the learning and sagacity of all subsequent time can detect no flaw. Where did he get it? He could not have soared up to it. It must have soared down to him. It must be from God. No Canova-eye can detect the tiniest flaw in this snow-white marble code.

How holy is the precept,
How righteous the decree,
Revealing to His creatures
The Lords own purity.

Moral Law! Exo. 20:1. A boat on a summer sea is a pleasant picture. But a boat full of people on the Indian Ganges or the mighty Amazon, when the day is dull and the sky dismalwhen the wind roars and the thunder pealswhen the waters swell and the stream flashes pastis a spectacle of horror. You hear the shrieks between the thunderpeals as they on surging waters, and you on solid strand, wonder how salvation is to come. Ah! if their frail barque could but be drawn into yonder narrow creek, all would be well. A rope is flung out to them, and fastened to the boat. Suddenly a frantic sailor seizes a hatchet, and by one frenzied blow severs the rope. One blowno more! The boat sweeps headlong against the rock. A crashand all is oer. It needs not that the rope should be cut in ten places to sever the connection and injure salvation. If one commandment be broken; if frenzied passion cut Gods Law at any one pointall is broken. Thus we see how

One mischief entered brings another in;
The second pulls a third, the third draws more,
And they for all the rest set open the door.

Smith.

Divine Denial! Exo. 20:2. Kircher, the famous astronomer, anxious to convince an infidel friend of the Divine existence, procured a very handsome astronomical globe, and placed it in a corner of his room. When his friend called, he saw the globe, and admiring it, inquired to whom it belonged! It was never made; it came here by chance. The sceptic declared it was but a sorry jest, since such was impossible. The wise philosopher at once happily retorted, You will not believe that this tiny, frail globe came from chance, and yet you expect me to believe that all those mighty worlds have no Maker! He then proceeded to reason with his friend, so earnestly that he flung his infidel ideas to the wind, convinced of the existence of the Divine I am.

Infinite strength, and equal skill,

Shine through Thy works abroad;

Our souls with vast amazement fill,

And speak the builder God.

Watts.

Idolatry! Exo. 20:2-3. A mans idol is not necessarily an image of gold. It may be a child of claythe fruit of his own loinsthe wife of his bosom. It may be wealth, fame, position, success, businessanything which absorbs unduly the affections and attention. Against such idols God hurls His resistless missile here as resolutely as against the heathen idols of wood and stone. When the English captured Rangoon, the saintly Havelock established a prayer-meeting in a famous heathen temple. The room was filled with idol-images, and in the lap of each of these dumb gods he placed a lamp to give light. He turned the idols into lampstands for the Divine glory. When there is no danger of our worshipping our old human-idols, let us turn them to good account. We may transform them into lampstands. We may make them serveas lights to enable us to worship Him, whose glory is that of the One True God.

There are many heathen people,

Who yet Gods name have known;

And many other idols

Than those of wood and stone.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE TEXT OF EXODUS
TRANSLATION

20 And God spake all these words, saying,

(2) I am Je-ho-vah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of E-gypt, out of the house of bondage.
(3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(4) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (5) thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I Je-ho-vah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, (6) and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

(7) Thou shalt not take the name of Je-ho-vah thy God in vain; for Je-ho-vah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (9) Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; (10) but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Je-ho-vah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (11) for in six days Je-ho-vah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Je-ho-yah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(12) Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Je-ho-vah thy God giveth thee.
(13) Thou shalt not kill.
(14) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
(15) Thou shalt not steal.
(16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors.
(18) And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. (19) And they said unto Mo-ses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (20) And Mo-ses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not. (21) And the people stood afar off, and Mo-ses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
(22) And Je-ho-vah said unto Mo-ses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Is-ra-el, Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. (23) Ye shall not make other gods with me; gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you. (24) An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. (25) And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. (26) Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.

EXPLORING EXODUS: CHAPTER TWENTY
QUESTIONS ANSWERABLE FROM THE BIBLE

1.

What did God, as He began the ten commandments, remind Israel that He had done for them? (Exo. 20:2)

2.

Does before me in Exo. 20:3 indicate that other gods really exist?

3.

What does graven mean in graven image? (Exo. 20:4). Compare molten image in Deu. 27:15.

4.

What is the water under the earth in Exo. 20:4? Compare Deu. 4:18.

5.

What acts involving idols are forbidden? (Exo. 20:5)

6.

Of what is God jealous? (Exo. 20:5; Compare Exo. 34:14; Eze. 39:25)

7.

Why should God punish the third and fourth generations? Can you give any example of Gods doing this? (Exo. 20:5; Compare Deu. 24:16; Eze. 18:20)

8.

To whom does God promise great mercy (lovingkindness)? (Exo. 20:6)

9.

What does in vain mean? (Exo. 20:7; Compare Lev. 19:12; Psa. 60:11; Pro. 30:8)

10.

What day of the week is the Sabbath day? (Exo. 20:8-10)

11.

How was the Sabbath to be kept? (Exo. 20:8)

12.

What was forbidden on the Sabbath days? (Exo. 20:9-10)

13.

What reason is given for not working on the Sabbath? (Exo. 20:11) What reason is given in Deu. 5:15?

14.

What reason is given for honoring father and mother? (Exo. 20:12)

15.

What does honoring father and mother involve? (Exo. 20:12; Compare 1Ti. 5:4; Mali Exo. 15:3-6; Eph. 6:1-3)

16.

Does not kill forbid only murder, or all killing? (Exo. 20:13; Num. 35:16; Num. 35:22-24; 1Jn. 3:15)

17.

What was the penalty for adultery? (Lev. 20:10)

18.

How did Christ modify the command against adultery? (Mat. 5:27-32)

19.

Is the command against bearing false witness limited to courtroom statements, or is it applicable in other situations? (Exo. 20:16; Mat. 5:33-37; Eph. 4:25)

20.

What does covet mean? (Exo. 20:17)

21.

What items are named that are not to be coveted? (Exo. 20:17)

22.

What did the Israelites see that frightened them? (Exo. 20:18). Where did the Israelites move to?

23.

Whom did the people ask to speak to God? (Exo. 20:19)

24.

For what three purposes did God come unto Israel, according to Exo. 20:20?

25.

Where was God as Moses drew near to Him? (Exo. 20:21; Compare Jer. 23:23-24.)

26.

Who had talked with Israel from heaven? (Exo. 20:22; Compare Deu. 4:33; Deu. 4:36; Deu. 5:24)

27.

Of what materials specifically were idols not to be made? (Exo. 20:23; Compare Exo. 32:2-4)

28.

Of what were altars to be made? (Exo. 20:24-25)

29.

At what places only would God come and bless them when they offered sacrifices? (Exo. 20:24)

30.

What prohibition was given about stones used in making altars? (Exo. 20:25)

31.

By what means was an altar not to be approached? (Exo. 20:26) Why not?

Exodus Twenty: The Ten Words (Commandments)

1.

The ten commandments given; Exo. 20:1-17.

2.

The peoples fear; Exo. 20:18-21.

3.

Instructions about worship; Exo. 20:22-26.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, A PROTECTION

1.

First commandment: Protection from false gods; Exo. 20:2-3.

2.

Protection from false worship; Exo. 20:4-6.

3.

Protection from misusing Gods name; Exo. 20:7.

4.

Protection of rest and the remembrance of creation; Exo. 20:8-11.

5.

Protection of parents; Exo. 20:12.

6.

Protection of human life; Exo. 20:13.

7.

Protection of marriage; Exo. 20:14.

8.

Protection of property; Exo. 20:15.

9.

Protection of truth; Exo. 20:16.

10.

Protection from evil desires; Exo. 20:17

(Adapted from John Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt [Grand Rapids; Baker, 1971], pp. 200210)

THE TEACHING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS As GIVEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1.

No other gods. 1Co. 8:5-6; Act. 14:15; Mat. 22:36-37; 1Ti. 2:5.

2.

No graven image. 1Jn. 5:21; Act. 15:20; Act. 15:29; 1Co. 5:10-11; Rev. 2:14.

3.

Name not in vain. Jas. 5:12; Mat. 12:36; Rev. 13:6.

4.

Sabbath. Heb. 4:9; Col. 2:16; Act. 20:7; Rev. 1:10.

5.

Honor parents. Eph. 6:1-3; Mat. 15:4-6; 1Ti. 5:3-4.

6.

Kill. Mat. 5:21-22; Rom. 13:19; 1Jn. 3:15.

7.

Adultery. Mat. 5:27-28; 1Co. 6:9; 1Co. 6:18; Heb. 13:4.

8.

Steal. Eph. 4:28; Tit. 2:10; Rom. 12:17.

9.

False witness. Mat. 5:33-34; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:25.

10.

Covet. Eph. 5:3; Eph. 5:5; Luk. 12:15-21; Rom. 13:9; 1Co. 5:10.

GODS REVELATION OF HIMSELF (Exo. 20:18-20)

1.

Is plain and obvious; Exo. 20:18.

2.

Comes in striking display; Exo. 20:18.

3.

Brings fear; Exo. 20:18-19.

4.

Creates desire for a mediator; Exo. 20:19.

5.

Tests his people; Exo. 20:20.

WHY GOD COMES TO US (Exo. 20:20)

1.

To prove (test) us.

2.

To put fear into us. (Pro. 16:6)

3.

That we sin not.

MENS RESPONSES To GODS REVELATION (Exo. 20:18-19)

1.

Fear; Exo. 20:18.

2.

Request for a mediator; Exo. 20:19.

GODS VOICE, BUT NOT A FORM! (Exo. 20:22-23; Deu. 4:12; Deu. 4:15)

1.

No form seen; Exo. 20:22.

2.

No forms to be made; Exo. 20:23.

THE ALTAR OF GOD (Exo. 20:24-26)

1.

Made of simple materials; Exo. 20:24.

2.

Used only for Gods specified offerings; Exo. 20:24.

3.

Used only where God designated; Exo. 20:24.

4.

Made of unadorned materials; Exo. 20:25.

5.

Approached with modesty; Exo. 20:26.

PUBLIC WORSHIP (Exo. 20:24-26)

1.

Offered in simplicity. Exo. 20:24.

2.

Offered only with commanded sacrifices; Exo. 20:24.

(For us this is CHRIST.)

3.

Offered only where God designated Exo. 20:24.

4.

Offered without mens adornment; Exo. 20:25.

5.

Offered in decency; Exo. 20:26.

SPECIAL STUDY: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

1.

Where do we find the ten commandments in the Bible?

We find them in Exodus chapter twenty and Deuteronomy chapter five. (Please memorize this and do not ever forget it!)

2.

How significant are the ten commandments?

a.

They are recognized as the basis of all public morality in the Western world. Their influence is too great for calculation. Probably our society could not survive without these simple comprehensive regulations.

b.

They are a unique thing in all the religious teachings of the world. They are without any real parallels.

They are unique in their teaching that it is impossible to separate morality from religion.

They are unique in making duties to mankind on a par with duties to God.
They are unique in the awe-inspiring manner in which they were delivered.
They are unique in both their comprehensiveness and their conciseness.

3.

How does the world feel about the ten commandments?

Most people will say, Oh, the ten commandments are great! But in their hearts they really do not like some of the commandments. The philosopher Will Durant said, The world has never quite come to terms with the ten commandments. This is not surprising. The apostle Paul in Rom. 8:7 declared, The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.

4.

What are the names that are given to the ten commandments?

We believe in using Bible names for Bible things. We believe also that names tell us very much about the character and function of the things that are named. What are the names?

a.

The ten words (or commandments). (Exo. 34:28; Deu. 4:13; Deu. 10:4). This is the Biblical name for them. The term words does not refer to single words, but to utterances, or sayings. We use the term word with the same signification in such statements as Bring me word.

b.

The name Decalogue is a good title for the ten commandments. It comes from the Greek words deka (meaning ten) and logos (meaning word). It is first found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 160210), and was commonly used by the church fathers who followed him.

c.

The words of the covenant (Exo. 34:28)

d.

The tables of the covenant (Deu. 9:9)

e.

The covenant (Deu. 4:13)

f.

The two tables (Deu. 9:10-17)

g.

The testimony (a very common name for them; Exo. 16:34; Exo. 25:16)

h.

The tablets of the testimony (Exo. 31:18)

i.

The commandments (Mat. 19:17)

5.

How are the ten commandments to be divided?

The scripture does not set forth any division of the ten commandments, either as to which commandment is number one, two . . . . ten; or as to how the commandments were divided up and arranged on the original stone tablets.
We do know that there were TEN commandments, but opinions differ as to how these are divided.

a.

Which commandments are to be numbered one, two, etc. ?

(1)

Most Protestants and the ancient Jewish authorities Philo and Josephus treat Exo. 20:3 as the first commandment, Exo. 20:4-6 as the second, and thus on to Exo. 20:17 as the tenth. We prefer this arrangement.

(2)

Jewish scholars regard Exo. 20:2 as the first commandment. Then Exo. 20:3-6 is treated as the second commandment. The remainder are divided up as most Protestants do, with all of Exo. 20:17 being the tenth commandment.

(3)

Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians treat Exo. 20:3-6 as the first commandment; Exo. 20:7 as the second, and thus on to Exo. 20:17, which is divided into two commandments, the ninth and tenth. The ninth is Thou shalt not covet they neighbors house, and the tenth is Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Most non-Catholics suspect that this method of dividing the commandments was made to deemphasize the commandment against image-making. When stated as a separate command, the law against image-making seems somewhat more definite than it does as part of the commandment about having no other gods.

As for dividing the commandment against coveting into two commandments, the form of the commandments in Deu. 5:21 argues against this. There the order of the two primary objects of coveting (house and wife) is reversed from that in Exodus. Also a synonym for covet (desire) is used instead of covet in one of the statements. This seems to us to weaken the probability that there are two commandments there.

b.

How were the ten commandments arranged and divided on the original stone tablets?

The undeniable truth is that we do not know. Some have proposed that five were on one slab and five on the other. This arrangement would have placed 137 words on the first tablet and only 26 on the second. Others have suggested that the first three laws were on the first tablet and the last seven were on the second. This arrangement would come as near to equalizing the writing on each slab as could be done, and still allow the first tablet to end at the bottom with a completed commandment.

Others have proposed that the first tablet had the first four commandments, which concern mens duties to God; and the second tablet had the last six, which involve mens duties to men. To this we can only say Maybe so. This arrangement would place 122 words on the first tablet and 41 on the second.
We see no reason for assuming that the first tablet had to end its writing at a division between commandments. Many ancient tablets ended in mid-sentence, and then the writing continued on the next tablet.

6.

What is the relation of the Decalogue to the rest of the laws in Exodus?

The law of Moses (the Torah) makes no clear line of separation between the ten commandments and the laws in the chapters that follow it. All alike disclose the will of God.

Admittedly the ten commandments stand out most prominently among the precepts of the Torah because of the awe-inspiring manner in which they were given and because of their fundamental and far-reaching importance. Only the ten commandments were placed in the ark of the covenant (Exo. 40:20). The conciseness and comprehensiveness of the Decalogue are unique in all the worlds literature.

Nonetheless, there is still no clear demarcation between the authority and permanence of the Decalogue and that of the other laws of Moses. The Decalogue is called the covenant in Exo. 34:28, but the other laws also constitute the book of the covenant (Exo. 24:7). While the Decalogue was kept IN the ark, the other laws were kept BY the side of the ark of the covenant (Deu. 31:26).

The two greatest commandments of all are not even included among the ten commandments. See Mat. 22:37-40; Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18.

Interpreters have sometimes tried to maintain that the ten commandments are the permanent MORAL law, and that this was not done away with as were the CEREMONIAL laws when Christ died on the cross. This is simply not a valid division of the law. There are many MORAL laws outside of the ten commandments. See Exo. 23:1-3 for example. Also the Sabbath law in the ten commandments has a partly CEREMONIAL character. Furthermore, in Gods laws, ceremonial laws often have distinctly moral character about them. Note Exo. 23:10-12. The law is simply not divisible into distinct categories. The law is a unit, and the ten commandments, in spite of all their distinctive features, are an integral part of the larger undivided LAW given in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

7.

How do the ten commandments differ in Exodus from the form given in Deuteronomy?

(1)

The fourth commandment (about the Sabbath) is different in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy says (in Exo. 5:12) to keep (or observe) the Sabbath, rather than to remember it, as in Exo. 20:8. Deu. 5:12 adds as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Deu. 5:14 adds your ox or your ass and that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. Deu. 5:15 says that the Sabbath is to be observed in memory of Israels deliverance from Egypt, rather than because Jehovah made heaven and earth in six days and rested the seventh day (Exo. 20:11).

(2)

In the fifth commandment (Deu. 5:16), the words that it may go well with thee are added. Also Deuteronomy has the words as the LORD thy God commanded thee added.

(3)

In Deu. 5:18-21 the last four commandments are all introduced by and (sometimes translated neither).

(4)

The tenth commandment (about coveting) is considerably different in Deu. 5:21 from Exo. 20:17. Deuteronomy reverses the order of wife and house. Deut. adds field. Deut. also uses desire as a synonym for covet at the second occurrence of the word covet.

8.

How shall we account for the differences between the form of the ten commandments in Exodus and in Deuteronomy?

Probably it is to be accounted for by the fact that in Deuteronomy Moses was citing somewhat extemporaneously Gods words that had been given at Mt. Sinai. Often in such cases the very words themselves are not cited, but certain variations and changes are introduced.

The version in Exodus twenty is said to have been written by the very finger of God (Exo. 31:18). We accept this as true and therefore regard the commandments there as being the exact original wording.

When Moses repeated the law nearly forty years later in the Plains of Moab (as given in Deuteronomy), he enlarged upon many parts of it and paraphrased it somewhat. For an illustration, compare the laws about the Hebrew slave in Exo. 21:1-6 and Deu. 15:12-18. Compare also the laws about the Feast of Weeks in Exo. 23:16 and Deu. 16:9-12. Compare also Exo. 20:24-26 and Deu. 27:5-8. We should not be surprised to find some minor variations between the ten commandments as given in Exodus and in Deuteronomy.

This does NOT imply that the Deuteronomy version of the ten commandments is inferior, or represents only Moses own imperfect memory of them or his own personal interpretation of the Exodus twenty commandments! Jehovah spoke through Moses at the Plain of Moab just as certainly as He spoke on Mt. Sinai. See Num. 36:13; Deu. 29:1. God allowed Moses or caused Moses to speak some new words in Deuteronomy five. But the ideas are unchanged, or are merely enlarged upon. There is no conflict of truth between Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Cassuto (op. cit., pp. 250251) calls attention to the fact that the two laws which differ most in Deuteronomy from Exodus (the laws on obeying parents and the sabbath law) both insert in Deuteronomy the words as Jehovah thy God commanded thee. Thus Moses alluded to the fact that although the commandments were expressed one way in Deuteronomy, he was not quoting their precise words.

9.

Were the ten commandments given at first in the words in which we now have them?

It is a popular opinion that the ten commandments as originally given were all brief, succinct, one-line commandments. Supposedly the enlargements and explanations given with some of the commandments (like those in the commandments about graven images, the sabbath day, and coveting) were added later.

We do not feel that this is a correct opinion. The text says of itself that God spake ALL these words (Exo. 20:1). When Moses repeated the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5, he declared that These words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire. Moses referred to the ten commandments in the form in which we now have them.

Also we feel that the idea that the commandments were originally all brief one-line assertions rests upon a basic misunderstanding of the commandments that are somewhat elaborated. The commandments that are elaborated (the ones about graven images, sabbath day, coveting, etc.) are the very ones which expressed NEW religious ideas. Laws about stealing or killing were familiar. But the ideas of a God who must not be represented in any material form, and of a regular day of rest to commemorate the rest of God after creation, and of a law against desiring other peoples possessions these were new and revolutionary ideas which required some elaboration, even in the concise presentation the ten commandments make. Compare Cassuto, op. cit., pp. 235-237.

10.

Are Christians under the ten commandments?

To this vital question we must give a paradoxical answer: Yes and No.

To the Christian the law is holy and righteous and good (Rom. 7:12-13). We do not nullify the law through faith. God forbid! Rather, we establish the law (Rom. 3:31). Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mat. 5:17). He came that the ordinance (or requirement) of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). We delight in the law of God in our inward man (Rom. 8:22). We can speak with all the intensity of King David: Oh how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day! (Psa. 119:97). The scriptures of the O.T. law are able to make us wise unto salvation (2Ti. 3:15). We could never praise Gods law enough!

In spite of the preceding sincere praise of the ten commandments and the other laws of Moses, we must declare categorically that WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, including the ten commandments. Rom. 6:15 : We are not under the law but under grace.

Please consider the following argument carefully:

(1)

Exo. 34:28 and Deu. 9:9 specifically refer to the ten commandments as being the covenant.

(2)

Jer. 31:31-32 prophesied that God would make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant he made when he brought them out of Egypt.

(3)

Heb. 8:6-13 declares that Christ is now the mediator of a new and better covenant, and contrasts this new covenant with the very one God made when He led Israel out of Egypt. In 2Co. 3:6 Paul declared that he was a minister of a new covenant, not of a covenant written on stones (and only the ten commandments were written on stones).

When the present United States were colonies of Great Britain, the Continental Congress enacted laws against various crimes. Our present laws include ordinances against some of the same crimes. Does this mean that we are still under the laws of the Continental Congress because some of our present laws have provisions like those of the Continental Congress? Similarly, although numerous laws in the old covenant are repeated in the new covenant, that does not mean we are under the old covenant. Our Christian laws get their authority from being in the new covenant, whether they were in the old covenant or not.

As a matter of fact, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament in one form or another. Only the Sabbath law is not repeated. So, as a matter of fact, we are under most of the ten commandments, not because we are legally under the covenant that included the ten commandments, but because the new covenant includes most of these commandments.

When the apostles and elders held the big conference in Jerusalem to determine whether Gentile Christians had to keep the customs of Moses or not (Act. 15:1; Act. 15:5), their decision (which was reached by the guidance of the Holy Spirit [Act. 15:28; Gal. 2:2]) was that the Gentiles did not have to keep any of the laws of Moses except to avoid idolatry, and fornication, and things strangled, and eating blood (Act. 15:20). Not a word was uttered about keeping Sabbath days, or diet laws, or feast days, or sacrifices, or circumcision.

Failure to understand these things will cause us to seek to return to the law of Moses, which is a ministration of death (2Co. 3:7), a ministration of condemnation (2Co. 3:9). The law of Moses passes away (2Co. 3:11). It brings us under a curse (Gal. 3:10). It causes us to be cut off from Christ (Gal. 5:4). It was only a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). Let us hold on to Christ, and in so doing we shall fulfill the law.

EXPLORING EXODUS: NOTES ON CHAPTER TWENTY

1.

Who uttered the ten commandments? (Exo. 20:1)

God (Heb., Elohim, God, the powerful creator, God of nature, and God of all nations) spoke all these words, saying I am Jehovah (Yahweh, the LORD) thy God. Yahweh is the covenant name of God as God of Israel. See Exo. 3:13-15.

Note how the Bible text links GOD to the WORDS which were spoken. Deu. 5:22 : These words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the mount.

2.

Were the words of the law given by angels?

Act. 7:53 : Ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels,. . . Gal. 3:19 : (The law was) ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Heb. 2:2 : If the word spoken through angels proved steadfast. . . . Deu. 33:2 : Jehovah came from Sinai, . . . And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones. (Holy ones frequently refers to angels.)

From these passages we learn that the law was in some way communicated by God through angels. We do not know the process by which this was done. It does not appear that the Decalogue (ten commandments) was delivered by angels, but directly to the people by Gods voice, face to face. (Deu. 5:4).

3.

What was the purpose of Gods declaration of Himself in Exo. 20:2?

It would seem that God declared His great acts to cause the Israelites to pay strict attention to the great words He was about to say.
Although God had brought Israel out of Egypt, that did not mean that they had no responsibilities to Him. Far from it! Redemption introduces new motivations and responsibilities upon us.

Exo. 20:2 starts with an emphatic I in the Hebrew.

The LORD had declared many times in earlier chapters that the people would know that He was Jehovah! (Exo. 6:7). Surely by now that name had become extremely meaningful to Israel.

Jewish scholars usually regard Exo. 20:2 as the first commandment of the ten. However, the eminent Jewish commentator Cassuto[300] says (correctly we feel) that verse two is not a command, but only a proclamation introducing the speaker, Nevertheless, the Jewish designation of Exo. 20:2 as the first commandment does emphasize the truth that we cannot have the moral values of the ten commandments without having faith in the LORD who gave the commandments.

[300] U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), p. 241.

4.

What does before me mean in Thou shalt have no other gods before me? (Exo. 20:3)

Literally it reads before my face or near my face. Since Gods face (or presence) is everywhere (Jer. 23:23), to have no other gods before me actually means to recognize no other gods at all.

In Hebrew before me is al panay. Very similar Hebrew expressions are found in Gen. 11:28 (Haran died before the face of his father Terah.); also in Job. 1:11 (He will renounce thee to thy face.); also Eze. 40:15 (And from the front of the gate. . . .); and Exo. 18:13 (the people stood before Moses.). These passages illustrate the meaning of before me.

The expression may also imply against me or in opposition to me. The Heb. preposition al has this meaning in Eze. 5:8 and Psa. 3:1. It could also mean in addition to me. This meaning is implied by the preposition al in Gen. 31:50. The Greek O.T. translates it besides me. (The Greek preposition is plen, meaning besides, except, or save.)

The verse clearly teaches that God did not tolerate recognition of any god except Him. Israel was to practice a genuine monotheism. The liberal view of this verse is that the command does not state that only one God exists, but rather that the LORD was supreme among the gods of the ancient Near East; and that only in the later centuries did Israel affirm that only the Lord existed (as in Isa. 45:5; Isa. 46:1).[301] It surely appears to us that Exo. 20:2 teaches a pure and exclusive monotheism.

[301] Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 (1969), p. 411.

The fact that Israel worshipped other gods in later centuries (Jos. 24:15) does not prove that a commandment against such practices had not been given. Note Jdg. 17:4. The expression Thou shalt have (literally, There shall not be to thee) has a singular verb, although its subject (other gods) is plural. This appears to forbid acceptance of all other gods as a collective body of nonentities.

When Israel remained true to the one exclusive God, she was victorious and united. When she forsook the LORD, she was defeated and fragmented. (Jdg. 2:11-15; Chs. 17, 18)

5.

What are graven images? (Exo. 20:4-5)

A graven image is a carved image of wood, stone or such material. (Our word engrave is from the same root.) Compare Jdg. 17:3; 2Ki. 21:7. Cast (or molten) images were also forbidden (Exo. 34:17).

A likeness is a form seen by man, rather than an image made by man.[302] (Num. 12:8; Deu. 4:12; Deu. 4:15 ff; Job. 4:16; Psa. 17:15). In Exo. 20:4 likeness refers to a statue or painting of anything they may have seen.

[302] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 115.

The command forbidding the making of any graven images was in total opposition to the religious practices of all the world at that time. It is little wonder that God elaborated upon this commandment (in Exo. 20:4-6) more than He did upon obvious commandments, such as Kill not. (The two commandments that are lengthily elaborated the graven image and Sabbath commandments are the very ones that deal with completely new religious ideas, and therefore needed a more thorough presentation.)

Israel was not forbidden to make all statues or paintings. They were just forbidden to make such things unto thee, that is, as objects of worship. God Himself commanded them to make golden cherubim (angel figurines) upon the ark of the covenant. Presumably these were made by an engraver (Exo. 38:23). Also in Solomons temple there were decorations of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers (1Ki. 6:32), and also of lilies (1Ki. 7:22). Decoration of lions, oxen, and cherubim decorated the lavers by Solomons temple (1Ki. 7:29). Moses made a brass snake at Gods command (Num. 21:8-9). Thus it appears not all statues and art work was forbidden in Israel, only those which were objects of worship. (Even the brass snake was destroyed when it became an object of worship (2Ki. 18:4).

6.

What is the water under the earth? (Exo. 20:4)

The water under the earth is simply the water lying below the surface of seas, rivers, etc. This is made clear by Deu. 4:18, which refers to the fish that are in the water under the earth. It is under (or below) the earth because it is lower than the ground level at the surface of the water.

Occasionally we read the view that the waters under the earth refer to one of the three stories which ancient people thought the universe consisted of, namely of heaven above, the earth, and the world beneath the earth, as if there were some great subterranean cavity under the earth full of water. The Bible presents no such unscientific and superstitious world-view.

7.

In what way is God jealous? (Exo. 20:5)

He is jealous in that He is full of zeal and ardor against those who give to graven images the recognition and worship that He alone deserves as God.
This word jealous is a term applied exclusively to God. Compare Deu. 4:24. The word does not suggest the pettiness and nastiness that we often associate with jealousy.

Isa. 42:8 : I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images. Compare Isa. 46:5; Isa. 44:9-17; Isa. 42:8; Deu. 6:15; Jos. 24:15; Nah. 1:2.

8.

Is it fair for God to recompense the iniquity of the fathers upon the children? (Exo. 20:5-6)

Assuredly it is just and fair. It would be just and fair even if we did not understand why God did it, because God is always just (Rom. 3:26).

Consider first Deu. 24:16 : The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sins. Compare Eze. 18:4; Eze. 18:20!

The word translated third generation (shillesh) means a great-grandchild. The expression third and fourth generation seems simply to refer to indefinite future generations. Compare Amo. 1:3; Amo. 1:6.

The best way to understand the threat of Exo. 20:5 is to see how God carried it out. From later history we learn that God often endured the wrongdoing of people with great longsuffering. However, His patience had a definite limit. And when God finally brought down punishment upon the later generations, He inflicted upon those generations the punishment for their own sins and also those of their fathers. But and this is very important God only did this to the descendants who continued to walk in the wicked ways of their fathers. To those who loved Him and kept His commandments He showed great lovingkindness. (Lovingkindness, or mercy, or steadfast love is hesed in Hebrew, an enduring covenant-love. See notes on Exo. 15:13 and compare Exo. 34:7.) (Loving God means keeping Gods commandments. 1Jn. 5:3).

The histories of the Biblical kings illustrate Exo. 20:5-6. King Manasseh was a very evil king, whose evils brought the sentence of destruction upon the kingdom (2Ki. 21:10-15). However, Manassehs good grandson, Josiah, who kept Gods covenant, was not punished (2Ki. 22:16-20). Nonetheless, Josiahs goodness did not turn away the wrath upon Manassehs sins (2Ki. 23:26-27); and the penalty for the wrongdoings of all the kings fell in the time of Josiahs son Zedekiah (who was Manassehs great-grandson, the third generation), who did that which was evil (2Ki. 24:19).

Similarly, God threatened doom on the house of king Ahab for his sins (1Ki. 21:19; 1Ki. 21:22-26). But Ahab repented somewhat and walked softly (1Ki. 21:27). Therefore God postponed His judgment (II Kings 21:29), but brought it down upon Ahabs son Jehoram who walked in the ways of Ahab (2Ki. 3:2-3; 2Ki. 9:24).

Likewise, because of king Jehus sins and excessive bloodshed (2Ki. 10:29; Hos. 1:4), his great-grandson was slain (along with the entire dynasty) because he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, as his fathers had done. (2Ki. 15:9).

The children fill up the sins of their fathers so that when they are punished for doing as their fathers did, the consequences of both their sins and those of their fathers fall on them at once. Compare Lev. 26:39; Amo. 7:17; Jer. 16:11 ff; Dan. 9:16. If the children would only keep Gods covenant, they would receive mercy from God, regardless of what their fathers had done.

The thousands in Exo. 20:6 has no reference to the sequence of generations, that is, it does not refer to a thousand generations. There have been less than two hundred generations in the entire time since Moses life.

9.

What does taking the LORDs name IN VAIN mean? (Exo. 20:7)

In vain (or for vanity) means at least three things:

(1)

It means to use Gods name to back up a LIE. The following are some of the verses that illustrate this meaning of vain: Isa. 59:4 : They trust in vanity and speak lies. (The word lies here is the same Hebrew word shav translated vain in Exo. 20:7). Hos. 10:4 : swearing falsely in making covenants. Exo. 23:1 : Thou shalt not take up a false report. Compare Job. 31:5.

(2)

It means to use Gods name in an idle, useless, flippant, irreverent utterance. This meaning of vain is illustrated by the following passages: Psa. 60:11 : for vain (useless) in the help of man. Compare Psa. 108:12. Mal. 3:14 : Ye have said, It is vain (useless) to serve God. Psa. 119:37 : Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity.

The Greek O.T. confirms this meaning of the word vain, by translating the phrase epi mataio, for something worthless (idle, foolish, trifling).

(3)

In vain also means to use Gods name for any wicked purpose, in defiance, blasphemy, etc. Psa. 139:19 : For they speak against thee wickedly. And thine enemies take thy name in vain.

Exo. 20:7 condemns the cursing and much of the slang that is so popular in our time. Read Psa. 19:14.

A persons name is closely associated with the person who bears it. Thus to use the name wrongly is to use the person wrongly. Note Exo. 3:13-15.

The Old Testament saints could swear by Gods name if they swore the truth. (Lev. 19:12; Jer. 4:2; 2Sa. 2:27). The New Testament forbids taking oaths in Gods name (Mat. 5:34-37; Jas. 5:12).

Instead of uttering Gods name in vain, we should reecho Psa. 111:9 : Holy and reverend (fearsome) is his name; also Mat. 6:9 : Hallowed be thy name.

Jewish interpreters have felt that the law against using Gods name in vain meant that Gods name is not to be uttered unnecessarily in common conversation. In fact, in centuries after Moses time the Jews pronounced the divine name (Yahweh) only once a year, by the high priest when he gave the blessing on the day of atonement. It appears to us that Jehovahs name was used quite freely by Godly people in the Old Testament age. See Rth. 2:4; Gen. 14:2; 2Sa. 16:12; and others also. Of course, we agree that it would be better not to use the name at all than to use it irreverently.

Some liberal commentators think they detect implications of evil or magical powers in the uttering of the divine name; and hence it was not to be uttered in vain. We feel that this notion is apparent only to those who are looking for some such idea.

10.

What was the law about the Sabbath day? (Exo. 20:8-10)

Two things: (1) Keep it holy; (2) Do not work on that day. It was to be a day not profaned by usual workaday activities.

What day of the week is the Sabbath day? It is the seventh day of the week, Saturday on our calendars. It is a mistake to call Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lords day, the Sabbath day.
See the Special Study on the Ten Commandments concerning the differences between the wording of the commandments (especially the Sabbath law) in Exodus and Deuteronomy, and concerning whether Christians are obligated to keep the ten commandments or not.

11.

What does REMEMBER imply in Remember the Sabbath day? (Exo. 20:8)

Remember may simply mean to observe faithfully. See Mal. 4:4 for an example of this meaning of remember.

More probably remember implies that the people already knew something about the Sabbath, which they were to remember by appropriate obedience. They knew that the manna had not been provided on the Sabbath days, and that they were to rest on that day. (See Exo. 16:22-23; Exo. 16:29). This they were to remember, along with other things about it.

There is no scriptural indication that men knew anything about the Sabbath day until the giving of the manna, as related in Exodus sixteen. Neh. 9:13-14 says, Thou camest down also upon Mt. Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, . . . and MADEST KNOWN unto them thy holy Sabbath,. . . See also Eze. 20:10-12.

Thus it seems that although God had rested on the seventh day after creation, He had not commanded man to keep the seventh day until Exodus sixteen and twenty. Israel may have known that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, but no commandment had been given to man to sanctify that day.
Is there archaeological information which suggests that men were acquainted with the Sabbath day before the time of Moses? We do not feel that any such evidence exists. The Babylonians and the Assyrians applied the name shabattu (or shapattu) to certain days, and this name is etymologically related to the Hebrew word Sabbath. But the applications of the Babylonian and Hebrew words were fully as different as Sunday is different from sun-gods day.

U. Cassuto[303] sums up the archaeological evidence by noting that the Babylonians and Assyrians applied the name Shabattu to the day of the full moon, the fifteenth of the month, which was especially dedicated to worship of the moon-god and of related deities. Also the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days of the month had a particular significance in the Mesopotamian calendar. They were connected with the four phases of the moon, and were seven days apart, except for the seventh of the month, which came eight days after the twenty-eighth day of the preceding month, if that month was defective (that is, consisted of 29 days), or nine days thereafter if that month was full (that is comprised 30 days). All these days, both the day of the full moon, and the other days mentioned above, were considered days of ill luck, on which it befitted a man to fast, to abstain from pleasures, and to avoid performing important works, for they would not succeed. It seems that the Israelite sabbath was instituted in opposition to the Mesopotamian system, and its character was completely original. It was not on the day of the full moon, nor any other day dependent on the moons phases. It was the seventh day in perpetual sequence, and had no connection with the signs of heaven. It was not a day for the worship of the host of heaven, but a day consecrated to Him who created the Host of heaven. It was not a day of fasting and of misfortune, but a day of rest and blessing. No work was to be done, not because of the danger it would fail, but because it was a day on which the people rose above the need for hard work that they were called upon to do on other days for a living, and thereby shared the divine refreshment with the creator of the world. (Summary adapted from Cassuto)

[303] Cassuto, op. cit., pp. 244245,

12.

Why was the Sabbath given? (Exo. 20:9-11)

(1)

It was given to provide rest for men and beasts. See Deu. 5:14. The Hebrew word sabbath means a day of rest. The related verb means to cease, or to rest. This principle of a day of rest each week is a valuable, necessary, and joyful arrangement. It was a day of delight (Isa. 58:13), a precious boon to the weary.

On the sabbath days all work activities were to be suspended except those utterly unavoidable. Forbidden work included plowing and reaping (Exo. 34:21), pressing wine and carrying goods (Neh. 13:15), bearing burdens (Jer. 17:21), carrying on trade (Amo. 8:5), holding markets (Neh. 13:15 ff), gathering firewood (Num. 15:32), and kindling fires for cooking (Exo. 35:3).

While the Lords day, the first day of the week, is not strictly a sabbath (rest) day, we are of the opinion that Christians ought to keep it holy, and that this can probably be best done by keeping the day somewhat as the Jews kept their sabbaths. Many of the early Christians were slaves or soldiers and did not have the opportunity of rest on the Lords day. Thus, God did not command a particular legal rest day for Christians. But the principle of rest still deserves our serious attention.
Six days shalt thou work. Certainly work is a necessary part of the life of Gods people, and is commanded in both the old and new Testaments. Gen. 3:17-19; 1Th. 4:11; 2Th. 3:10. But the principle of rest is also important.

(2)

A second reason for the Sabbath is to attest the fact that the LORD is the creator of the world (Exo. 20:11). In fact, if it had not been for this link with God as creator, we doubt that the Sabbath law would have had a place in the Decalogue, any more than the laws about the other holy days.

The fact that the LORD blessed a day of rest after six days of creation, and then used the Sabbath day as a direct comparison to the seventh day of creation surely indicates that the days of creation in Genesis one are the same duration as our days now. This means that we should regard the earth as young in contrast to the speculations of many, who assume the earth is several billion years old. There is no cause to assume that the earth is much over 6,000 years old. All theories to the contrary disregard much scientific evidence as well as Biblical evidence.[304]

[304] There are many books now available which give scientific as well as Biblical evidence that the earth and the universe are young in comparison to the billions of years proposed by evolutionary dates. We mention here only a few: John C. Whitcomb, Jr., & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961); Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970); Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Parrish, 1966).

(3)

A third reason for keeping the Sabbath was stated in Deu. 5:15. This was to cause Israel to remember that they had been slaves in Egypt and that the LORD had brought them out of Egypt. This reason for keeping the Sabbath would apply to Israel only, and shows that the Sabbath day was never designed to be observed by all races and nations.

13.

Are Christians to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) as a holy day?

The answer is No. We live under a new covenant (2Co. 3:6), and the new covenant does not include the commandment to keep the Sabbath day. The early Christians, who were under inspired apostolic oversight and direction, met on the first day of the week, our Sunday (Act. 20:7). The first day of the week is not called by the name Sabbath in the New Testament, but is referred to as the Lords Day (Rev. 1:10). The Sabbath, like the other Hebrew feast days, such as the new moon, and the laws about meat and drink, was only a shadow of things to come. But the body (which cast the shadow) is Christs. (Col. 2:16-17) Heb. 4:9 speaks of a sabbath rest which now remains for the people of God. The setting of that verse indicates that this sabbath rest was a rest that was different from Gods rest on the seventh day of creation, and was instituted long after that. It came into being even after Joshua gave Israel rest in the conquered promised land. Thus our Christian sabbath rest is not the seventh-day rest commanded in Moses law, but is probably our spiritual rest in Christ (Mat. 11:28), or our eternal rest (Rev. 14:13), or both.

14.

What was the law about parents? (Exo. 20:12)

They were to be honored. The reason for honoring parents was that the childrens days might be long in the land which Jehovah their God was giving them.

The command to honor is a very impressive significant command. The same word honor that is here applied to parents is frequently applied to the honor due to God. See Pro. 3:9; Isa. 43:23. The Hebrew noun translated honor (kabod, from the verb kabed) is also translated glory, and is applied to Gods glory (Exo. 16:7; Exo. 24:17; Exo. 40:34; 1Ki. 8:11; and others). The Greek O.T. translated honor as timao, a verb referring to honor rendered to superiors, of men to gods, of men to elders, rulers, and guests. The use of these words shows that honoring parents was a very meaningful act.

How is this honor to be shown to parents?

(1)

Negatively, parents were not to be cursed or struck. See Exo. 21:15; Lev. 21:15; Lev. 21:17.

(2)

By showing them respect. Lev. 19:3 : Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father.

(3)

By obeying them. Deu. 21:18-21; Eph. 6:1.

(4)

By caring for them in their advanced years. Mar. 7:10-12; 1Ti. 5:4; 1Ti. 5:8. The honor due to parents continues on into their elderly life, even after their children are grown.

A persistently disobedient, stubborn, drunken, gluttonous son could be stoned to death. God views disobedience in sons as very serious. See Deu. 21:18-21.

The command about honoring parents comes immediately after the law about the Sabbath. The same two commandments are mentioned together in Lev. 19:3. Probably God intended that they should be associated together. In societies where divine worship is not practiced, the elderly are sometimes neglected, rejected, and turned out.

In our modern society youth is worshipped and old age is dreaded or despised. The result is a folly in which men and women strive to remain eternally youthful, only to find it is an impossible task. We need to return to the Biblical ideal of honoring parents and respecting the elderly.

As the apostle Paul stated (in Eph. 6:2) this command about honoring parents is the first commandment with a promise, the promise that their days would be long in the land which the LORD their God gave them. Also there is the promise that it may go well with thee (Deu. 5:16).

Obedience by children will generally result in good health, safety, and wisdom. These things, plus the blessing of God, will generally make the days of our life longer.

It must not be assumed, of course, that obedience to parents guaranteed longevity in every case, any more than that lack of obedience guaranteed a short life for all wicked men.
The promise probably had a collective national application. If Israelite children obeyed Godly parents, their nation (or land) would survive longer. If they disobeyed, their land would go into captivity and they would not dwell long in the land.

If the promise of long life seems to be too material and earthly for those who feel they are more spiritually minded, remember that in the O.T. age Gods promises were usually of a material nature because the people were yet spiritual children, as it were yet in Gods school. See Gal. 3:23-25. Most of us are still in that state!

15.

What is forbidden in the command Thou shalt not kill? (Exo. 20:13)

It seems to forbid murder, manslaughter, and suicide.
Certainly the Hebrew word ratsah translated kill referred to murder. It has this meaning in numerous references. See Num. 35:16-18; and others. In the laws in the following chapters more detailed laws about murder are given. Note Exo. 21:12; Exo. 21:14; and others.

The word kill also applies to manslaughter. It has this meaning in at least a score of references. See Num. 35:16-21; Deu. 4:42; Jos. 20:3; Num. 35:6; Num. 35:11; and others. In the laws in the following chapters more specific details are given about manslaughter. See Exo. 21:13; Exo. 21:20; Exo. 21:29; and others. We have a divinely ordained obligation to respect and protect the lives of others in all our lifes activities (including our auto driving). We must not kill in carelessness, anger, hatred, or vengeance.

Inasmuch as there is no specific object named after Thou shalt not kill, the verse surely forbids killing ourselves (suicide) also.

In the O.T. life is viewed as sacred, as a gift from God, All souls are mine, God said in Eze. 18:4. The ending of any mans life must be left to Gods decision.

Thou shalt not kill does NOT forbid capital punishment when that punishment is administered by authorized judges following Gods directions. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:5-6). In the following three chapters alone there are at least eight offences named for which God commanded that men be executed. The apostles Paul and Peter believed in capital punishment. Act. 25:11; Rom. 13:4; 1Pe. 2:13-15.

Neither does Thou shalt not kill forbid war. Wars were frequently instituted by God himself. Exo. 15:1; Deu. 20:1; Exo. 17:16; Num. 10:9. The question as to what circumstances might now be the basis of a just war is a topic that lies outside the scope of this book.

We must not conclude our comments about killing without referring to our saviors words. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;. . . But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and . . . whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mat. 5:21-22, King James, vers.)

16.

What is adultery? (Exo. 20:14)

In the O.T. adultery meant sex relations between a man and a married woman (other than his wife) or a betrothed woman. See Gen. 39:9. Both an adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death. See Lev. 20:10; Deu. 22:22. To lie with a betrothed virgin brought death to both man and woman, unless she cried out for help (Deu. 22:23-27). A betrothal (engagement) was regarded as being as binding a contract as the marriage. If a man lay with a virgin, he had to pay a dowry to her father and take the woman as his wife, and could never leave her (Deu. 22:28-29; Exo. 22:16-17).

The law of Moses did not directly forbid concubinage and polygamy, although the ideal of one wife for one man with no divorce ever occurring had been Gods intention for men from the beginning. See Mat. 19:7-8; Mal. 2:15-16; Deu. 24:1-4.

While adultery, strictly speaking, is limited to relations with a married woman, the law also dealt with other types of sexual offenses. These include bestiality (Exo. 22:19), homosexuality (sodomy) (Lev. 20:13), sex relations with near relatives (incest) (Lev. 20:14-21), and rape (Deu. 22:25-29). While there is no specific law in the Torah forbidding seeking prostitutes, God did indicate that this was a detestable practice to Him, and its practice would fill the land with wickedness (Lev. 19:29). No Israelites were to make prostitutes of their daughters (Lev. 19:29; Deu. 23:17-18). In the later writings by the prophets (like Hos. 4:11; Hos. 4:14) and other writings (Pro. 6:26; Pro. 29:3) God expressed His condemnation of prostitution clearly. The New Testament condemns lying with harlots in the severest language (1Co. 6:15-18; Eph. 5:5-6).

The law against adultery is an absolute necessity for the security and happiness of homes and family life.

Mat. 5:27-28 : Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

17.

What was the law about stealing? (Exo. 20:15)

The law was Dont do it. Every unlawful acquisition of property by violence, cheating, embezzlement, forgery, etc., is forbidden. Even sophisticated methods like moving over a neighbors property boundary marker (usually just a rock pile) were forbidden (Deu. 19:14). The law forbade stealing people (kidnapping) (Exo. 21:16). The laws and penalties for stealing are expanded in Exo. 22:1-4.

Eph. 4:28 : Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor. 2Co. 8:21 : Take thought for things honorable . . . in the sight of all men.

The eighth commandment protected the right of private property. Not even a king dared to steal the property of one of his people without just compensation (1Ki. 21:15-19). In our times of communist propaganda and growing socialism and agitation for government ownership of everything, we need to proclaim loudly that the right of private property is a God-given right, and is the basis for the only social and economic system that will produce enough wealth to supply a nation.

18.

What is meant by bearing false witness? (Exo. 20:16)

Since witnessing generally referred to testimony in courts of law, bearing false witness meant lying in court, or perjury. See Exo. 23:2; 1Sa. 12:3; Pro. 14:5; Deu. 19:18.

However, the command about bearing false witness is broad enough to include all lying in daily conversation (Psa. 40:4; Psa. 101:7; Pro. 6:16-17), the flattery of a false tongue (Psa. 12:2-3), and even tattling and unfounded unkind gossip (Lev. 19:16). Putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor (Eph. 4:25). Compare Col. 3:9; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 21:27.

Who is thy neighbor against whom we are not to bear false witness? It seems that neighbor probably means all men. Thus neighbor in Exo. 11:2 referred to anyone near to a person. In Lev. 19:18 neighbor is made parallel to children of thy people (or Israelites). Lev. 19:34 says that the Israelites were to love the stranger that sojourned with them as thyself. Therefore, Jewish scholars have interpreted the neighbor in this command to refer to all men, and we think this is correct. Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan (Luk. 10:29-37) taught that our neighbor is anyone who needs our help.

The commandment to be truthful always in dealing with our neighbor is so contrary to usual human conduct that it surely bears the marks of Gods divine authorship right on the face of it.

19.

What is coveting? (Exo. 20:17)

To covet means to desire. The Hebrew word for covet (hamad) is translated desire in Psa. 68:16. The word itself does not necessarily suggest an EVIL desire. Like the Greek epithumeo, it indicates evil only when the desire is directed toward unlawful things.

Sin begins with wrong thoughts and wrong desires. This commandment cuts off sin at its root our own desires and cravings. See Eph. 5:5; Jas. 4:1-2. Only God would issue a law against coveting. Can you imagine the U.S. congress passing a law against coveting?

Many interpreters (generally those of a liberal persuasion) feel that coveting refers not just to a mental state but to activities by which we seek to acquire what we desire. Thus coveting is (to them) the attempt to take property. We agree with Cassuto (op. cit., p. 248249) that this is NOT implied in the word covet. If it were, it would only be a repetition of the commands about stealing and adultery. The use of the word desire in Deu. 5:21 as a synonym for covet also argues against the idea that coveting primarily refers to actions to take things. The verses set forth to prove this view (such as Deu. 7:25; Jos. 7:21; Mic. 2:2) merely indicate that coveting preceded seizure. We fear that it is easier to reinterpret the word covet than it is to discipline our spirits to stop coveting.

The commandment about coveting as stated in Deu. 5:21 differs somewhat in arrangement of words from Exo. 20:17. In Deuteronomy the reference to a neighbors wife comes first and then the neighbors house. Deuteronomy adds field which is not in Exodus. The Greek O.T. of Exo. 20:17 follows closely the order of items as listed in Deu. 5:21, but adds cattle, which is not mentioned in the Hebrew of either Deuteronomy or Exodus. As stated in our special study on the Ten Commandments, we do not regard the changes in Deuteronomy from the text in Exodus as having any real significance.

The variations between the commandment about coveting in Exodus and Deuteronomy suggest that the Roman Catholic division of the commandment in Exodus into two commandments is probably not valid.

20.

How did the people react to the thunderings, voice, etc.? (Exo. 20:18)

They trembled and stood afar off. The spectacle was too much for them. (Exo. 19:16-19). They shrank back away from the mountain in near-panic.

Josephus (Ant. III, v, 6) says that when the multitude heard God himself giving these precepts [the decalogue], they rejoiced at what was said! That is an astounding contradiction to the Biblical story, and suggests that Josephus writings are frequently pure propaganda to make Israel look good.

The word perceived (or saw) has the idea of perceiving a continuous viewing. (It is a Hebrew participle.) The sentence is worded so as to indicate that their perceiving was not after the preceding account of hearing the ten commandments, but during the course of it.[305]

[305] The and in the Hebrew is attached to the pronoun all rather than to the verb, as is done to indicate consecutive action.

Exo. 20:18-21 forms the introduction to the book of the covenant, that body of laws given by God and recorded in Exo. 20:18 to Exo. 23:33. This book of the covenant contains numerous enlargements upon the ten commandments, but it is more than just that. It has new subject material of its own. The actual phrase book of the covenant appears in Exo. 24:4; Exo. 24:7.

The clause which the A.S.V. translates When the people saw it, the R.S.V. translates the people were afraid, they trembled. . . . This is really a very small and even possibly legitimate alteration. The change was made because the R.S.V. translators felt that the vowels attached to the Hebrew consonants of the verb should be altered to read They feared rather than They saw. The R.S.V. reading is supported by the Greek reading (phobethentes). However, it does involve changing the vowels that were added by the Jewish Masoretic rabbis A.D. 500900, and are in the common Hebrew Bible now.[306]

[306] The R.S.V. reads the verb as yra (from yare, to fear) instead of yar (from raah, to see). This involves no changes in the Hebrew consonants. We do not assume that the vowel markings in modern Hebrew Bibles are part of the inspired Biblical text. Nonetheless we are not disposed to alter the vowel markings without rather strong cause for doing so.

21.

How did the people want to hear Gods words? (Exo. 20:19)

They wanted to hear them from Moses. They wanted Moses to listen to Gods awesome voice and then have Moses to speak to them. They feared (unnecessarily) that they would die if God spoke more to them. Deu. 5:23 says that when they heard the voice, they came near unto Moses, that is, the heads of their tribes and their elders came unto him.

It is easy to criticize Israels fear of Gods voice. But it probably is not fair to do so. Even Moses felt some fear (Heb. 12:21). At least Israel desired to hear what God would say. We doubt that any of us now living would have been less fear-struck than they. But what Israel dreaded, Moses desired! See Exo. 33:18.

At this point please read Deu. 5:28-33. God very graciously accepted the Israelites words and promise to Moses, saying They have well said all that they have spoken. God knew that the people would not live up to their promises, but He was gracious nonetheless. The people were sent back to their tents, while Moses was called to stand by the Lord and hear His commandments.

Moses position as the mediator through whom the law was given becomes very apparent at this time. See Gal. 3:19.

Israels terror at Gods voice (see Heb. 12:18-21) should be a warning to the ungodly of our time. We shall ALL hear Gods voice in the time to come. That voice will then not shake the earth only (as at Mt. Sinai) but the heaven itself (Heb. 12:26). If the Israelites, a people who had committed themselves to accept Gods covenant (Exo. 19:8), were terrified by Gods coming, what will be the fears of those who have scorned His gracious covenant offers?

22.

For what purposes had God come to the people at Mt. Sinai? (Exo. 20:20-21)

(1) To prove (or test) you; (2) that his fear may be before you; (3) that ye sin not.

Proving Israel is a frequent theme in Exodus. See Exo. 16:4. God did not test Israel to discover for Himself how they would react in any situation. That He already knew. But, as any experienced teacher will know, a test is a powerful training tool in itself. It intensifies study and thought. Gods awesome demonstrations at Sinai brought the Israelites face to face with realities of His power and majesty that many of them had simply not yet faced up to (not that they had lacked opportunity).

Note that God wanted to put the fear of God into the people. Pro. 16:6 : By the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.

The use of the name God (Heb., elohim) in Exo. 20:21 rather suggests that God spoke then as the Lord of all creation, rather than as YAHWEH, the LORD of Israel. However, Exo. 20:22 starts, And Jehovah said. . . . Thus all aspects of Gods name and nature are on display.

Moses drew near unto God, that is unto the place where the infinite omnipresent God had designated for finite man to meet him. And Moses drew near the thick darkness. Compare Exo. 19:9.

23.

What was Israel not to make? (Exo. 20:22-23)

They were not to make gods of silver or gold. These shall not be with me (a slightly different expression than before me in Exo. 20:3). Twice in Exo. 20:23 God declared, You shall not make. . . . The building of the golden calf (Exodus 32) soon violated this command.

When Israel left Mt. Sinai, she began to encounter many pagan peoples of that region. All of these had their own religions, idols, altars, and temples. There was strong probability that Israel would pick up practices of these religions and corrupt her own true worship. Therefore God gave the restrictions on worship in Exo. 20:23-26.

24.

What were altars to be made of? (Exo. 20:24-25)

Altars were to be made of earth or unhewn stones (Cyclopean altars). These would be the humble altars of wanderers, to be used and then abandoned.
We do not know the exact reasons why God commanded them to use earth and uncut stones. Certainly such humble materials would restrain a common feeling that men get, thinking one spot is more holy than another because it has some impressive statue or monument on it. It would be very humbling to a skilled stone cutter to be told that his chiseling upon stones would pollute them and make them unacceptable in Gods altar! This suggests that human works and human skill cannot in any way bring Gods salvation to us. It is Gods gift altogether (Eph. 2:8-9). No human shall glory in Gods presence.

Not long after this God gave to Israel the instructions about the altar to be built for use in their tabernacle. It was made of wood and brass. See Exo. 27:1-8.

25.

What types of offerings were to be made on the altar? (Exo. 20:24)

Two types: burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. These are two very ancient types of offerings. (Gen. 8:20; Gen. 22:2; Exo. 18:12). These were the very two kinds of offerings that the young men offered on the altar soon afterwards (Exo. 24:5). Offerings with names like peace-offerings and burnt-offerings were offered by the ancient Canaanites. These were, of course, corrupted forms of the ancient offerings to God.

Burnt-offerings are described in Lev. 1:3-17; Lev. 6:8-13. Peace-offerings are described in Lev. 3:1-17; Lev. 7:11-18.

The offering of sacrifice indicates a break of fellowship between God and men. Burnt-offerings involved the death and destruction of sacrifices to cover the separation between man and God. Peace-offerings were given in gratitude when that separation between God and man had been covered (atoned for) through burnt-offerings.

26.

Where was sacrifice to be made? (Exo. 20:24)

At every place where I cause my name to be remembered. Compare Jer. 7:12. As God led Israel from encampment to encampment by His guiding cloud (Num. 9:17-18), they would set up their altar at each stop. It is noteworthy that only ONE altar for all the people is mentioned in Exo. 20:24. God did not say, Ye shall build altars of earth unto me, but an altar (singular) of earth shalt thou (a collective singular pronoun, referring to all the people) make unto me, Note in Exo. 24:4 that they set up twelve pillars, but only one altar.

Thus from its very outset Israels worship was supposed to be centralized. This is in perfect agreement with the restriction in Deu. 12:11 that all offerings in the promised land of Canaan were to be made in the place which Jehovah would choose. Gods word is consistent within itself.

The site of the one altar was, of course, transferred from place to place from wilderness camps, to Mt. Ebal (Jos. 8:30-31!), to Shiloh, to Gibeon, and to Jerusalem.

The people later disobeyed this law about the single altar and built many altars, many of them to other gods. But that did not occur because God had not given commandment to build only one altar.
We stress this point, because one of the basic ideas in the critical interpretation of the Old Testament is that the idea of a single sanctuary and a single altar developed much later in Israels history, long after the time of Moses. Supposedly the primitive people in the day of Moses had many altars and many gods. Critics think that they can see evidence of this in some passages, and they attribute these to authors they call J (for Jehovist) or E (for Elohist). Then supposedly in the time of king Josiah (621 B.C.) a new document called D (for Deuteronomy) was sprung on the people in an effort to shut down the many sanctuaries and altars outside of Jerusalem and to centralize worship there, By attributing this D document to Moses, the priests overcame the popular resistance and centralized worship at Jerusalem. Some scholars now think this Deuteronomistic reformation occurred earlier, in the time of King Hezekiah (728696 B.C.) or thereabouts.
Admittedly kings Josiah and Hezekiah shut down the out-of-Jerusalem sanctuaries. But they did this because they were obedient to the word of God given through Moses. Their actions in no way prove that Deuteronomy and other passages advocating a single place of worship were written long after Moses time.

One particularly valuable book showing that Deuteronomy (and other passages teaching the idea of a single place of worship) could not have been written centuries after the time of Moses is G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957).

We suspect that the solitary altar of ancient Israel served as a type of Christ, who alone is our altar. (Heb. 13:10-12).

27.

Why were steps not to be made up to Gods altar? (Exo. 20:26)

So that your nakedness be not revealed while you are on the altar. Nakedness is a euphemism for the sex organs. See Lev. 18:6.

We know that priests in Ancient Mesopotamia (Sumer) sometimes were naked.[307] But among the Israelites even immodesty by priests, much more nakedness, was forbidden by the holy God of Israel. Gods priests even wore pants! (Exo. 28:42)

[307] James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near East in Pictures, 2nd ed., with Supplement (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), p. 197.

God made clothes for Adam and Eve after they sinned (Gen. 3:21). When people get away from God, they want to throw off their clothes and break loose and act like animals (Exo. 32:25, King James vers.). Gods people should dress modestly (1Ti. 2:9).

The Canaanites built steps up to their altars (like those at Megiddo and Petra). The Israelites equipment for worship was to be as distinctive as the God whom they worshipped.

THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE LAW CODE OF HAMMURABI[308]

[308] The entire Code of Hammurabi and the Laws of Eshnunna are given in an English translation in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, James B. Pritchard ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1955), pp. 163-180.

The law code of Hammurabi is one of the most helpful archaeological discoveries ever found to aid us in understanding the law of Moses.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh . . . And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp (Exo. 16:11-13).

Quails are found not only in Europe but also, as has been observed from ancient times, in Egypt and Arabia. Every spring, flocks of these migratory birds cross the Red Sea on their way to the Sinai peninsula, where they land exhausted near the coast and are easily caught. This is exactly how the Bible describes what happened during the Israelites sojourn in the desert (Exo. 16:13 and Num. 11:31). The birds were on their way northwards: and there went forth a wind . . . and brought quails from the sea. This wall painting from a grave at Thebes shows that the trapping of quails was a normal occurrence on the Nile and indicates how it was done. Four men are walking through a cornfield holding a square fine meshed net, extended in a horizontal position. When the birds fly up they are entangled in the net and can be readily caught.

FROM: THE BIBLE AS HISTORY IN PICTURES

By Werner Keller Wm. Morrow Co.

Hammurabi (17281696 B.C.) was the greatest king of the Old Babylonian empire. He was a great conqueror, but was also a builder and a lawgiver for his people.
The significance of Hammurabis law code to us lies partly in the change its discovery made in the thinking of scholars about the Old Testament law.
In the last century (the nineteenth) Bible critics confidently declared that ancient Israel did not have any written law code in the time of Moses. Such codes did not exist that long ago. They believed that Deuteronomy was the first written law in our sense of the word, and that Deuteronomy was not written till nearly 600 B.C. (eight hundred years after Moses time)!
Julius Wellhausen, the famous German critic, wrote, Ancient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases for the ordering of human life; only they were not fixed in writing. (Emphasis ours.) He also said, There was no Torah as a ready-made product, as a system existing independently of its originator and accessible to every one; it became actual only in the various utterances, which naturally form by degrees the basis of a fixed tradition. (Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 393, 395). Views like these came to be accepted far and wide.

In A.D. 19012 the Frenchman Jacques de Morgan found at Susa (the Biblical Shushan) fragments of a black stone pillar about seven and a half feet tall and two feet in diameter. It had been inscribed by King Hammurabi. It contained a prologue dedicating it to Shamash, the sun god. The main body of its writing consisted of about 282 brief laws dealing with many social issues. An epilogue heaps praise on Hammurabi for his noble deeds. Fragments of two other duplicates of this code have also been found. It must have been widely known.
When this code was translated, it was found to contain numerous laws resembling those in the law of Moses. This caused a great change in the thinking of scholars about the Old Testament law. No longer could men allege that law codes such as that of Moses were nonexistent in those ancient times.
Since the discovery of Hammurabis Code, more than half a dozen other ancient codes of law have been found, many of which are older even than that of Hammurabi. Law codes presently known include (besides that of Hammurabi) the following:

(1)

Code of Ur-Nammu, king at Ur. Dated about 2050 B.C. It is a mutilated fragment having only five fairly readable laws.

(2)

Laws of the city of Eshnunna (near the Tigris river). These are dated about 2000 B.C. There are over sixty laws in this, three of which closely resemble the laws in Exo. 21:28-29; Exo. 21:35.

(3)

Code of Lipit-Ishtar, king of the city of Isin. About 19001850 B.C.

(4)

Later Babylonian laws (after the time of Hammurabi).

(5)

Assyrian laws, from Cappadocia (about 1800 B.C.), and from the City of Ashur (about 1350 B.C.)

(6)

Hittite laws, found in Asia Minor. Dated about 1350 B.C. A large group of these were found.

In the course of our commentary on Exodus we shall refer to numerous laws of Hammurabi and others which shed light on the verses in the Bible, either by similarities or by differences. These are quite striking in many cases.
We list here just a few of Hammurabis laws that seem to be comparable to laws in Exodus:

a.

Smiting parents. Hammurabi 195; Exo. 21:15.

b.

Stealing people. Ham. 14; Exo. 21:16.

c.

Wounding people. Ham. 206; Exo. 21:18-19.

d.

Law of retaliation. Ham. 196; Exo. 21:24.

e.

Knocking out someones eye. Ham. 199; Exo. 21:26.

Was Moses familiar with law codes such as that of Hammurabi? We feel that he was. Both certain similarities and certain contrasts are so striking that we hardly see how it could have been accidental. This need not trouble us. God did not give His laws in a vacuum, to a people who had never had contact with any other cultures and never would. Educated people in Egypt like Moses were familiar with the Babylonian language and literature. If Israels law was to be truly meaningful to them, it had to relate in some ways to the laws of the world with which they were familiar. Thus God gave to Moses a law which resembled other law codes in occasional good points, and differed from them noticeably in points where mens laws had departed from Gods standards. Overall, there is not much relationship either way.
Did Moses copy from Hammurabi or adapt some of Hammurabis laws? We definitely think not. The scripture declares that God directly gave His law to Moses. Furthermore, most scholars who have studied Hammurabis code feel that the differences between Moses and Hammurabi are so basic that it is unbelieveable that Moses could have borrowed from Hammurabi. George A. Barton wrote as follows:

A comparison of the code of Hammurabi as a whole with the Pentateuchal laws as a whole, while it reveals certain similarities, convinces the student that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way dependent upon the Babylonian laws. (From Archaeology and the Bible, 7th ed. [Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1937], p. 405.)

Hammurabis code is altogether secular. It does not give spiritual or religious reasons for obedience, as the Torah does. Note Exo. 22:7.

Hammurabis code shows much partiality toward the upper classes of society. Those who harm them receive severer punishment than those who harm poor citizens or slaves. Moses law shows very little of such class distinctions.
The law of Moses presupposes that life is sacred. No one is to be executed for taking property, as Hammurabi commanded. Even the life of a slave is sacred in the Torah. Hammurabi is often more interested in protecting property than people.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XX.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

(1) God spake.It is distinctly stated in Deuteronomy that the Ten Commandments were spoken to all the assembly of Israel, by God, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice (Deu. 5:22). It was not till after their delivery that the people entreated to be spared further communications of so awful a character. How the sounds were produced is a mystery unrevealed, and on which it is idle to speculate. Jehovah alone appears as the speaker in the Old Testament; in the New, we hear of the instrumentality of angels (Act. 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2).

All these words.In Scripture the phrase used to designate the Ten Commandments is the Ten Words (Exo. 34:28; Deu. 4:13; Deu. 10:4). It has been universally recognised, both by the Jewish and Christian Churches, that they occupy an unique position among the utterances which constitute Gods revelation to man. Alone uttered publicly by God in the ears of the people, alone inscribed on stone by the finger of God Himself, alone, of all commands, deposited in the penetrale of worshipthe Arkthey formed the germ and basis, the very pith and kernel of the covenant which God, through Moses, made with man, and which was to continue for above thirteen hundred years the exposition of His will to the human race. They enunciate a morality infinitely above that of all the then existing nations of the earthnay, above that of the wisest of mankind to whom revelation was unknown. There is no compendium of morality in Confucianism, in Buddhism, in the religion of Zoroaster, or of Egypt, or of Greece or Rome, which can be put in competition with the Decalogue. Broad exceedingly (Psa. 119:96), yet searching and minute in its requirements; embracing the whole range of human duty, yet never vague or indeterminate; systematic, yet free from the hardness and narrowness commonly attaching to systems: the Decalogue has maintained and will always maintain itself, if not as an absolutely complete summary of human duty, yet as a summary which has never been superseded. When our Lord was asked what a man must do to inherit eternal life, He replied by a reference to the Decalogue: Thou knowest the commandments (Mar. 10:19). When the Church would impress on her children their complete duty both to God and man, she requires them to be taught the Ten Words. When adult Christians are to be reminded, before coming to Holy Communion, of the necessity of self-examination and repentance, the same summary is read to them. It is an extraordinary testimony to the excellence of the compendium that, originating in Judaism, it has been maintained unchanged in a religious system so different from Judaism as Christianity.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, Exo 20:1-17.

The preceding chapter has furnished an awe-inspiring preparation for the announcement of the fundamental law which here follows. Nothing in all the myths, legends, or histories of law-giving among other peoples is comparable with this sublime issuing of Israel’s decalogue. And the marvelous perfection of this summary of law, the inner excellency, the universal applicability of the several precepts, and their abiding, unchangeable nature, elevate this entire narrative above the element of myth and fable.

The glory of this decalogue is, that its provisions are absolutely fundamental. They have to do with individual life, social relations, and national history. We are not to imagine that they were now issued for the first time, or had no existence and recognition before the time of Moses. Compare the note on Gen 9:6. These laws are grounded in the very nature of man as a moral being, having essential relations to God on the one hand, and to his fellow-man on the other. They rest upon the idea that there is an infinite power above man to whom allegiance is due, and a community of coordinate fellow-beings about him with whom he is bound to act on principles of equity and love. These great truths were manifest from the beginning, but had become obscured and often ignored by the perversity of men. Jehovah, the God of Israel, gave them new and sublime expression at Sinai. They were there graven upon two tables of stone. Exo 32:15-16; Exo 34:28. “Hard, stiff, abrupt as the cliffs from which they were taken,” writes Stanley, “they remain as the firm, unyielding basis on which all true spiritual religion has been built up and sustained . Sinai is not Palestine the law is not the Gospel; but the ten commandments, in letter and in spirit, remain to us as the relic of that time. They represent to us, both in fact and in idea, the granite foundation, the immovable mountain, on which the world is built up without which all theories of religion are but as shifting and fleeting clouds. They give us the two homely fundamental laws which all subsequent revelation has but confirmed and sanctified the law of our duty to God, and the law of our duty to our neighbour. Side by side with the prayer of our Lord, and with the creed of his Church, they appear inscribed on our churches, read from our altars, taught to our children, as the foundation of all morality.” Jewish Church, First Series, pp. 195, 198.

The NAMES applied to this special Sinaitic law are various. The Greek word decalogue, and the common title the ten commandments, have arisen from the fact that the tables contain ten distinct mandates, and are called in Exo 34:28, and Deu 4:13, the ten commandments, or ten words . In those same texts and elsewhere they are also called the words of the covenant and the covenant, because they are the truest expression of the covenant-relations of God and his people. In Exo 31:18; Exo 32:15; Exo 34:29, they are called the two tables of the testimony, as containing God’s solemn declaration of his holy will concerning man. They may, of course, be included under the more common terms laws, commandments, statutes, precepts. Being the foundation and substance of all moral and religious precepts, they are emphatically THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENT. Exo 24:12.

Being ten in number, their proper DIVISION and arrangement are to be determined. They are most naturally arranged in two tables, each containing five precepts. According to this oldest and simplest division we have the two tables as follows:

FIRST TABLE.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

SECOND TABLE.

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.

Two other methods of dividing the decalogue have been proposed, one by uniting the first and second in the above arrangement, and dividing the tenth into two, the other by regarding the introductory words, “I am the Lord thy God,” as the first commandment, and combining, like the last-named method, the prohibition of other gods and graven images.

These two ways of arranging are exhibited in parallel columns, as follows:

1. (AUGUSTINIAN.) FIRST TABLE. 2. (JEWISH.) 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, nor make any graven images. 1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of Egypt. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, nor make any graven images. 3. Remember the Sabbath day. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. SECOND TABLE. 4. Honour thy father and thy mother. 4. Remember the Sabbath day. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 5. Honour thy father and mother. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet. Much has been written for and against each of these methods of arrangement. That which makes Exo 20:2, the first word, or commandment, is quite generally rejected, for the introductory words, “I am Jehovah, thy God,” cannot reasonably be regarded as a commandment co-ordinate with the others . But that Masoretic division, shown in Hebrew Bibles, by which Exo 20:1-6, is included in the first commandment, and the prohibition of blasphemy (Exo 20:7) forms the second, agrees with the Augustinian theory, numbered 1 above, and makes up the ten by dividing Exo 20:17 into two commandments. This view is ably advocated by Kurtz, ( Hist. of the Old Covenant, Eng. trans., vol. iii, pp. 123-137.) The strong point of his argument is, that there is no radical distinction between the worship of other gods and graven images, for image-worship and idolatry are essentially the same, or, at any rate, image-worship is a species of idolatry. “Idolatry is the abstract, image-worship the concrete, sin.” His argument, however, for dividing the law against coveting into two commandments is weak, and a notable specimen of special pleading. The same is true of all attempts to establish this most unnatural division. The fact that the Hebrew text in Deu 5:21, places wife before house in the list of objects not to be coveted, is at best but a slender argument in favour of such division, whilst on the other hand the easy transposition of these words, and their use by the apostle in Rom 7:7-8, where he quotes only, “Thou shalt not covet,” and then speaks immediately of “all manner of coveting,” are a far more weighty witness against it.

Whilst, therefore, it is conceded that the distinction between the worship of false gods and of images is not so marked as one might expect in objects prohibited by separate commandments, the distinction is nevertheless more easily made and more noticeable than that between a neighbour’s wife and his other possessions. “No essential difference,” says Keil, “can be pointed out in the two clauses which prohibit coveting; but there was a very essential difference between the commandment against other gods and that against making an image of God, so far as the Israelites were concerned, as we may see not only from the account of the golden calf at Sinai, but also from the image-worship of Gideon, (Jdg 8:27,) Micah, (Judges 17,) and Jeroboam, (1Ki 12:28.”) See further in textual notes on Exo 20:4.

A further question concerns the arrangement in two tables. The first table is believed to set forth man’s duties toward God, the second, those toward his neighbours, or fellow-men; and hence the whole are summed up in the two positive commandments, (1) “Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart,” and (2) “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Comp. Deu 6:5; Lev 19:34; Mat 22:37; Mat 22:39; Mar 12:30-31; Luk 10:27. But where are we to make the division? Augustine’s arrangement, as shown in the column above, made the first table comprise three, and the second table seven, commandments . He thought that this arrangement favoured the doctrine of the Trinity . Others commence the second table with the commandment to honour parents, and thus divide the ten into two groups of four and six . But the oldest and simplest division is that which recognizes five in each table, like the fingers on the two hands . The first five then belong to the sphere of Piety, and the second five to that of Morality .

The decalogue appears also in Deu 5:6-21. The variations between the two texts are the following: Deuteronomy omits nothing contained in Exodus except the waw ( , and) before , any likeness, (comp . Exodus Exo 20:4, and Deuteronomy Exo 20:8,) and the words of Exo 20:11, “therefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it,” but substitutes , observe, for , remember, (Exodus 8, Deuteronomy 12😉 , emptiness, for , a lie, (Exodus 16, Deuteronomy 17😉 and , long after, instead of the second , covet, (Exodus 17, and Deuteronomy 18,) and adds in Exo 20:12; Exo 20:16 the words, “as the Lord thy God commanded thee;” in Exo 20:14, “nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any,” “that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou;” in Exo 20:15, “and remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Deuteronomy also connects with , and, all the commands after that pertaining to murder, and places wife before house in the last commandment, and also inserts , his field, among the objects not to be coveted . Deuteronomy Exo 20:10, reads, his commandments, where Exodus Exo 20:6, has my commandments. It is well for the reader to compare the New Testament citations of the decalogue in order to observe how freely they were quoted, and without reference to any particular order of precepts. See Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Mat 19:18; Mar 10:19; Luk 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jas 2:11. The Vatican Codex of the Septuagint places the sixth commandment after the eighth, and transposes house and wife in Exo 20:17, like the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy. No great stress should be placed on the mere order of the precepts, as if any thing of importance depended upon their division and arrangement in the tables. The text in Deuteronomy is itself witness that no great importance was attached to verbal accuracy in citing the decalogue, but it is noticeable that explicit reference is there made to what Jehovah had commanded at Sinai. It is not improbable that the original form of the several mandates as given at Sinai was without the reasons which are attached to the first five, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. God spake The Creator of man and the world, who has all authority in heaven and earth, is the fountain of law . Many Jewish and Christian expositors affirm that the Sinaitic proclamation of the decalogue was, literally, by the voice of God; that is, “that words were formed in the air by the power of God, and not by the intervention and ministry of angels.” (Keil.) This is thought to be the necessary meaning of Deu 5:4: “Jehovah talked with you face to face out of the midst of the fire.” On the other hand, in Deu 33:2, Moses speaks of Jehovah’s coming from Sinai, “with ten thousands of saints,” or out of myriads of his holiness. Comp. Psa 68:17. In Acts 7, Stephen speaks of the law as received “by the disposition of angels,” and in Gal 3:19, Paul employs nearly the same expression . In Heb 2:2, the law is called “the word spoken by angels . ” Hence, while it is matter of record that Jehovah spake and Israel heard “the voice out of the midst of the darkness,” (Deu 5:22-23,) it does not necessarily follow that “the voice of words” (Heb 12:19) was produced without the ministry of angels . The Israelites “saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake in Horeb out of the midst of the fire,” but the whole record shows that the Sinaitic proclamation of the decalogue was accompanied by miraculous and supernatural displays of the divine majesty . The ministry of angels is affirmed the word was “spoken by angels;” but the manner of producing the voice is an unrevealed secret .

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

(See the Chapter Comments for more information on the Covenant.)

The Proclamation of the Covenant ( Exo 20:1-17 ).

Here we have Yahweh’s proclamation of His covenant directly to the people, and not through Moses, something which the people, having experienced it, pleaded that it might not happen again (Exo 20:19). The fuller explanation then comes through Moses (Exo 20:22). It will be noted that without being forced these verses cannot be put into chiastic form, stressing how they stand out from the remainder of the narrative.

Exo 20:1

‘And God spoke all these words, saying.’

As promised in Exo 19:9 Yahweh speaks to Moses from the cloud which is on the mountain (Exo 20:16) in full hearing of the people, while Moses stands among them. With these words Israel becomes a nation in its own right, a nation with Yahweh as overlord. They become ‘a kingdom’, a theocracy where God is king, and they are designated to become a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6). The scope of the covenant is huge and its moral content unique.

The people gathered there would include the mixed multitude who had left Egypt with the children of Israel. They too, if it was their desire, would be incorporated within the covenant (Exo 12:48). Thus they would all stand as one to receive His words.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Introduction to the Ten Commandments Exo 20:1-2 records God’s introductory remarks to the Ten Commandments.

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:1 Comments – Did God speak to Moses and Aaron only (Exo 19:24), or to all of the people? See Exo 20:19-20.

Exo 19:24, “And the LORD said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them.”

Exo 20:19-20,”And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.”

Exo 20:2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Exo 20:2 Comments – The Israelites had lived in Egypt, a land of many gods. The Lord identifies Himself here as their true Deliverer among the many gods of Egypt.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Ten Commandments (Introduction) Exo 1:1-17 records the Ten Commandments that Moses received on Mount Sinai. The heart of these laws serve as the foundation of the man’s faith in God in both the old and new covenants. They establish the divine principles by which man should live throughout the ages, from Genesis to Revelations.

The major theme of the Pentateuch is the delivering of the Mosaic Law to the children of Israel. On Mount Sinai, Moses gave the people the Ten Commandments, which can be referred to as the “Moral Law.” He then delivered to them many statutes and ordinances regarding daily living and service in the Tabernacle. This set of rules and regulations can be referred to as the “Civil Laws.” The Ten Commandments became the foundation for the Jewish civil laws. Thus, the Ten Commandments dealt with a man’s heart, while the civil laws dealt with a man’s actions. When a man held the moral laws within his heart, he would then be willing to follow the civil laws. Moses repeats the giving of the Ten Commandments in Deu 5:1-22 to the new generation of people who will go in to possess the Promised Land.

When questioned by the Jews about the greatest commandment, Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments into two great commandments, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” (Mat 22:34-40, Mar 12:28-34, Luk 10:25-28) Thus, we can understand that the first four commandments deal with our relationship to God. Jesus summed these four up with the statement that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

1st Commandment (Exo 20:3) – No other Gods before Me. Love God with all your heart.

2nd Commandment (Exo 20:4-6) – No worship of graven images. Love God with all your soul.

3rd Commandment (Exo 20:7) – Do not take God’s name in vain. Love God with all your mind.

4th Commandment (Exo 20:8-11) – Keep the Sabbath. Love God with all your strength.

This order of heart, soul, mind, and strength helps us to understand our make-up. When we set our heart on something or someone (1 st commandment), we begin to think about it (2 nd commandment), our thoughts lead us to speak about it (3 rd commandment), and our words direct our actions (4 th commandment). The last six commandments deal with man’s relationship with his fellow man:

5th Commandment (Exo 20:12) – Honour father and mother.

6th Commandment (Exo 20:13) – Do not murder.

7th Commandment (Exo 20:14) – Do not commit adultery.

8th Commandment (Exo 20:15) – Do not steal.

9th Commandment (Exo 20:16) – Do not bear false witness.

10th Commandment (Exo 20:17) – Do not covet.

Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments in Mat 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” He made a similar statement in Luk 6:31, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

In Rom 13:9-10 Paul summed up the last six commandments with the same statement that Jesus had taught, which says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Rom 13:9-10, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

James describes the Ten Commandments as the “royal law” (Jas 2:8-11).

Jas 2:8, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Decalogue

v. l. And God spake all these words, saying,

v. 2. I am the Lord, thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. That was the Lord’s solemn introduction to the legislation on Mount Sinai, a reminder of the wonderful deliverance which He had wrought when He led forth His people out of the land of Egypt, where they had virtually been slaves. Note that the Decalog, as here given, was intended for the children of Israel and applied its principles to the circumstances under which they lived, with a form of government every detail of which was fixed by the Lord.

v. 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, no strange, false gods, no idols, over against Me, setting them up as rivals for the glory and power which belong to Me alone. Not that such figments of man’s imagination, such works of their hands, were in truth gods in any sense of the word, but that the very thinking and fashioning of idols is forbidden by the Lord. He is supreme, He is the only God, and His will should govern all men in all situations of life; for the other nine commandments are but explanations and applications of the first.

v. 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, a carved or sculptured idol, or any likeness of anything, any representation that is intended for religious worship, that is in heaven above, birds or stars (heavenly bodies) of any kind, or that is in the earth beneath, men or beasts, or that is in the water under the earth, and marine animals;

v. 5. thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, in the act of adoration, nor serve them, actually giving them the worship, the honor which pertains to God alone, for that is the point of the entire prohibition, that pictures and images should not be made for purposes of worship. For I, the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, not with the certainty of absolute fatality, but as a just punishment of those children that follow their parents and ancestors in their evil ways;

v. 6. and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments. The Lord’s holiness and righteousness demands that He visit the sinners with His punitive justice, but He takes far greater pleasure in giving proofs of His mercy and kindness: He would rather reward than punish.

v. 7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain, without purpose and object, in a frivolous manner; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain, an emphatic warning that the punishment of God will surely strike everyone who lightly and blasphemously utters the Lord’s name, whether this be in thoughtless foolishness or in deliberate perjury.

v. 8. Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. This commandment presupposes a knowledge of the Sabbath, but not of its formal celebration. All those that urge the keeping of the Sabbath according to the Jewish pattern with the argument that this day and this form were included in the will of God as written into the hearts of men at the beginning, overlook or ignore the facts of history as found in the Book of Exodus. The deliberate setting aside of this special day of the week and the form of observance of this day as outlined to the Jews was intended for them only.

v. 9. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, perform everything connected with trade, business, or profession;

v. 10. but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, perform the labor of your ordinary occupations, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter; thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates, the enumeration purposely being made inclusive, in order to emphasize the commandment.

v. 11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it, set it apart to the Jews for His worship. The commandment was later fixed even more definitely by the mention of specific forms of labor which were not permitted among the children of Israel, Psa 104:23; Num 4:47; Neh 3:15; Jer 17:21; Amo 8:5; Num 15:32 ff. Note that the simple understanding of the text demands the assumption that the Lord created the world in six ordinary days.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE DELIVERY OF THE MORAL LAW. Every necessary preparation had now been made. The priests, as well as the people, had “sanctified themselves.” A wholesome dread of “breaking” through the fence, and “touching” the mount, had spread itself among the people Moses had returned from the camp to the summit of the mount; and both he and the people were attent to hear the words of the “covenant,” which had been announced to them (Exo 19:5). Then, amid the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the smoke, and the earthquake throbs which shook the ground, a voice like that of a man, distinctly articulate, pronounced the words of that “moral law,” which has been from that day to this the guide of life to thousands upon thousands, the only guide to some, a very valuable and helpful guide to all who have known of it. It is well said by Kalisch, that the delivery of the Decalogue on Sinai “formed a decisive epoch in the history of the human race,” and was even perhaps “the greatest and most important event in haman history,” up to the time of its occurrence. Considering the weakness, imperfection, and moral obliquity of man, it was to the last degree important that an authoritative code should be put forth, laying down with unmistakable clearness the chief heads of duty, and denouncing the chief classes of sins. It may be true that the educated moral sense of mankind in civilised communities is sufficient to teach them all, or nearly all, of what the Decalogue forbids and enjoins; but this is the effect produced upon the internal constitution of our nature by long centuries of moral training; and nothing like it existed in primitive times. Then the moral sense was much duller; men’s perceptions of right and wrong were confused, uncertain, and not unfrequently perverted and depraved. Even in Egypt, where a priest class, established as the spiritual guides of the nation for a thousand years or more, had elaborated a moral system of considerable merit, such a code as that of the Decalogue would have been a marked improvement upon anything that they had worked out for themselves. And the authoritative sanction by the “voice” and the “finger of God” was an enormous advantage, being imperatively needed to satisfy doubt, and silence that perverse casuistry which is always ready to question the off-hand decisions of the moral consciousness, and to invent a more refined system, wherein “bitter is put for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” Altogether the Decalogue stands on a moral eminence, elevated above and beyond all other moral systemsEgyptian, Indian, Chinese, or Greek, unequalled for simplicity, for comprehensiveness, for solemnity. Its precepts were, according to the Jewish tradition, “the pillars of the law and its roots.” They formed to the nation to which they were given “tons omnis, publici privatique juris.” They constitute for all time a condensed summary of human duty which bears divinity upon its face, which is suited for every form of human society, and which, so long as the world endures, cannot become antiquated. The retention of the Decalogue as the best summary of the moral law by Christian communities is justified on these grounds, and itself furnishes emphatic testimony to the excellency of the compendium.

Exo 20:1

God spake all these words. It has been suggested that Moses derived the Decalogue from Egypt, by summarising the chief points of the Egyptian teaching as to the duty of man. But neither the second, nor the fourth, nor the tenth commandment came within the Egyptian ideas of moral duty; nor was any such compendious form as the Decalogue known in Egypt. Moreover, Egyptian morality was minute and complex, rather than grand and simple. Forty-two kinds of sin were denied by the departed soul before Osiris and his assessors. The noble utterances of Sinai are wholly unlike anything to be found in the entire range of Egyptian literature.

Exo 20:2

I am the Lord thy God. The ten precepts were prefaced by this distinct announcement of who it was that uttered them. God would have the Israelites clearly understand, that he himself gave them the commandments. It is only possible to reconcile the declarations of the New Testament, that the law was given by the ministration of angels (Act 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2) with this and other plain statements, by regarding God the Son as the actual speaker. As sent by his father, he too was, in a certain sense, an angel (i.e; a messenger). Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. God does not appeal to his authority as creator, but to his mercy and kindness as protector and deliverer. He would be obeyed by his people from a sentiment of love, not by fear. Out of the house of bondage. Compare Exo 13:3, Exo 13:14; and for the ground of the expression, see Exo 1:14; Exo 6:9.

Exo 20:3

Thou shalt have. The use of the second person singular is remarkable when a covenant was being made with the people (Exo 19:5). The form indicated that each individual of the nation was addressed severally, and was required himself to obey the law, a mere general national obedience being insufficient. No one can fail to see how much the commands gain in force, through all time, by being thus addressed to the individual conscience. No other gods before me. “Before me” literally, “before my face,” is a Hebrew idiom, and equivalent to “beside me,” “in addition to me.” The commandment requires the worship of one God alone, Jehovahthe God who had in so ninny ways manifested himself to the Israelites, and implies that there is, in point of fact, no other God. A belief in the unity of God is said to lie at the root of the esoteric Egyptian religion; but Moses can scarcely have derived his belief from this source, since the Egyptian notions on the subject were tinged with pantheism and materialism, from which the religion of Moses is entirely free. Outwardly the Egyptian religion, like that of the nations of Western Asia generally, was a gross polytheism; and it is against polytheistic notions that the first commandment raises a protest.

Exo 20:4

As the first commandment asserts the unity of God, and is a protest against polytheism, so the second asserts his spirituality, and is a protest against idolatry and materialism. Exo 20:4 and Exo 20:5 are to be taken together, the prohibition being intended, not to forbid the arts of sculpture and painting, or even to condemn the religious use of them, but to disallow the worship of God under material forms. When the later Jews condemned all representations of natural objects (Philo, De Orac. 29; Joseph. Ant. Jud. 8.7, 5), they not only enslaved themselves to a literalism, which is alien from the spirit of both covenants, but departed from the practice of more primitive timesrepresentations of such objects having had their place both in the tabernacle (Exo 25:31-34; Exo 28:33, Exo 28:34) and in the first temple (1Ki 6:18, 1Ki 6:29, 1Ki 6:32, etc.). Indeed, Moses himself, when he erected the “brazen serpent” (Num 21:9) made it clear that representations of natural objects were not disallowed by the law. To moderns in civilized countries it seems almost incredible that there should ever have been anywhere a real worship of images. But acquaintance with ancient history or even with the present condition of man in savage or backward countries, renders it apparent that there is a subtle fascination in such material forms, and that imperfectly developed minds will rest in them not as mere emblems of divinity, but as actually possessed of Divine powers The protest raised by the second commandment is still as necessary as ever, not only in the world, but in the very Christian Church itself, where there exists even at the present day a superstitious regard for images and pictures, which is not only irrational, but which absorbs the religious feelings that should have been directed to higher objects. Any graven image. Perhaps it would be better to translate “any image,” for the term used (pesel) is applied, not only to “graven” but also to “molten images” (Isa 40:19; Isa 44:10; Jer 10:14; etc.), since these last were in almost every instance finished by the graving tool. Or any likeness of anything that is in heaven abovei.e; “any likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air.” Compare Deu 4:17. The water under the earth. See Gen 1:6, Gen 1:7. The triple division here and elsewhere made, is intended to embrace the whole material universe. Much of the Egyptian religion consisted in the worship of animals and their images.

Exo 20:5

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them. Every outward sign of honour was shown to images in the ancient world. They were not regarded as emblems, but as actual embodiments of deity. There was a special rite in Greece (Theopoea) by means of which the gods were inducted into their statues, and made to take up their abodes in them. Seneca says of the Romans of his own day”They pray to these images of the gods, implore them on bended knee, sit or stand long days before them, throw them money, and sacrifice beasts to them, so treating them with deep respect, though they despise the man who made them” (Ap. Lact. 2.2). I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God. God “will not give his glory to another” (Isa 42:8; Isa 48:11), will not suffer a rival near his throne. He is not “jealous.” as the Greeks thought (Herod. 7.10, 5), of mere success, or greatness; but he is very jealous of his own honour, and will not have the respect and reverence, which is his due, bestowed on other beings or on inanimate objects. Compare with the present passage Exo 34:14; Deu 4:24; Deu 5:9; Deu 6:15; Jos 24:19; etc. Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. Exception has been taken to the plain meaning of this passage by a multitude of writers, who dread the reproach of the sceptic, that the God of the Old Testament is a God careless of justice and bent upon revenge. But neither does society, nor does civil justice itself, regard the visiting of parents’ sins upon their children as in all cases unjust. Society by its scorn punishes for their parents’ transgressions the illegitimate, the children of criminals, the childrenespecially the daughtersof adulteresses. Civil justice condemns to forfeiture of their titles and their estates, the innocent children of those executed for treason. God again manifestly does by the laws which obtain in his moral universe, entail on children many consequences of their parents’ ill-doingas the diseases which arise from profligacy or intemperance, the poverty which is the result of idleness or extravagance, the ignorance and evil habits which are the fruit of a neglected education. It is this sort of visitation which is intended here. The children and grandchildren of idolaters would start in life under disadvantages. The vicious lives of their parents would have sown in them the seeds both of physical and moral evil. They would commonly be brought up in wrong courses, have their moral sense early perverted, and so suffer for their parents’ faults. It would be difficult for them to rise out of their unhappy condition. Still, “each would bear his own iniquity.” Each would “be judged by that he had, not by that he bad not.” An all-wise God would, in the final award, make allowance for the disadvantages of birth and inherited disposition, and would assign to each that position to which his own conducthis struggles, efforts, endeavours after rightentitled him.

To say that the threat “applies only to such children as follow the sins of their fathers” Kalisch) is to empty the passage of all force. It applies to all; but the visitation intended consists in temporal disadvantages, not in the final award of happiness or misery.

Exo 20:6

Shewing mercy unto thousands. Or, “to the thousandth generation.” (Compare Deu 7:9.) In neither case are the numbers to be taken as exact and definite. The object of them is to contrast the long duration of the Divine love and favour towards the descendants of those who love him, with the comparatively short duration of his chastening wrath in the case of those who are his adversaries. And keep my commandments. Thus only is love shown. Compare Joh 14:15-21; 1Jn 2:5; 2Jn 1:6.

Exo 20:7

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. It is disputed whether this is a right rendering. Shav in Hebrew means both “vanity” and ,’falsehood;” so that the Third Commandment may forbid either “vain-swearing” or simply “false-swearing. It is in favor of the latter interpretation, that our Lord seems to contrast his own prohibition of unnecessary oaths with the ancient prohibition of false oaths in the words”Ye have heard that it hath been said by” (or “to”) “them of old timeThou shalt not forswear thyself, but shelf perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto youSwear not at all” (Mat 5:33-34). It is also in favour of the command being levelled against false-swearing, that perjury should naturally, as a great sin, have a special prohibition directed against it in the Decalogue, while vain-swearing, as a little sin, would scarcely seem entitled to such notice. Perjury has always been felt to be one of the greatest both of moral and of social offences. It implies an absolute want of any reverence at all for God; and it destroys civil society by rendering the administration of justice impossible. There has been a general horror of it among all civilised nations. The Egyptians punished perjury with death. The Greeks thought that a divine Nemesis pursued the perjured man, and brought destruction both upon himself and upon his offspring (Herod. 6.86). The Romans regarded the perjurer as infamous, and the object of Divine vengeance in the other world (Cic. De Leg. 2.9). The threat contained in the words”The Lord will not hold him guiltless”may be taken as an argument on either side. If viewed as equivalent to “the Lord will punish severely” (Kalisch), it accords best with the view that perjury was intended; if taken literally, it would suit best a lesser sin, of which men ordinarily think little.

Exo 20:8

Remember the sabbath day. The institution of the sabbath dates, at any rate, from the giving of the manna (Exo 16:23). Its primeval institution, which has been thought to be implied in Gen 2:3, is uncertain. The word “remember” here may be simply a reference to what passed in the “wilderness of Sin” as related in Exo 16:22-30. On the sabbath itself, both Jewish and Christian, see the comment upon that chapter.

Exo 20:9

Six days shalt thou labour. This is not so much a command as a prohibition” Thou shaft not labor more than six (consecutive) clays.” In them thou shelf do all thy necessary work, so as to have the Sabbath free for the worship and service of God.

Exo 20:10

The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God. Rather”The seventh day shall be a sabbath to the Lord thy God;” i.e; the seventh day shall be a day of holy rest dedicated to religion. All unnecessary labour shall be suspended and put asidethe law of rest and ease, so far as bodily toil is concerned, which was the law of man’s existence before the fall, shall supersede for the time that law of heavy toil and continual unrest, which was laid on man as the penalty of his transgression (Gen 3:17-19). Eden shall be, as it were, restoredman shall not “go out to his toil and his labour”even the very beasts, pressed into man’s service since the fall, shall rest. In it thou shalt not do any work. On the exceptions to this rule, which even Judaism, with its extreme formality and literalism, saw to be necessary, see Mat 12:5, Mat 12:11. Still in many respects, a superstitious adherence to the precept was maintained by religious Jews, who would not even defend themselves on the sabbath, if attacked by an enemy (1 Mac. 2:32-38; 2 Mac. Mat 5:25, Mat 5:26; Mat 6:11; Mat 15:1). Experience, however, taught them that the law had not been intended to extend so far, and after a time they determined, not to seek battle, but to accept if, and do their best, on the sabbath day (1 Mac. 2:41). Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter. The rest is to extend to the whole family. Work is not to be merely devolved by the parents upon the children. Thy manservant, nor thy maid servant. It is to extend beyond the family proper, to the domestics of the household, who are to enjoy the respite from toil and to have the advantage of the religious refreshment, no less than their masters. Nor thy cattle. God’s care for cattle is a remarkable feature of the Old Testament dispensation. God, at the time of the flood, “remembered Noah and the cattle which were with him in the ark” (Gen 8:1). Soon after, his covenant, not to drown the earth any more, was established “with the fowl, and with the cattle, and with every beast of the earth,” no less than with man (Gen 9:9-11). In the Psalms he de clares that “the cattle upon a thousand hills” are his (Psa 50:10). In Jonah, we find that Nineveh was spared, in part because there was in it “much cattle” (Jon 4:11). The precept, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” is characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation, and had no parallel in the written codes or in the actual customs of other ancient nations. Animal suffering was generally regarded as of small account in the ancient world; and the idea of protecting animals from ill usage was wholly unknown. On the contrary, as Dr. Dollinger well observes: “The law was specially careful about the welfare of animals; they were to be treated with compassion and kindness. Domestic animals were to be well fed, and to enjoy the rest of the sabbath. The Israelites were to help to lift up the ass which had fallen beneath its burden, and to bring back the beast that had gone astray (Exo 23:5, Exo 23:12; Deu 25:4) The young was not to be taken from its mother before the seventh day From these and similar ordinancessuch, for instance, as about the least painful method of killing animalsit is plain that the law tried to subdue that coarse turn of mind and unfeeling cruelty, which are engendered by the maltreatment of animals.” Nor the stranger that is within thy gates. The “strangers within the gates” of Israel are those foreigners who voluntarily sojourned with them in their camps or (afterwards) in their towns. A “mixed multitude” had gone up out of Egypt with them (Exo 12:38), and accompanied them in their wilderness wanderings. The command that these too should rest, was at once a restriction upon their liberty, requiring them to conform to the habits of those among whom they dwelt, and an admission of them into participation in some portion of the privileges of Israel. The sacred rest of the sabbath prefigured the final peace and happiness of the blest in heaven; and they who were commanded to share in the first, were encouraged to hope that they might also participate in the second.

Exo 20:11

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth. Two reasons are assigned for the sanctification of the seventh day in the Pentateuch:

1. The fact that the work of creation took six days, and that on the seventh God rested; and

2. The further fact, that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and gave them a time of rest after a time of labour and toil (Deu 5:15). It is not expressly said that the deliverance took place on the Sabbath, but such is the Jewish tradition on the subject. The reason here assigned must be regarded as the main reason, man’s rest being purposely assimilated to God’s rest, in order to show the resemblance between man’s nature anti God’s (Gen 1:27), and to point towards that eternal rest wherein man, united with God, will find his highest bliss and the true end of his being. “There remaineth a rest for the people of God.”

Exo 20:12

Honor thy father and thy mother. The obligation of filial respect, love, and reverence is so instinctively’ felt by all, that the duty has naturally found a place in every moral code. In the maxims of Ptah-hotep, an Egyptian author who lived probably before Abraham, “the duty of filial piety is strictly inculcated”. Confucius, in China, based his moral system wholly upon the principle of parental authority; and in Rome it may be regarded as the main foundation of the political edifice. In the Decalogue, the position of this duty, at the head of our duties towards our neighbour, marks its importance; which is further shown by this being “the first commandment with promise” (Eph 6:2). It is curious that the long life here specially attached to the observance of this obligation, was also believed to accompany it by the Egyptians. “The son,” says Ptah-hotep, “who accepts the words of his father, will grow old in consequence of so doing;” and again”The obedient son will be happy by reason of his obedience; he will grow old; he will come to favour.” Modern commentators generally assume that the promise was not personal, but nationalthe nation’s days were to be “long upon the land,” if the citizens generally were obedient children. But this explanation cannot apply to Eph 6:1-3. And if obedience to parents is to be rewarded with long life under the new covenant, there can be no reason why it should not have been so rewarded under the old. The objection that good sons are not always long-lived is futile. God governs the universe by general, not by universal laws.

Exo 20:13

Thou shalt not kill. Here again is a moral precept included in all codes, and placed by all in a prominent position. Our first duty towards our neighbour is to respect his life. When Cain slew Abel, he could scarcely have known what he was doing; yet a terrible punishment was awarded him for his transgression (Gen 4:11-14). After the flood, the solemn declaration was made, which thenceforward became a universal law among mankind”Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen 9:6). In the world that followed the flood, all races of men had the tradition that only blood could expiate blood. In the few places where there was an organised government, and a systematic administration of justice, the State acted on the principle, and punished the murderer capitally. Elsewhere, among tribes and races which had not vet coalesced into states, the law of blood-revenge obtained, and the inquisition for blood became a private affair. The next of kin was the recognised” avenger,” upon whom it devolved to hunt out the murderer and punish him. Here the sin is simply and emphatically denounced, the brevity of the precept increasing its force. The Israelites are told that to take life is a crime. God forbids it. As usual, no exceptions are made. Exceptions appear later on (Num 35:22-25; Deu 4:42; etc.); but the first thing is to establish the principle. Human life is sacred. Man is not to shed the blood of his fellow-man. If he does, of his hand will the life taken surely be required. The casuistic question whether suicide is forbidden under this precept, probably did not occur to the legislator or to the Hebrews of his time. Neither the Hebrews, nor the Egyptians, among whom they had so long lived, were addicted to suicide; and it is a general rule that laws are not made excepting against tolerably well-known crimes. It has been argued that angry thoughts and insulting words were forbidden by it on the strength of our Lord’s comment in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22). But it seems to the present writer that in Mat 5:21-47 our Lord is not so much explaining the Jewish law as amplifying it on his own authoritynote the repetition of the phrase, “But I say unto you”and making it mean to Christians what it had not meant to Jews.

Exo 20:14

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Our second duty towards our neighbour is to respect the bond on which the family is based, and that conjugal honour which to the true man is dearer than life. Marriage, according to the original institution, made the husband and wife “one flesh” (Gen 2:24); and to break in upon this sacramental union was at once a crime and a profanity. Adulteresses and their paramours were in most ancient nations liable to be punished with death by the injured party; but the adultery of a married man with an unmarried woman was thought lightly of. The precept of the Decalogue binds both man and woman equally. Our Lord’s expansion of this commandment (Mat 5:27-32) is parallel to his expansion of the preceding one (ib, 21-26). He shows that there are adulterous marriages in countries where the law gives a facility of divorce, and that without any overt act adultery may be committed in the heart.

Exo 20:15

Thou shalt not steal. By these words the right of property received formal acknowledgment, and a protest was made by anticipation against the maxim of modern socialists”La propriete, c’est le vol.” Instinctively man feels that some things become his, especially by toil expended on them, and that, by parity of reasoning, some things become his neighbour’s. Our third duty towards our neighbour is to respect his rights in these. Society, in every community that has hitherto existed, has recognised private pro-petty; and social order may be said to be built upon it. Government exists mainly for the security of men’s lives and properties; and anarchy would supervene if either could be with impunity attacked. Theft has always been punished in every state; and even the Spartan youth was not acquitted of blame unless he could plead that the State had stopped his supplies of food, and bid him forage for himself.

Exo 20:16

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. False witness is of two kinds, public and private. We may either seek to damage our neighbour by giving false evidence against him in a court of justice, or simply calumniate him to others in our social intercourse with them. The form of the expression here used points especially to false witness of the former kind, but does not exclude the latter, which is expressly forbidden in Exo 23:1. The wrong done to a man by false evidence in a court may be a wrong of the very extremest kindmay be actual murder (1Ki 21:13) More often, however, it results in an injury to his property or his character. As fatal to the administration of justice, false witness in courts has been severely visited by penalties in all well-regulated states. At Athens the false witness was liable to a heavy fine, and if thrice convicted lost all his civil rights. At Rome, by a law of the Twelve Tables, he was hurled headlong from the Tarpeian rock. In Egypt, false witness was punished by amputation of the nose and ears. Private calumny may sometimes involve as serious consequences to individuals as false witness in a court. It may ruin a man; it may madden him; it may drive him to suicide. But it does not disorganise the whole framework of society, like perjured evidence before a tribunal; and states generally are content to leave the injured party to the remedy of an action-at-law. The Mosaic legislation was probably the first wherein it was positively forbidden to circulate reports to the prejudice of another, and where consequently this was a criminal offence.

Exo 20:17

Thou shalt not covet. Here the Mosaic law takes a step enormously in advance of any other ancient code. Most codes stopped short at the deed; a few went on to words; not one attempted to control thoughts. “Thou shalt not covet” teaches men that there is One who sees the heart; to whose eyes “all things are naked and open;” and who cares far less for the outward act than the inward thought or motive from which the act proceeds. “Thou shalt not covet: lays it down again that we are not mere slaves of our natural desires and passions, but have a controlling power implanted within us, by means of which we can keep down passion, check desire, resist impulse. Man is lord of himself, capable, by the exercise of his free-will, of moulding his feelings, weakening or intensifying his passions, shaping his character. God, who “requires truth in the inward parts,” looks that we should in all cases go to the root of the matter, and not be content with restraining ourselves from evil acts and evil words, but eradicate the evil feeling from which the acts and words proceed. Thy neighbour‘s house, etc. The “house” is mentioned first as being of primary necessity, and as in some sort containing all the rest. A man does not take a wife until he has a home to bring her to, or engage domestic servants, or buy slaves, except to form part of a household. The other objects mentioned are placed in the order in which they are usually valued. The multiplication of objects is by way of emphasis.

HOMILETICS

Exo 20:1-17

The ten commandments collectivety.

The ten commandments form a summary of our main duties towards God, and towards man. They stand out from the rest of the Old Testament in a remarkable way.

1. They were uttered audibly by a voice which thousands hearda voice which is called that of God himself (Deu 5:26) and which filled those who heard it with a terrible fear (Exo 20:19).

2. They were the only direct utterance ever made by God to man under the Old Covenant.

3. They were not merely uttered by God but written by him, inscribed in some marvellous way by the finger of God on the two tables of testimony (Exo 31:18; Deu 4:13).

4. They have the additional testimony to their primary importance, that our Lord himself appealed to them as laying down that which men must do to inherit eternal life (Mat 19:18, Mat 19:19). We may observe of them collectively

I. THAT THEY ARE ALL–EMBRACING. They include our obligations to both God and man; they are both prohibitive and directive; they reach to the heart as well as to the outward life; they comprise both moral and positive precepts. According to the division adopted by the English Church, and by the reformed churches generally, the first four lay down our duty to our Maker, the last six our duty to our fellow men. Mostly they are prohibitive; but this is not the case with the fourth and fifth. The generality are concerned with acts, but words form the subject matter of the third; and both the tenth and the fifth deal with thoughts. As the moral is much more important than the positive, they are naturally in the main moral; but, to show that the Positive is an essential element in religion, they are also partly Positive-no moral ground being assignable for the consecration of one day in seven, rather than one in eight or six, much less for the definite selection of “the seventh day” as the one to be kept holy.

II. THAT THEY ARE SYSTEMATIC, BOTH IN MATTER AND ARRANGEMENT. The Decalogue takes as its basis the fact that all our duties are owed either to God or man. It regards our duties to God as the more important, and therefore places them first. The duties consist:

1. In acknowledging his existence and unity, and in “having him” for our God and none other (first commandment);

2. In conceiving aright of his incorporeity and spirituality, and worshipping him as a Spirit, in spirit and in truth (second commandment);

3. In reverencing his holy Name, and avoiding the profane use of it (third commandment); and,

4. In setting apart for his worship some stated portion of our time, since otherwise we shall be sure to neglect it (fourth commandment). Our duties towards our fellow men are more complicated. First, there is a special relation in which we stand towards those who bring us into the world and support us during our early years, involving peculiar duties to them, analogous in part to those which we owe to God, and so rightly following upon the summary of our Divine duties (fifth commandment). Next, with respect to men in general, we owe it them to abstain from injuring them in deed, word, or thought. In deed we may injure their person, their honour, and their property, which we are consequently forbidden to do in the sixth, the seventh, and the eighth commandments. In word, we injure our neighbour especially by false witness, public or private, both of which are forbidden in the ninth commandment. We injure him in thought, finally, when we covet what is his; hence the tenth commandment.

III. THAT THEY ARE THE FIRST GERMS OUT OF WHICH THE WHOLE OF THE MORAL LAW MAY BE ENVOLVED. The Decalogue is a collection of elementary moral truths. Its predominantly negative form is indicative of this, since abstaining from evil is the first step on the road to virtue. Each command asserts a principle; and the principle is in every case capable of being worked out to a thousand remote consequences. The letter may be narrow; but the spirit of the commandment is in every case “exceeding broach” This will appear, more clearly, in the ensuing section, in which the ten commandments will be considered severally.

Exo 20:1-17

The ten commandments severally.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT. To the Christian the First Commandment takes the form which our Lord gave it”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all-thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment’ (Mat 22:37, Mat 22:38). Not merely abstract belief, not merely humble acknowledgment of one God is necessary, but heartfelt devotion to the One Object worthy of our devotion, the One Being in all the universe on whom we may rest and stay ourselves without fear of his failing us. He is the Lord our Godnot an Epicurean deity, infinitely remote from man, who has created the world and left it to its own devicesnot a Pantheistic essence spread through all nature, omnipresent, but intangible, impersonal, deaf to our cries, and indifferent to our “to us making for righteousness” in actionsnot an inscrutable “something external to us making for righteousness,” in the words of the religious Agnosticbut a Being very near us, “in whom we live; and move, and have our being,” who is “about our path and about our bed, and spieth out all our ways,” a Being whom we may know, and love, and trust, and feel to be with us, warning us, and cheering us, and consoling us, and pleading with us, and ready to receive us, and most willing to pardon usa Being who is never absent from us, who continually sustains our life, upholds our faculties, gives us all we enjoy and our power to enjoy it, and who is therefore the natural object of our warmest, tenderest, truest, and most constant love. The first commandment should not be difficult to keep. We have only to open our eyes to the facts, and let them make their natural impression upon our minds, in order to love One who has done and still does so much for us.

THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. On its prohibitive side, this Commandment forbids us to have unworthy thoughts of God, to liken him to all idol, or regard him as “even such an one as ourselves.” Considered as directive, it requires us to form in our minds a just and true idea of the Divine nature, and especially of its spirituality, its lofty majesty, and its transcendent holiness. All materialistic ideas, and consequently all Pantheistic notions, are degrading to the dignity of God, who “is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions, not mixed with matter, but wholly separate from it, yet everywhere present after a supersensuous manner. Again, anthropomorphic notions of God are degrading to him; though it is scarcely possible to speak of him without anthropomorphic expressions. When we use such termsas when we call God just, or merciful, or long-sufferingwe should remember that those qualities in him are not identical with the human ones, but only analogous to them; and altogether we should be conscious of a deep mysteriousness lying behind all that we know of God, and rendering him a Being awful, inscrutablewhom we must not suppose that we can fathom or comprehend.

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT Primarily, the Third Commandment forbids perjury or false swearing; secondarily, it forbids all unnecessary oaths, all needless mention of the holy name of God, and all irreverence towards anything which is God’shis name, house, day, book, laws, ministers. Whatever in any sense belongs to God is sacred, and, if it has to be mentioned, should be mentioned reverently. The true main object of the Third Commandment is to inculcate reverence, to point out to us that the only proper frame of mind in which we can approach God is one of self-abasement and deeply reverential fear. “Keep thy foot, when thou goest to the house of God,” says the Preacher, “and be more ready to hear than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few” (Ecc 5:1, Ecc 5:2).

THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. In the Fourth Commandment we have the basis for all that is external in religion. The dedication of one entire day out of seven to God, and the command to abstain on that day from the ordinary labours of life, led on naturally to the institution of sacred services, holy convocations, meetings for united worship and prayer. Man is an active being, and a social being. If the ordinary business of life is stopped, some other occupation must be found for him: he will not sit still from morning to night with folded hands wrapped in pious contemplation. The institution of the Sabbath stands in close relation to the appointment of a priesthood, the construction of a holy place, and the establishment of a ceremonial. On the Christian the Fourth Commandment is not binding in respect of the letterhe is not to remember the Seventh day to keep it holy, but the First; he is not tied to hallow it by an abstinence from all labour, but encouraged to devote it to the performance of good works; but in the spirit of it, the commandment is as binding as any. Men need, under Christianity as much as under Judaism, positive religious institutions, places of worship, hours of prayer, a liturgy, a ritual, ceremonies. The value of the Lord’s Day as a Christian institution is incalculable; it witnesses for religion to the world; it constitutes a distinct call on men to take into consideration the aim and intent of the day; and its rightful use is of inestimable benefit to all truly religious persons, deepening in them, as it does, the sense of religion, and giving them time and opportunity for the training of their spiritual nature, and the contemplation of heavenly things, which would otherwise to most men have been unattainable. It has been well called “a bridge thrown across life’s troubled waters, over which we may pass to reach the opposite shorea link between earth and heavena type of the eternal day, when the freed spirit, if true to itself and to God, shall ,put on for ever the robe of immortal holiness and joy.”

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT. The honour which this commandment exacts from us is irrespective of our parents’ personal merits or demerits. We are to honour them as being our parents. Difficulties may be raised easily enough in theory; but they are readily solvable in practice. Let us defer to our parents’ commands in all things lawfullet us do everything for them that we canlet us anticipate their wishes in things indifferentlet us take trouble on their behalflet us be ever on the watch to spare them vexatious annoyancelet us study their comfort, ease, peaceand without any sacrifice of principle, even if they are bad parents, we may sufficiently show that we feel the obligation of the relationship, and are anxious to discharge the duties which it involves. Comparatively few men are, however, severely tried. We are not often much better than our parents; and it is seldom difficult to honour them.

1. For their age and experience.

2. For the benefits which they have conferred on us.

3. For the disinterested affection which they bear to us, and which they evince in their conduct. As a rule, parents have very much more love for their children than these have for them, and make sacrifices on their children’s behalf, which their children neither appreciate nor reciprocate. The honour which, according to this commandment, has to be shown to parents, must of course be extended, with certain modifications, to those who stand to us in loco parentisto guardians, tutors, schoolmasters, and the like. It is not perhaps quite clear that the commandment extends also to those who are set over us in Church and State, though it is usual so to interpret it. There are certain relations of parents to their offspring which are altogether peculiar; and these are absolutely incommunicable. There are others, which are common to parents with rulers; but these, unless in very primitive communities, can scarcely be said to rest upon the domestic relation as their basis. The ordinary relation of the governed to their governors is rather one parallel to that of children to their parents, than one which grows out of it; and though either may be used to illustrate the other, we must view the two as separate and independent of each other.

THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT. How wide is the scope of this commandment to Christians, our Lord has shown. Not only are murder and violence prohibited by it, but even provoking words, and angry thoughts (Mat 5:21-26). The “root of bitterness” whence murder springs, is either some fierce passion, or some inordinate desire. To be secure from murderous impulses, we must be free from such emotions as these,we must have tender and Joying feelings towards all our fellow-men. “Love is the fulfilling of the law;” and unless a man really “love the brethren,” he has no security against being surprised into violence towards them, which may issue in death. Nor is there one species of murder only. The sixth commandment prohibits, not only violence to the body, butwhat is of far greater consequenceinjury to the soul. Men break it most flagrantly when they lead another into deadly sin, therebyso far as in them liesdestroying his soul. The corrupter of innocence, the seducer, the persuader to evil, are “murderers” in a far worse sense than the cut-threat, the bandit, or the bravo. Death on the scaffold may expiate the crimes of these latter; eternal punishment alone would seem to be an adequate penalty for the guilt of the former. He that has eternally ruined a soul should surely be himself eternally unhappy.

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT. Here again we have the inestimable advantage of our Lord’s comment on the commandment, to help us to understand what it ought to mean to us. Not only adultery, but fornicationnot only fornication, but impurity of any and every kindin act, in word, in thoughtis forbidden to the Christian. He that looketh on a woman with the object of lusting after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mat 5:28). He that dallies with temptation, he that knowingly goes into the company of the impure, he that in his solitary chamber defiles himself, he that hears without rebuking them obscene words, transgresses against this law, and, unless he repents, cuts himself off from God. And observethe law is one both for men and women. We are ready enough to speak with scorn of “fallen women,”to regard them as ruined for ever, and treat their sin as the one unpardonable offence; but what of” fallen men”? Is not their sin as irreversible? Is it not the same sin? Is it not spoken of in Scripture in the same way? “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4). “Murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Rev 21:8). And is it not as debasing, as deadening to the soul, as destructive of all true manliness, of all true chivalry, of all self-respect? Principiis obsta. Let the young keep that precious gift of purity which is theirs, and not be induced by the ridicule of unclean men to part with it. Once gone it can never return. Let them be pure, as Christ was pure. Blessed are the pure in heart!

THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT. Simple direct stealing, being severely punished by the law in most countries, is seldom practised, unless it be by children and slaves. But indirect stealing of various kinds is common. It should be clearly understood that the Christian precept forbids any act by which we fraudulently obtain the property of another. Adulteration, concealment of defects, misrepresentation of quality, employment of false weights or measures, are the acts of a thief, as much as pocket-picking or shop-lifting. Servants steal when they take “commission” from tradesmen unknown to their masters, or appropriate as “perquisites” what their masters have not expressly agreed to allow, or neglect to do the work which they undertook, or do it in a slovenly manner, or damage their master’s property by carelessness or diminish it by waste. Masters steal when they do not permit their servants the indulgences they promised, or allow their wages to fall into arrear, or force them to work overtime without proper remuneration, or deprive them of such “rest” as they had a reasonable right to expect upon the Sunday. Those steal who cheat the revenue by smuggling, or false returns to tax-collectors; or who cheat tradesmen by incurring debts which they can never pay, or who in view of coming bankruptcy pass over their property to a friend, with the understanding that it is to be restored to them, or who have recourse of any of the “tricks of trade,” as they are called. All men are sure to steal in one way or another, who are not possessed by the spirit of honesty, who do not love justice and equity and fair, dealing, who do not make it the law of their life to be ever doing to others as they would that others should do unto them.

THE NINTH COMMANDMENT. False witness in a court is but rarely given. We most of us pass our lives without having once to appear in a court, either as prosecutor, witness, or accused. The false witness against which the generality have especially to be on their guard, is that evil speaking which is continually taking place in society, whereby men’s characters are blackened, their motives misrepresented, their reputations eaten away. It is dull and tame to praise a man. We get a character for wit and shrewdness if we point out flaws in his conduct, show that he may have acted from a selfish motive, “just hint a fault and hesitate dislike.” It is not even necessary in all cases to establish our character for shrewd insight that we should say anything. Silence when we hear a friend maligned, a shrug of the shoulders, a movement of the eyebrows, will do. Again, false witness may be given in writing as well as in speech. The reviewer who says of a book worse than he thinks of it, bears false witness. The writer for the Press who abuses in a leading article a public man whom he inwardly respects, bears false witness. The person who vents his spite against a servant by giving him a worse character than he deserves, bears false witness. We can only be secure against daily breaches of this commandment by joining the spirit of love with a deep-seated regard for truth, and aiming always at saying of others, when we have occasion to speak of them, the best that we can conscientiously say.

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT. The tenth commandment is supplementary to the eighth. Rightly understood, the eighth implies it, covetousness being the root from which theft springs. The command seems added to the Decalogue in order to lay down the principle that the thoughts of the heart come under God’s law, and that we are as responsible for them as for our actions. Otherwise, it would not be needed, being implied in the eighth and in the seventh. Since, however, it was of the greatest importance for men to know and understand that God regards the heart, and “requires truth in the inward parts;” and since covetousness was the cause of the greater portion of the evil that is in the world, the precept, although already implied, was given expressly. Men were forbidden to covet the house, wife, slaves, cattle, property of their neighbourin fact, “anything that is his.” They were not forbidden to desire houses, or wives, or cattle, or property generallywhich are all, within limits, objects of desire and things which men may rightfully wish forbut they were forbidden to desire for themselves such as were already appropriated by their fellows, and of which, therefore, they could not become possessed without their fellows suffering loss. A moderate desire for earthly goods is not forbidden to the Christian (Mat 19:29; 1Ti 4:8); though his special covetousness should be for “the best gifts”the virtues and graces which make up the perfect Christian character (1Co 12:31; 1Co 14:1).

HOMILIES BY J. ORR

Exo 20:1

The moral law-Preliminary.

The law given from Sinai is the moral law by pre-eminence. The principles which it embodies are of permanent obligation. It is a brief summary of the whole compass of our duty to God and man. It is a law of supreme excellence”holy, just, and good” (Rom 7:12). God’s own character is expressed in it; it bears witness to his unity, spirituality, holiness, sovereignty, mercy, and equity; truth and righteousness are visible in its every precept. Listening to its “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots,” we cannot but recognise the same stern voice which speaks to us in our own breasts, addressing to us calls to duty, approving us in what is right, condemning us for what is wrong. These ten precepts, accordingly, are distinguished from the judicial and ceremonial statutes subsequently given

(1) As the moral is distinguished from the merely positive;

(2) As the universally obligatory is distinguished from what is local and temporary;

(3) As the fundamental is distinguished from the derivative and secondary. The judicial law, e.g; not only draws its spirit, and derives its highest authority, from the law of the ten commandments, but is in its own nature, simply an application of the maxims of this law to the problems of actual government. Its binding force was confined to Israel.

The ceremonial law, again, with its meats and drinks, its sacrifices, etc. bore throughout the character of a positive institution, and had no independent moral worth. It stood to the moral law in a triple relation of subordination

(1) As inferior to it in its own nature.

(2) As designed to aid the mind in rising to the apprehension of the holiness which the law enjoined.

(3) As providing (typically) for the removal of guilt contracted by the breaking of the law. This distinctness of the “ten words” from the other parts of the law is evinced

I. IN THE MANNER OF THEIR PROMULGATION.

1. They alone were spoken by the voice of God from Sinai.

2. They were uttered amidst circumstances of the greatest magnificence and terror.

3. They alone were written on tables of stone.

4. They were written by God’s own finger (Exo 31:18). The rest of the law was communicated privately to Moses, and through him delivered to the people.

II. IN THE NAMES GIVEN TO THEM, AND THE USE MADE OF THEM.

1. They are “the words of the Lord,” as distinguished from the “judgments “or “rights” derived from them, and embraced with them in “the book of the covenant,” as forming the statutory law of Israel (Exo 24:3).

2. The tables on which they were written areto the exclusion of the other parts of the lawcalled “the testimony” (Exo 25:16), “the covenant” (Deu 4:13), “the words of the covenant” (Exo 34:28), “the tables of testimony” (Exo 31:18; Exo 32:15), “the tables of the covenant” (Deu 9:9-11).

3. The tables of stone, and they only, were placed in the ark of the covenant (Exo 25:21). They were thus regarded as in a special sense the bond of the covenant. The deposition of the tables in the ark, underneath the mercy seat, throws light on the nature of the covenant with Israel. The law written on the tables is the substratum of the covenantits obligatory documentthe bond; yet over the law is the mercy-seat, sprinkled with blood of propitiationa testimony that there is forgiveness with God, that he may be feared (Psa 130:4), that God will deal mercifully with Israel under this covenant. It is obvious, from these considerations, how fallacious is the statement that the Old Testament makes no distinction between the moral, juristic, and ceremonial parts of the law, but regards all as of equal dignity.J.O.

Exo 20:1-18

The moral law-General survey.

View this law of the ten commandments as

I. AUTHORITATIVELY DELIVERED. “God spake all these words, saying,” etc. (Exo 20:1). An authoritative revelation of moral law was necessary

1. That man might be made distinctly aware of the compass of his obligations. The moral knowledge originally possessed by man had gradually been parted with. What remained was distorted and confused. He had little right knowledge of his duty to God, and very inadequate conceptions even of his duties to his fellow-men. This lost knowledge was recovered to him by positive revelation. Consider, in proof of the need of such a revelation, the ignorance of God which prevails still, men’s imperfect apprehensions of his holiness, their defective views of duty, etc. And this though the revelation has so long been given.

2. That a basis of certainty might be obtained for the inculcation of moral truth. This also was necessary. Man has ever shown himself ingenious in explaining away the obligations which the law imposes on him. He may deny that they exist. He may make light of holiness. He may take up utilitarian ground, and ride off on disputes as to the nature of conscience, the origin of moral ideas, the diversities of human opinion, etc. The law stops all such cavilling by interposing with its authoritative “Thus saith the Lord.” See on this point a valuable paper on “Secularism,” by R. H. Hutton, in “Expositor,” January, 1881.

3. That the authority of conscience may be strengthened. Conscience testifies, in however dim and broken a way, to the existence of a law above us. It speaks with authority. “Had it might as it has right, it would rule the world.” In order, however, that we may be made to feel that it is a living will, and no mere impersonal law, which thus imposes its commands upon us, there is a clear need for the voice within being reinforced by the voice withoutfor historical revelation. Sinai teaches us to recognise the authority which binds us in our consciences as God‘s authority.

4. For economic purposes. See previous chapter.

II. GRACIOUSLY PREFACED. “I am the Lord, thy God,” etc. (Exo 20:2). This preface to the law is of great importance.

1. It testified to the fact that God‘s relation to Israel was fundamentally a gracious one. “The law was introduced with the words, ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ and speaks with the majestic authority of the Eternal, dispensing blessings and cursings on the fulfilment and transgression of the law. But although this is given amidst the thunder and lightning of Sinai, whose roll seems to be heard constantly in its mighty imperatives’Thou shalt not!’ or ‘Thou shalt!’ yet still it points back to grace; for the God who speaks in the law is he who led the people out of Egypt, freed them from the yoke of bondagethe God who gave the promise to Abraham, and who has prepared a highest good, the Messianic kingdom, for his people” (Martensen).

2. It furnished a motive for obedience to the law. Mark the orderthe same as in the Gospel; God first saves Israel, then gives them his law to keep. Because God had redeemed them from Egypt, and had given them, of his free mercy, this glorious privilege of being his people, therefore were they to keep his commandments. This was the return they were to make to him for the so great love wherewith he had loved them. Their relation to the law was not to be a servile one. Obedience was not to be a price paid for favour, but a return of grateful hearts for favours already received. From this motive of gratitude, and that they might retain the privileges he had given them, and inherit farther blessing, they were to walk in the prescribed way. If, notwithstanding, a pronouncedly legal element entered into that economy, a curse even being pronounced against those who failed to keep the whole law, while the good promised to obedience appears more as legal award than as a gift of gracewe know now the reason for the covenant being cast into this legal form, and can rejoice that in Christ our justification is placed on so much better a footing. Obedience, however, is still required of us as a condition of continuance in God’s favour, and of ultimate inheritance of blessing.

3. It furnished to the pious Israelite a pledge of merciful treatment when he transgressed or fell short of the requirements of his law. What, e.g; had David to fall back upon in the hour of his remorse for his great transgression (Psa 51:1-19.), but just such a word as this, confirmed as it was by acts of God, which showed that it was a word always to be depended on. This one saying, prefacing the law, altered the whole complexion of Israel’s standing under law. It gave to the Israelite the assurance that he most needed, namelythat, notwithstanding the strictness of the commandment, God would yet accept him in his sincere endeavours after obedience, though these fell manifoldly short of the full requirement, i.e; virtually on the ground of faithin connection, however, with propitiation.

III. MORAL IN ITS SUBSTANCE. This has been adverted to above. Though imposed on man by Divine authority, moral law is no arbitrary creation of the Divine will. It is an emanation from the Divine nature. (Cf. Hooker”Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world.”) Herbert Spencer was never guilty of a greater misrepresentation than when he affirmed”Religious creeds, established and dissenting, all embody the belief that right and wrong are right and wrong simply in virtue of Divine enactment”. We may reply with Stahl”The primary idea of goodness is the essential, not the creative, will of God. The Divine will, in its essence, is infinite love, mercy, patience, truth, faithfulness, rectitude, spirituality, and all that is included in the idea of holiness, which constitutes the inmost nature of God. The holiness of God, therefore, neither precedes his will (‘sanctitas antceedens voluntatem‘ of the schoolmen) nor follows it, but is his will itself. The good is not a law for the Divine will (so that God wills it because it is good); neither is it a creation of his will (so that it becomes good because he wills it); but it is the nature of God from everlasting to everlasting.” The law, in a word, expresses immutable demands of holiness. What these are is determined in any given case by the abstract nature of holiness and by the constitution and circumstances of the being to whom the law is given. Man, e.g; is a free, immortal spirit; but he is at the same time an inhabitant of the earth, bound by natural conditions, and standing to his fellow-men in relations, some of which at least belong only to his present state of existence. Hence we find in the Decalogue precepts relating to the weekly Sabbath, to marriage, to the institution of private property, etc. These precepts are founded on our nature, and are universally obligatory. They show what duty immutably requires of us as possessing such a nature; but obviously their application will cease under different conditions of existence (Mat 22:30). Only in its fundamental principles of love to God and to our fellow-beings, and in its spiritual demands for truth, purity, uprightness, reverence, and fidelity, is the law absolutely unchangeable.

IV. COMPLETE IN ITS PARTS. Observe

1. Its two divisions, turning, the one on the principle of love to God, the other, on the principle of love to man.

2. The relative position of the two divisionsduty to God standing first, and laying the needful foundation for the right discharge of our duties to mankind. True love to man has its fountain head in love to God. Neglect of the duties of piety will speedily be followed by the neglect of duty to our neighbour. The Scripture does not ignore the distinction between religion (duties done directly to God) and morality (duties arising from earthly relations), but it unites the two in the deeper idea that all duty is to be done to God, whose authority is supreme in the one sphere as in the other.

3. The scope of its precepts. These cover the entire range of human obligation. The precepts of the first table (including here the Fifth Commandment) require that God be honoured in his being, his worship, his name, his day, his human representatives. The precepts of the second table require that our neighbour be not injured in deed, in word, in thought; and in respect neither of his person, his wife, his property, nor his reputation. So complete and concise a summary of dutyreligious and ethicalbased on true ideas of the character of God, and taking holiness, not bare morality, as its standard, is without parallel in ancient legislation.

V. SPIRITUAL IS ITS PURPORT. “The law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14).

1. The law to be studied in its principles. Taken in its bare letter, it might appear narrow. Here, however, as everywhere in Scripture, the letter is only the vehicle of the spirit. The whole law of Moses being founded on this part of itbeing viewed simply as an expansion or amplification in different relations of the principles embodied in the ten wordsit is plain, and common sense supports us in the view, that the principles are the main things, the true roots of obligation. Thus, the Third Commandment, in the letter of it, forbids false swearing, or generally, any vain use of the name of God. But underlying this, and obviously forming the ground of the command, is the principle that God’s name, i.e; everything whereby he manifests himself, is to be treated with deepest reverence. This principle, in its various applications, carries us far beyond the letter of the precept. Read in the same way, the Sixth Commandment forbids killing, but not less the murderous motive than the murderous act; while the principle involved, viz; reverence for, and care of, human life (cf. Gen 9:6), branches out into a multiplicity of duties, of which the other parts of the law of Moses furnish numerous illustrations. The true key to the spiritual interpretation of the law is that given by Christ in the sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:1-48.- 7.).

2. Summed up in love. “Love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8-10).

(1) It is the central requirement. “Them that love me” (verse 6). Implied in the first and all later precepts. Whatever in the way of outward service we render to God, or man, if love is withheld, the law is not fulfilled.

(2) It is needed to fill up the meaning of the special precepts. These receive their fulness of interpretation only through love. And, in the spiritual reading of them, they cannot be kept without love. It is impossible, e.g; to keep the heart free from all envy, malice, hate, covetousness, save as it is possessed by the opposite principle of love. Love is the root of fidelity to God, of spirituality in his worship, of reverence for his name, of delight in his day, etc. The more deeply we penetrate into the meaning of the law, the more clearly do we perceive that love to God and love to man are indispensable for the fulfilling of it.

(3) Love secures the fulfilling of the law. For “love worketh no ill to his neighbour” (Rom 13:10). It will not voluntarily injure another. It will not kill, rob, defraud, slander a fellowman, or covet his possessions. On the contrary, it will seek in every way it can to do him good. It is the great impelling motive to obedience. “The love of Christ constraineth us” (2Co 5:14). “Faith, which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6).

VI. POWERFULLY ENFORCED,

1. By Divine threatenings (verses 5-7).

2. By Divine example (verse 11).

3. By Divine promises (verses 6-12).

See below. Behold, then, the beauty and perfection of the law. “Thy commandment is exceeding broad” (Psa 119:96). We are not to be misled,

1. By the studied brevity of the law, which is part of its excellency; or,

2. By its prevailing negative forma testimony, not to the unspirituality of the law, but to the existence of strong evil tendencies in the heart, needing to be repressed (Rom 7:7, Rom 7:8; 1Ti 1:9 10). Yet perfect as it is of its kind, it is not to be compared, as a mirror of holiness, with the perfect human life of Jesus Christ. No accumulation of separate precepts can exhaust all that is contained in holiness. Precepts convey also a defective idea of the good by breaking up that which is in its own nature onean idealinto a number of separate parts. What, however, the law could not do for us, is done in the perfect example of our Lord. In him, law is translated into life. The ideal is no longer presented to us, as even in the Decalogue, in detached precepts, “broken lights,” “words,” whichjust because holiness is so vast a thingare left to hint more than they express, but in its true unbroken unity, in the sphered whole of a perfect human character. Our law is Christ.J.O.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Exo 20:1, Exo 20:2

The Ten Commandments-an introductory reminder.

Before the speaker of these commandments proceeded to the utterance of them, it was necessary that he should call special and reverent attention to himself. Not one of the words he was about to say could either be understood or obeyed without a constant reference in thought to him who had delivered and arranged them. He did not bring them before Israel as a far seeing legislator might bring such rules as were best adapted to the limitations and infirmities of those whom he sought to guide. They were the laws of that kingdom where the King himself is a real and immutable lawgiver, he whose reign never comes to an end. Some of the commandments had a direct reference to himself; and all had to do with his service. Should it not, then, be ever a helpful and sobering truth to us that the great laws for human life thus come as expressions through a Divine will? We cannot overrate the importance of requirements which God himself solemnly declares. And just as we Christians in repeating the Lord’s prayer must think constantly of the invocation to our Father in heaven, in order to enforce and enrich the plea of each petition, so in carrying out these ten commandments, each Israelite was bound to think of each commandment in connection with that Jehovah who had spoken it. The thought that he had brought them out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage was meant to give special force to everything he required from the hands of his people.

I. JEHOVAH SPEAKS OF HIMSELF IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THEM TO WHOM HE SPEAKS. He solemnly charges them to look back on their own experience, to consider their past suffering and helplessness, and how they had come to the present hour entirely because of what he had done for them. Note that he does not, as on former occasions, speak of himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that was a necessary mode of description when he made his first approach to them, but now they have their own rich and crowded experiences to constitute a claim for their attention and obedience. God bases his expectations on services rendered to the present generation; and the claim he makes is founded on the greatest boon that could be conferred, liberty. When from this very mountain he sent Moses to them, they were in bitter servitude; now Moses finds himself at this mountain again, with a nation of freemen around him. Jehovah is not afraid of referring to the land of Egypt, even though the people had allowed the agreeable associations of the name to override the disagreeable ones. They delighted in thinking of it as a land where they sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full (Exo 16:3; Num 11:4, Num 11:5). But now in this reference to himself which would henceforth be so conspicuous, Jehovah fixes together in a permanent association the land of Egypt and the house of bondage. When the people disparaged the wilderness and glorified Egypt, he made them hear again the sound of the clanking chain: and if that sound, heard only in memory, was not dreadful as in the old reality, yet God, who is not influenced by the lapses of time, knew how dreadful that reality was. It is a good thing that he remembers what men forget. Even though we be Christians, and should have better aims and better joys, we too often catch our thoughts turned longingly towards a forsaken world. And so God comes in to speak plainly and burst the bubble of this world’s attractions by the emphasised truth that spiritual Egypt is the house of bondage. He that committeth sin is the slave of sin. While the people were in Egypt they had not talked of these things as pleasant; the life there, in the actual experience of it, was intolerable. And so with perfect confidence God could appeal to their past consciousness.

II. There was also an indication that GOD HAD TAKEN AWAY ALL EXTERNAL HINDRANCES TO OBEDIENCE. He had taken them clean out of the house of bondage. They were now free to carry out all the observances which Jehovah was about to appoint. They had no Pharaoh to struggle with, grudging them time to serve their God (Exo 5:4); they had no danger to fear from sacrificing the abominations of Egypt within its borders. If God asks us for service, we may be sure that in the very first place, he will provide all the conditions of rendering it effectually and comfortably. As we read our New Testament, we are made to feel that God expects very large things from us. He is most exacting in his claims for self-denial and completeness of devotion to his cause, but what of that? Has he not given us his own Spirit, which is a spirit of liberty, working for the express purpose of lifting us above the crippling restraints of natural life? The very largeness of God’s demands helps us to measure the largeness of God’s spiritual gifts; and the very largeness of the gifts should prepare us for large demands. God’s expectations are from the free. He asked nothing from Israel, save silent and submissive waiting, until the verge of the last plague, which was also the verge of liberty; and from the free because he has freed them, he entertains large expectations. It was to those who believed in Jesus, risen from the dead, and making his people to live in newness of life, that he gave a spirit of such power in producing obedience and conformity as never had been known before.Y.

Exo 20:3-6

The first and seceded commandments: against polytheism and image-worship.

These two commandments seem to be bound together naturally by the reason given in Exo 20:5. There Jehovah says, “I am a jealous God;” obviously such a feeling of jealousy applies with as much force to the worship of other gods as to the making of graven images. Consider

I. THE POSSIBLE TRANSGRESSION HERE INDICATED. The having of other gods than Jehovah, and the representation of them by images of created things. The declaration here is not against more gods than one. Such a declaration would have been incomprehensible to the Israelite at this time, even to Moses himself. The utter emptiness of all idolatry, the non-existence, except as the imagination of a superstitious and darkened mind, of any other Deity than Jehovah was a truth not yet appreciable by those to whom Jehovah spoke. He had to take his people as they stood, believers in the existence and power of other gods, and proclaim to them with all the impressiveness that came from the demonstrations of Sinai, that none of these gods was to be in the smallest degree recognised. An idolater in the midst of his idolatries, and not yet laid hold of by Jehovah’s hand, might as well have a thousand gods as one. Jehovah speaks here to those who are already bound to himself. Have they not made their promise? Did not the people answer and say, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do”? It was the right and dutiful course of every Israelite to worship him, serve him, and depend upon him. The great and pressing peril was that, side by side with Jehovah, the people should try to put other gods. And to have other gods meant, practically, to have images of them. How necessary and appropriate these two commandments were to come at this particular time and in this particular order, is seen when we consider the image-making into which Israel fell during the seclusion of Moses in the mount. This seems to have been the accordant act of the whole people; Aaron, who was soon to be the chief official in Jehovah’s ritual, being the eager instrument to gratify their desires. Nor was this a mere passing danger to the Israelites, a something which in due time they would outgrow. The peril lies deep in the infirmities of human nature. Those whom Jehovah has brought in any measure to himself, need to be reminded that he is master. Jesus has put the thing as plain as it can be put, “No man can serve two masters.” We canner serve God and Mammon. Dependence on something else than God, even though there be nothing of religious form in the dependence, is a peril into which we are all liable to come. It is hard to fightharder than we imagine till we are fairly put to the struggleagainst the allurements of the seen and temporal. Even when we admit that there is an invisible God whose claims are supreme, and whose gifts, present and future, are beyond anything that the seen in its pride and beauty can affordeven then we have the utmost difficulty in carrying our admission into practice.

II. CONSIDER IN PARTICULAR HOW THE COMMANDMENT AGAINST IMAGE–WORSHIP MAY APPLY TO US. Those who go in the way of right worship are in the way to a profitable knowledge of God. They come to be recognised by him, accepted by him, and blessed by him. Having graven images inevitably led away from Jehovah. There was no possibility of keeping the first commandment, even in the least degree, if the second even in the least degree was broken. Certainly we are under no temptation to make images, but it comes to the same thing if we have images ready made. It is conceivable that the day may come when not an image shall be left in the world, except on museum shelves, and the trade of Demetrius thus come to an end. But what of that? The change may simply be one of form. Why men should first have made images and called them gods is an impenetrable mystery. We cannot but wonder who was the first man to make an image and why he made it. But that image-making, once established, should continue and return into practice again and again in spite of all attempts to destroy it, is easy enough to understand. Habit, tradition, training, will account for everything in this way. Yet the practice of image-worship, at all events in its grossest forms, can only exist together with dense intellectual darkness. When men begin to think and question as to the foundation of things, when they get away from their mother’s knee, then the simple faith in what they have been taught deserts them. There is a frequent and natural enough lamentation that those who have been taught concerning Christ in childhood, oftentimes in manhood depart from him by the way of scepticism, into utter disbelief and denial. Yet we must remember that it is exactly by this kind of process thousands in still image-worshipping lands have broken away from their image-worship. It has not satisfied the awakened and expanding intellect. There is this difference, however, that whereas the awakened intellect forsaking Christ may come back to him, and indeed actually does so oftener than we think, the awakened intellect forsaking image-worship cannot go back to it. But to something as a dependent creature he must go. A man leaving his old idolatries and not finding Christ, must needs turn to some new idolatry, none the less real as an idolatry, none the less injurious to his best interests because the image-form is absent. We must not make to ourselves anything whatever to take the place of God, intercept the sight of him, or deaden his voice. We may contradict the spirit of the second commandment, in doing things which we think profitable to the religious life and glorifying to God. A great deal that is reckoned beneficial and even indispensable in the Church of Christ, that has grown with its growth and strengthened with its strength, might come to look very questionable, if only the spirit of this commandment were exactly appreciated. How many splendid buildings, how many triumphs of the architect, how many combined results of many arts would then be utterly swept away! Men delude themselves with the notion that these things bring them nearer to God, whereas they simply take his place. In worshipping him we should regard with the utmost jealousy all mere indulgence of the senses and even of the intellect.

III. THE DIVINE REASON GIVEN FOR ATTENDING TO THESE COMMANDMENTS, Many reasons might have been given, as for instance, the vanity of graven images, their uselessness in the hour of need, the degradation in which they involved the worshippers. But God brings forward a reason which needed to be brought forward, and put in the very front place, where human thought might continually be directed to it. Polytheism and image-worship are indeed degrading and mischievous to manbut what is of far greater moment, they are also dishonouring to the glory of Deity. Those who were sliding away into the service of other gods were showing that they had no truly reverent appreciation of Jehovah; and in order to intimate the severity of his requirements with respect to exclusive and devoted service, Jehovah speaks of himself as possessing a feeling which, when found among men is like a devouring and unquenchable fire. A jealous man does well to be jealous, if he has sufficient ground for the feeling at all, if the affection, service, and sympathies that should be reserved for him are turned elsewhere. Think then of such a feeling, exalted into the pure intensity of a holy anger and bursting into action from God himself, and then you have the measure of his wrath with those who think that the glory of the incorruptible God can be changed into an image made like to corruptible man. He makes his jealousy apparent in unquestionable, deeply penetrating action. It is the action of the great I AM, who controls thousands of generations. God does, as a matter of fact, visit the iniquities of the fathers on the children, and the magnitude of what he does is accounted for by the intensity of his feelings with respect to those who give his glory to another. His almighty hand comes down with a blow the afflictive energies of which cannot be exhausted in one or even two generations. Say not that there is something unjust about this. That each generation must take something in the way of suffering from preceding generations is a fact only too plain, altogether apart from the Scriptures. The mercy of God is that he here gives us something in explanation of the fact, and of how to distinguish its working and at last destroy it. To serve idols, to depend upon anything else than God, anything less than him, anything more easily reached and more easily satisfiedthis, when stripped of all disguise, amounts to hating God. And a man living in this way is preparing, not only punishments for himself, but miseries for those who come after him. Many times we have advice given us to think of posterity. Depend upon it, he thinks most of posterity who serves the will of God most humbly and lovingly, with the utmost concentration and assiduity, in his own generation. Note here also the unmistakable revelation of God’s merciful disposition. He visits iniquity to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him. But those who love him are blessed to thousands of generations. Not that the blessing will be actually operative, for, alas, there may come in many things to hinder. But the expressed disposition of God remains. If the posterity of the faithful to God are unblessed, it is because they themselves are utterly careless as to the peculiar privileges into which they have been introduced.Y.

Exo 20:7

The Third Commandment. Profanity forbidden.

This Commandment clearly comes as an appropriate sequel to the two preceding ones. Those who are Jehovah’s, and who are therefore bound to glorify and serve him alone, depend on him alone, and keep themselves from all the degradations and obscuring influences of image worship, are now directed to the further duty of avoiding all irreverent and empty use of the sacred name. With respect to this, there must have been a very real danger in Israel. We have only to observe the licence of modern colloquial speech in this respect, we have only to call to mind some of the most common expletives in English, French, and German, and we shall then better understand that there may have been a great deal of the same sad and careless licence among the ancient Hebrews. Not that we are to suppose Jehovah directed this command exclusively or even chiefly against profane swearers in the ordinary sense of the term. They are included, but after all they are only a small part of those to whom the commandment is directed. It is quite possible for a man to keep above all coarseness and vulgarity of speech, and yet in God’s sight be far worse than an habitual swearer. Many are concerned to avoid profane swearing, not because it is offensive to God, but because it is ungentlemanly. It needs no devoutness or religious awe to understand the couplet:

“Immodest words admit of no defence,
For want of decency is want of sense.”

And there is as much want of decency in profane words as in immodest ones. The thing to be considered is not only the words we avoid, but the words we use. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak. This commandment, like the rest, must be kept positively, or it cannot be kept negatively. If we are found making a serious and habitual use of God’s name in a right way, then, and only then, shall we be kept effectually from using it in a wrong one.

I. Evidently the first thing to keep us from empty words with respect to God is TO KEEP FROM ALL EMPTINESS AND SHALLOWNESS OF THOUGHT WITH RESPECT TO HIM. Thinking is but speaking to oneself; and God’s commandment really means that we must labour at all times to have right and sufficient thoughts concerning him. We might almost say, take care of the thought and the speech will take care of itself. All our thinking about God, as about every topic of thought, should be in the direction of what is practical and profitable. Blessed is he who has made the great discovery, that of the unseen cause and guide, behind all things that are seen, he can only get profitable knowledge as that Great Unseen is pleased to give it. We who live amid the great declarations of the Gospel are really thinking of God in a vain and displeasing way as long as we suppose it possible to get any true knowledge of him except in Christ. Right knowledge of God, and therefore profitable thoughts of him must be gained by experimental personal search into the riches of God in Christ Jesus. Thinking of this sort will not be vain, shallow, fugitive thinking, seeing that it springs out of apprehended, personal necessities, has an immutable basis of fact, a rewarding element of hope, and is continually freshened by a feeling of gratitude towards one who has conferred on us unspeakable benefits. Surely it is a dreadful sin to think little, to think seldom, and to think wrongly of that profoundly compassionate God, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, to save it from perishing by the gift of eternal life. No thoughts of ours indeed can measure the fulness of that sublime love, and we shall even fall short of what the holiest and devoutest of men can reach; but there is all the more need why we should labour in constant meditation on the saving ways of God, according to our abilities. Put the word “God” on a sheet of paper, and then try to write underneath all that the name suggests, particularly all that it suggests in the way of individual benefit. Perhaps the writing may come to an end very soon, and even what is written be so vague and valueless as to make you feel that this commandment of God here is not a vain one so far as concerns you.

II. THEN WE MUST NOT TAKE THE SAME OF GOD IN VAIN, IN OUR INTERCOURSE WITH OUR FELLOW–MEN. God, our God, with all his claims and all his benefits, cannot be spoken about too much in the circles of men, if only he is spoken about in a right way: but that right wayhow hard it is to attain. Much speaking concerning him, even by those who do it officially, is very dishonouring to his name and hindering to his rule in the hearts of men. Preachers of the word of life and duty, the word concerning divine gifts and requirements, need to take great heed in this respect, for whenever they speak without proper impressions as to the solemnity of their message, they are assuredly taking God’s name m vain. There has also to be a consideration of the audience. The words of God’s truth and salvation must be as far as possible words in season, not wasted, as pearls before swine. It needs that we should strive and watch incessantly to have all attainable fitness as the witnesses of God. Jesus would not have the testimony of demons to his Messiahship, but chose, prepared, and sanctified such men as he saw to be suitable; and then when he had found fit witnesses, even though few, he sent them forth to bear their testimony, sure that it would be sufficient for all who had the right mind to receive it. It is awful, when one only considers it, in how many instances God’s name is taken in vain, by the use of it to sanctify unholy ends, justify unrighteousness, and give to error what dignity and force can be gained from an appeal to divine authority. When the Scriptures were quoted to justify slavery, what was this but taking the name of God in vain? How much of it there must have been in theological controversy, where disputants have got so embittered by partisan spirit that they would twist Scripture in any way so as to get God on their side, instead of labouring as honest men to be on the side of God. Look at the glutton sitting down to pamper his stomach from the loaded table; but first of all he must go through the customary grace and make a show of eating and drinking to the glory of God in heaven, when in truth the god he really worships is his greedy, insatiable belly. We may do many things in the name of the Lord, but that does not make them the Lord’s things. “Lord, Lord” may ever be on our lips, we may even get a very general reputation for our devotedness to God and goodness; but all this may not prevent us from hearing at the last, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

III. Most particularly we must guard against profanity IN OUR APPROACHES TO GOD. If we are his at all, there must be constant approaches to him, and his name therefore must be constantly on our lips.

1. We must guard against formality. We must not take a name on our lips that expresses no felt reality. To confess sins and needs and supplicate pardon and supply when the heart is far away from the throne of grace, is certainly taking God’s name in vain.

2. We must guard against coming in other than the appointed way. A very elaborate and comprehensive prayer may be constructed to the God of nature and providence, but even though it may seem to be of use for a while, it will show its emptiness in the end if God’s own appointment of mediation through Christ Jesus be neglected. Do not let us deceive ourselves with words and aspirations that are only dissipated into the air. For a suppliant to know of Christ and yet ignore his mediation, is assuredly to take God’s name in vain, however honest the ignoring may be.

3. Then surely there is an empty use of God’s name in prayer, if we ask in other than the appointed order. The order of thought in all right approach to God is such as our Great Teacher has himself presented to us. Is it the sinner who is coming, wretched and burdened? Jesus approves the prayer, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Sinners never take the name of God in vain, if they come to him with two feelings blended in one irrepressible cry, the feeling of God’s anger with all sin and the feeling of his unfailing compassion for the sinner. Or if it be the disciple and servant who is coming to God, then the order of thought for his approach Jesus has also given. We must ever think of him as our Father in heaven, and first of all of such things as will sanctify his name, advance his kingdom and procure the perfect doing of his will on earth. We must make all our approaches to God with our hearts entirely submitted to him, otherwise we shall only find that we are taking his name in vain.Y.

Exo 20:8-11

The Fourth Commandment: the sacred Sabbath.

I. THE GROUND OF THIS COMMANDMENT. God, who had spoken to Israel as to those whom he had brought out of the house of bondage, and who had bidden Moses speak of him to the captives as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, now takes the thoughts of his people as far back as it is possible for them to go. They are directed to think of the great work of him who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. “All the earth is mine,” he had bidden Moses say in Exo 19:5; and of course the Israelites, whatever their other difficulties in the way of understanding God’s commandments, had no question such as modern science has thrown down for us to ponder with respect to these alleged days of creation. Though indeed, as is now generally agreed, no difficulty is found in this question when we approach it rightly. God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts; his ways are not as our ways; and so we may add his days are not as our days, seeing that with him one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The great matter to be borne in mind by ancient Israelitesand for every Christian the consideration remains whether he also should not very strictly bear it in mindwas that by this seventh day of rest after creation, God gave the great rule for the consecration of his people’s time. It is to a certain extent correct to say that this precept is a positive one; but it is not therefore arbitrary. God may have seen well to give the precept in such emphatic way, just because the need of setting apart one day out of seven is in some way fixed in the nature of things. It is a question worth while asking, why creation is set before us as having occupied six successive periods. Why not some other number? May not the periods of creation have been so arranged with a view to the use of them as a ground for this commandment? God sanctified the seventh day because it was the best daybest for human welfare and Divine glory; and it seems to have been at Sinai that he first distinctly made this sanctification. Israel knew already that God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made (Gen 2:2); now it is knownat least it is known in partwhy this resting was not till the seventh day, and also not later. May it not be that the expression “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made,” (Gen 2:3) was inserted by Moses after the transactions at Sinai, as a suitable addition to the statement that God rested from his work? If this verse was not inserted in the Genesis record until after the instructions from Sinai, then we have some sort of explanation why no clear, indubitable sign of the Sabbath is found in patriarchal times.

II. THE MODE OF KEEPING THIS COMMANDMENT. Let us distinctly bear in mind the object to be attained. The seventh day was to be sanctified, and in order that it might be properly sanctified, a scrupulous rest from ordinary work was necessary. The rest was but the means to the sanctification; and the sanctification is the thing to be kept prominently in view. The mere resting from work on the seventh day did an Israelite no good, unless he remembered what the rest implied. The commandment began, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” not “Remember to do no work therein.” Certainly it was only too easy to forget the requirement of rest; but it was easier still to forget the requirement of holiness. A man might rest without hallowing, and so it had to be enjoined on him to shape his rest that hallowing might be secured by it. Certain of the animals required for holy purposes by God, were to be such as had not borne the yoke. The animal could not be given to God and at the same time used for self. And in like manner the Sabbath could not both be given to God and used for self. Therefore the Israelite is charged to do no work and let no work be done, even by the humblest of his slaves. He himself must get no temporal benefit from this day. God has so arranged, in his loving providence and holy requirements, that six days’ work shall supply seven days’ need. This lesson the manna distinctly teaches if it teaches anything at all. And now that the Jewish Sabbath has gone, the Christian has to ask himself how far the mode of Sabbath-keeping in Israel furnishes any guide for him in his use of the Lord’s day. He is a miserable Christian who begins to plead that there is no distinct and express commandment in the New Testament for the keeping of a sacred day of rest. To say that the Sabbath is gone with the outward ordinances of Judaism is only making an excuse for self-indulgence. True, the sacrifices of the law are done away with, but only that imperfections may give place to perfections. In the very doing away, a solemn claim is made that the Christian should present his body as a living sacrifice; and one cannot be a living sacrifice without feeling that all one’s time is for doing God’s will. When in the inscrutable arrangements of Providence, we find that one day in seven has actually come to be so largely a day of cessation from toil, surely the part of Christian wisdom is to make the very best of the opportunity. There is, and there always will be, room for much improvement as to the mode of keeping the day of rest; but in proportion as we become filled with the spirit of Christ and the desire for perfection, in that proportion we shall be delivered from the inclination to make Sunday a day for self, and led forward in resolution, diligence and love, to make it a day for God. The more we can make our time holy time, the more we shall make ourselves holy persons. If in God’s mercy we find Sunday a day of larger opportunities, let it be according to our individual opportunity, a day of larger achievements. Each one of us should say, “I am bound to discover how God would have me use this day.” My neighbour Christian may feel constrained to use it in a way that, if I were to imitate him, might not promote my own spiritual advantage, or the glory of God. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, only let him take care that he has a persuasion and acts conscientiously and lovingly up to it.

III. THE PECULIAR EMPHASIS LAID ON THIS COMMANDMENT. “Remember.” Not of course that this commandment is more important than the rest. He who breaks one breaks all, for each is a member of the whole as of a living unity. But there must have been a special reason in the mind of God for calling attention to this commandment. We are told to remember what we are likely to forget. Also, certain things we are exhorted to remember, because if we only remember them we shall come in due course to other things which cannot be so constantly in the mind, and which indeed the mind may not yet be able properly to grasp. He who remembers the right way will assuredly come to the right end, even though he may not be constantly thinking of it. We may be sure that keeping the Sabbath day really holy, had a very salutary effect towards keeping all the rest of the commandments. It gave time for reflection on all those affairs of daily life in which there are so many opportunities and temptations to set at nought the righteous claims both of God and of our fellow-men. And so the Christian may ever say to himself, “Soul, remember the day of rest which God has so graciously secured to thee.” God, though he has condescendingly done so much to come near to needy men with his supplies of grace, gets soon hidden by the cloud and dust of this world’s business. It is only too easy to forget the spirit of these commandments, and be unfair, unkind, malicious and revengeful toward our fellow-men in the jostlings and rivalries of life. Remember then. Let us but attend to this and the rest of God‘s remembers, and we may be sure they will do a great deal to neutralise that forgetting which is inevitably incident to the infirmities of fallen human nature.Y.

Exo 20:12

The Fifth Commandment: the commandment for children.

I. LOOK AT THIS COMMANDMENT AS IT CONCERNED THE PARENTS.

1. This commandment gave the parents an opportunity for telling the children how it originated. Not only an opportunity, but we may say a necessity. It was a commandment to children, through their parents. All the commandments, statutes, and judgments, were to be taught diligently to the children (Deu 6:7), and this one here would require very earnest and special explanation in the family. It will be seen that it was a commandment which could not be isolated; a self-willed parent could not quote it with any advantage for the sake of upholding arbitrary authority. The Israelite parent had to explain how these commandments were given; he had to narrate the events in Sinai, and these in turn compelled a reference to the exodus and the bitter experiences of Egypt. Parents had well to consider how much depended on themselves in making their children duly acquainted with all the glorious doings and strict requirements of Jehovah. If a parent had to deal with a disobedient and despising child, he was able to point out that this requirement of honouring father and mother was God’s most strict requirement, and God was he who had rule and authority over parent and child alike.

2. Thus father and mother were evidently required to honour themselves. No special verbal utterance was here required, telling father and mother to remember the obligations to offspring, and anyway this was not the proper place for it. The commandments here are universal commandments, such as all men incur the temptation of breaking. Thus it was eminently fitting to have a word for children, enjoining upon them the proper feeling towards parents; as all know the filial relation, but all do not know the parental one. One of the merits of the Decalogue is its brevity and sententiousness. No father could expect his children to honour the parental relation unless he did so himself; and in measure as he more and more comprehended the import of the relation, in that measure might his children be expected to respond to his treatment of them. “Honour all men,” says the apostle Peter; and to do this we must begin at home in our own life, and put the proper value on ourselves. God has put immense honour on father and mother; and it is the curse, loss, and fearful reservation of penalty for many parents that they do not see what momentous interests have been put in their stewardship.

3. God thus showed his earnest desire to help parents in their arduous, anxious work. The work of a parent in Israel who had weighed all his responsibilities was no light matter. Great opportunities were given him, and great things might be done by him; things not to be done by any other teacher or guide, and he had thus a very comforting assurance that God was his helper. Helper to the father, and, bear in mind, to the mother also. It is worthy of note that father and mother are specially mentioned. She is not left in the obscurity of a more general term. God would give to both of them according to their peculiar opportunities all understanding, wisdom, forbearance, steadfastness, discrimination of character, that might be necessary for their work.

II. AS IT CONCERNED THE CHILDREN. A commandment was not needed to teach children as to the making of some sort of distinction between their father and mother and other men and women. But, in order that the distinction might be a right one, and evermore real and deepening in its presence and influence, such a commandment as this was imperatively needed. As we have said, it was a commandment universal in its scope, because all are or have been in the filial relation, but as a matter of fact it would address itself directly to the young. They were laid hold of as soon as anything like intelligence, power to obey, and power to understand the difference between right and wrong manifested themselves. God came and made his claim upon them, in a way as suitable as any to their childish consciousness. They were to honour father and mother, not because father and mother said so, but because God said so. Plainly the honouring included both deep inward feeling and clear outward expression. The outward expression, important as it was, could only come from real and habitual feeling within. Outward expression by itself counted for nothing. Honouring with the lips while the heart was far removed from the parent would be reckoned a grievous sin against God. The child had to grow up esteeming and venerating the parental relation everywhere. It could not honour its own father and mother and at the same time despise the parents of other children. The promise here given obviously a suitable one for children. To them the prospect of a long life, in the land already promised, was itself a promise agreeable to the limitations of the old covenant, when there could be no pointing in clear terms to the land beyond death; and we may be very sure that, according to this promise, filial obedience had a corresponding temporal reward.Y.

Exo 20:13-17

The individual Israelite considered in his duties towards his neighbour.

Of these five commandmentsnamely, against murder, adultery, theft, slander and covetousness, it almost goes without saying that their very negativeness in form constitutes the strongest way of stating a positive duty. From a proper consideration of these commandments all possible manifestations of brotherliness will flow. They show the spirit we should cherish towards our neighbours; those who equally with ourselves are the objects of Divine providence and mercy. They show what we are bound to give and what we have equally a right to expect. Pondering the serious and injurious actions here indicated we note

I. THE GREAT HARM WHICH MEN CAN DO TO ONE ANOTHER, A man maliciously disposed, sensual, reckless, unscrupulously selfish, has thus the extent of his power set before him. That life which man has no power to give, he can take away at a single blow. A man in the gratification of his sensual passions is able to destroy domestic peace, gladness and purity. Property, which may be the fruit and reward of long industry, is swept away by those who will not work for themselves as long as they can get others to work for them. Reputation may be taken away by adroit and plausible slander. A man’s whole position may be made uncertain by those who on the right hand and the left look enviously on that position and wish to make it their own. It is when these possibilities are borne in mind that we feel how true it is that even the best guarded of earthly store-houses is nevertheless the one where the thief can break through and steal. Industry, temperance, caution, vigilance, will guard many points of human life, but what avails, if even a single one is left that cannot be called invulnerable? If, then, our fellow men are so much in our power, how it becomes us to quell the very first outbreaks of all that is malicious, envious, selfish and sensual! ]f we allow the evil in us to grow, we know not what evil it may inflict on the innocent and happy.

II. But if these commandments show a dark and menacing side in our relations to others, they equally show a bright one. THERE IS GREAT GOOD WHICH WE CAN DO TO ONE ANOTHER. The man who has power to kill, has, on the other hand, power to do much in the way of preserving, cherishing and invigorating the lives of others. Instead of pulling down others by a degrading companionship to the level of his own impure heart, he can do something by seeking purity himself to draw others toward a like quest. Instead of stealing, he will work not only to sustain himself, but that from his superfluity, if possible, he may give to those who have not. He who has spoken ill of men will find it just as easy to speak well, if only he is so disposed. That tongue with which the renewed heart blesses God will also be constrained to say what is kind, commendatory and helpful to others. Covetousness will give place to a gracious and generous disposition that constantly takes for its motto, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” It is only when we are doing our neighbours all the good we can, that we may be really sure we are carrying out the commandments of God. There are only the two ways, the forbidden and the commanded one; and if we are not treading heartily and resolutely in the commanded one, it follows as a matter of course that we are in the forbidden one.

III. It is something to remember that THE GOOD WE CAN DO BY KEEPING THESE COMMANDMENTS IS GREATER THAN THE ILL WE CAN DO BY BREAKING THEM. God has put us largely in the power of one another, that thereby we might have the happiness coming from loving service and mutual association in giving and receiving; but, at the same time, he has made us so that while we are very powerful as co-workers with him, yet even our greatest efforts are comparatively powerless against those who put themselves under his protection. Those injuring others do indeed inflict a great injury from a certain point of view; but they terribly deceive themselves in thinking that the injury is such as can never be compensated for. Christ has given to his people the word of comfort against all assault and spoliation from evil men:”Fear not them that kill the body.” The priceless treasures, constituting the essence of every human life, are not without a storehouse because the earthly storehouse proves insufficient. The truth seems to be that man has it in his power to do more good than he can conceive, more good certainly than he ever attempts. He has not the faith to believe that incessant and plenteous sowing will bring good results, to be manifested in that day when all secrets are brought fully to light. And so on the other hand, the malicious man exaggerates his power. He thinks he has done more than he possibly can do. Good is left undone for want of faith, and evil is done through too much faith. Many an evil act would never have been committed if the doer had only known how his evil, in the wondrous reach of God’s providence, would be turned to good. And so the evil-doer, the man of many crimes, if perchance the hour comes to him when he reflects in self-condemnation in the past, and says in his heart that all repentance is vain, should yet find hope and illumination as he considers how the evil done to others is an evil which God can neutralise, which he can even transmute into good. He who hurts his neigh-bout and rejoices over the mischief, may find, when it is too late, that the only real evil has been to himself, because he has persisted in an impenitent heart.Y.

HOMILIES BY H. T. ROBJOHNS

Exo 20:16-21

The ten words.

“And God stake all these words.” “And the people stood afar off: and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.” (Exo 20:1, Exo 20:21). Our subject is the law of the ten commandments, and

I. The NAMES of the code, for names are oft the keys to things. There are five chief names; four in the Old Testament and one in the New.

1. “The ten words.” [“The ten commandments” is an unscriptural phrase.] (Exo 34:28; Deu 4:13; Deu 10:4 See Hebrews) This name implies that the code was in a very special sense the distinct utterance of God. The utterance touched that which was central in human life, viz; duty.

2. “The law,” i.e; the heart and core of the Mosaic legislation. All the rest was as the fringe to the robe of righteousness.

3. “The testimony.” God’s attestation of his mind as to our moral carriage through life.

4. “The covenant.” But care should be exercised as to the putting of this. Israel was not to keep the ten words in order to salvation, but because Israel had been saved. Spiritual obedience springs from gratitudecannot be given as the price of salvation.

5. “The commandments“( Mat 18:17). The names of the code stamp it as unique. The Mosaic legislation stands out like a mountain range from all other codes historic in the world; but the “ten words” are the ten peaks of that mighty range.

II. THE MOMENT when God gave the “ten” was critical and significant.

1. Subsequent to salvation (Exo 20:1). Trace the evangelical parallel, show that this is the order of the divine love, first deliverance, and then direction for life.

2. Before ritual. Hence the subordination, even for the Jew, of ritual to morals. For us the symbolic ritual is no more. Our prerogative is that of unveiled gaze upon the spiritual.

III. THE DELIVERY of the “ten words.” [The object here should be so to describe the incidents of the delivery, on the basis of the sacred narrative, aided by topographical illustration, as to exhibit the unique character of this code. The following hints may be of service]:The great plain north of Sinai; Sinai to the south; the barren character of this huge natural temple [Stanley’s “J. C.” 1:128]; on the third day every eye turned to the mountain; mists rising like smoke; lightning; thunder like ten thousand trumpets; reverberation; earth-trembling. The people would have drawn away, but Moses led them near the base. He ascended; but returned, that he, as one of the people, and with them, might hear the code. God alone. Then the very voice of very God, possibly pronouncing the “ten” in their shortest form. [Ewald: “Israel,” 2:163, Eng. tr.] The cry of the people for a mediator. If we had to-day a phonogram even of that awful voice, some would still say, “It is the voice of a man, and not of a god.”

IV. THE PRESERVATION. The “ten” were

1. Graven by God. The record supernatural, like the delivery. On granite; not too large for a man to carry; graven on both sides; symbol of the completeness, inviolability, and perpetuity of the Divine law. Note the seven or eight weeks’ delay ere the tables were given, and the intervening incidents.

2. Kept in the ark. In that which was a memorial of the desert life; the wood, acacia of the wilderness. In that which was central to the life of Israel. In Israel a sanctuary, a holiest of all, the ark, and in the deep recesses of that the idea of duty enshrined. The tables last seen at Solomon’s dedication. Are they now lying with the wreck of Babylon in the valley of the Euphrates?

V. THE ORDER AND THE ARRANGEMENT.

1. There were five words on each table. So we think. Great diversity of opinion as to the division and the throwing of the “ten words” on the two tables. According to the division we adopt, the first table concerned itself with Godhis existence, worship, name, day, and representative. But if the parent is the representative of God, then there are suggestions for the character and the administration of the parent; as well as for the intelligent obedience of the child.

2. The five words concerning duty to God come first. Religion ever comes before morality, and morality without that foundation must be partial and imperfect. Man must first be in right relation with the Father in heaven, then he will come to be right with all the children.

VI. THE COMPREHENSIVENESS. Passages like Jos 1:7, Jos 1:8; Psa 119:18, Psa 119:72, imply a great depth and breadth in these “ten.” Are they really so comprehensive as is implied?

1. Glance at the “ten.” We have seen how comprehensive are the first five. [See above, Psa 5:1.] Note the comprehensiveness of the second. We are not to assault the life, the family, the property, the reputation, the peace (by coveting and threatening what they have), of our fellow-men.

2. Pierce into the spirit of the “ten,” and note!

(1) The negative must include the positive; e.g; we are bound to conserve life, lest by neglect we kill.

(2) The absolute form covers all cases; e.g; the sixth commandment stands absolute, unless dispensed with by the supervention of a higher law. There may be things more sacred even than life.

(3) The external includes the internal. (Mat 5:27, Mat 5:25.) Given the lust, its gratification does not depend upon the man, but upon circumstances out of his control; therefore he is guilty. Besides, what we are is of more moment than what we do.

(4) The principle of obedience in all is love.

VIII. THE PRESENT USE AND OFFICE OF “THE TEN.” [For detailed exposition of each of “the ten,” in relation to our own time and circumstances, see “The Ten Commandments,” by R. W. Dale, M.A.] On the use and office the following positions may be firmly laid down:

1. The law of“ the ten words“ was, and is, something absolutely unique. Of the unique character all that has been previously said is illustration. It may, then, be reasonably inferred that “the ten” will have some special bearing on our moral life.

2. It implies that God claims authority over the moral life of man. [On this see valuable observations on the decay of the sense of authority, its evil effects, etc; Dale’s “Ten Commandments,” pp. 6-13.]

3. It was not intended to afford man an opportunity for winning salvation. That is God’s free gift.

4. Salvation given, God means the law to be obeyed. [On this see also Dale, pp. 13-16.]

5. The effort to obey will deepen man‘s sense of the need of God‘s delivering mercy. The effort brings a deeper acquaintance with the law, and so we come to know more of

(1) the righteousness of God

(2) the depravity of man.

6. A growing conformity is, however, blessedly possible.

7. There comes with growing conformity freedom from law, Love dispenses with the literal precept. This is the ideal of the New Testament. Still.” the ten words” have ever their use for those on the low planes of spiritual life.

8. And even with those free from the law, it will still have the following offices:

(1) To keep the Christian under grace as the source of all his serenity and bliss.

(2) To restrain from sin in the presence of temptation.

(3) To keep before the aspiring saint the fair ideal of righteousness.R.

HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART

Exo 20:3-11

The soul for God only.

I. GOD‘S DEMAND. “Thou shalt have no other,” etc. All else is emptiness and falsehood. There must be nothing even of our holy things put between the soul and God. His presence must be the soul’s life, the very air it breathes.

II. How THE DEMAND MAY BE FULFILLED.

1. By keeping ourselves from idols. Our daily avocations, our interests, affections, pleasures, may lead to our esteeming something our chief good and making it to be instead of God to us. God must be seen behind his gifts, and be more to us than all besides.

2. By watchful fear and hope. We bring evil not upon ourselves only, and the blessings which rest upon obedience are an everlasting heritage. We sow seeds of evil or of blessing which yield many harvests (Exo 20:5, Exo 20:6).

3. By reverence (Exo 20:7). God’s name must not be emptied of its power to touch the heart by our lightness or hypocrisy.

4. By keeping sacred the sabbath rest (Exo 20:8-11).

(1) It will be a day of self-revelation, of rebuke for the evil in us, of strengthening to the good.

(2) It will be a day for the remembrance of God; and

(3) of participation in his rest.U.

Exo 20:12

The commandment with promise.

I. THE DUTY IMPOSED.

1. Its reasonableness. Reverent, loving subjection to parents is obedience to the deepest instincts of the heart.

2. Its pleasantness. This subjection is rest and joy: it is ceasing from doubt and inner conflict; it lets into the spirit the sunshine of a parent’s loving approbation.

II. THE PROMISE: “That thy days,” etc. Obedience to parents is the condition of national prosperity.

1. It is respect for law and loyal acceptance of the teachings of the past.

2. It is denial of the spirit of self will and self pleasing.

3. It guards youth from excess and vice.

4. It prepares for the understanding of and submission to the will of God.

5. It lays broad and deep in the nation’s life the foundations of industry and strength and of moral, as well as material, greatness.U.

Exo 20:13-17

Our threefold duty to our neighbour.

I. HE IS NOT TO BE INJURED IN ACT.

1. His life is to be held sacred. It is God’s great gift to him and it is God’s only to take it away, by express command, or by his own judgment. This is a law for nations as well as individuals. In every unjust war this command is trampled under foot.

2. His home is sacred. The wreck of homes which lust has made! The holy, loving refuge of childhood and youth desolated, and its very memory made a horror and anguish!

3. His property is sacred. It is the man’s special stewardship from God. God can bless us also, for all things are his, but this stands between our neighbour and the Master, to whom he must render his account.

II. HE IS NOT TO BE INJURED BY WORD. We may lay no hand upon his life, his home, his goods, and yet our tongue may wound and rob him. We may cause respect and love to fall away from him wrongfully. Our dimininishing aught of these, save as the servants of truth, is a crime before God.

III. HE IS NOT TO BE WRONGED IN THOUGHT. God asks not only for a blameless life but also for a pure heart, in which lust and hate and envy and greed have no place. Sin is to be slain in its root.U.

HOMILIES BY G. A. GOODHART

Exo 20:1-2

Utility of a course of teaching on the commandments,

that Divine law which can never be destroyed. Let those who object to the preaching of morality remember John Wesley’s words: “I find more profit in sermons on either good tempers or good works than in what are vulgarly called ‘gospel sermons.'” Consider

I. THE DIVISION AND GROUPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS.

1. Division. We know that there are tenthe ten wordsbut how are the ten words made up? The modern Jewish method makes the introductory announcement, a “first word,” and combines our first and second as the “second word.” By others the first and second are combined as the first, and then the tenth divided to complete the number. Our own ordinary division is most likely to be correct; but various usage shows that the importance attaches not to the number but the sense.

2. Grouping. Two tables, but how many on each? Augustine held that the first table contained three, the second seven, whence he drew some mystical conclusions with regard to the Trinity. The popular view includes four in the first table, and six in the second. Most likely, however, there should be five in each table [perhaps connected with the hand as the symbol of action]. On this view we shall see that in each table the four first commandments are rooted in the fifth.

II. THE SPEAKER AND THE MOTIVE.

1. The speaker (cf. Deu 5:22).God, Jehovah, a personal Deity, and one whose nature is changeless (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17). Moses did not evolve the law out of his own head; he heard it, he received it, he enunciated it, but “God spake all these words.”

2. The motive.The motive appealed to for obedience is too often fear; the motive too which Israel was most inclined to act upon. God, however, makes his appeal not to fear, but to the sense of gratitude:”Remember what I have done for you, then hear what I expect you to do for me.” The deliverer has a right to lay down rules of conduct for those whom he has delivered; whilst at the same time gratitude to him inspires them with a motive for obedience. Apply to ourselves: God has redeemed us; we should obey him not from fear, but from lovenot that we may get something out of him, but because we have got so much already.

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

1. There is an order in the arrangement. “Order is heaven’s first law,” and it shows itself in the code from heaven. First God, our filial relations; then man, our fraternal relations; the upward-looking and the outward-looking aspects of life. Under each, too, the order is maintained; first we are shown the blossom, then the stem, then the root. The flower of worship is rooted in the home, and the flower of love is rooted in the heart.

2. The commandments are indications of the Divine will from which they spring. Our duty is to study what God has said in order that we may discover what he wishes. The old covenant was on stone-tables, easily intelligible and very definite; the new covenant is on hearts of flesh, it contains promptings to duty, rather than directions. We need both; we must use the old that we may give effect to the new, and the new that we may fulfil the old. [Illustration.For engine to fulfil its works steam needed inside to propel, lines outside to direct.] The new covenant cannot render the old nugatory; it is well to have motive power, but we still need the lines laid down by which to guide ourselves when we have it.G.

Exo 20:3-6

These two commandments are complementary: one God only to be worshipped, one way only in which to worship him. Consider:

I. THE FIRST COMMANDMENT.

1. How Israel would understand it. “No foreign god in opposition to me.” The natural idea would be that Jehovah was one amongst many deities; that possibly, away from Egypt, some other god might have higher authority (cf. 2Ki 18:33-35). In any case it would be hard to realise that he was more than God of gods; others might be inferior to him, but surely they might claim an inferior worship. All such notions are set aside at once. Whether there are other gods or no, all such must be Jehovah’s enemies; to offer them worship of any kind was to be disloyal to Jehovah, and to break the covenant.

2. How it applies to ourselves. Polytheism, a thing of the past! In theory perhaps, but how about our practice? Obedience is the best evidence of worship; our God is he by reference to whom we govern our conduct, and regulate our actions. Illustrate from the case of the man whose life is given to the pursuit of wealthwealth is practically his deity; or the case of one whose conduct is regulated by constant reference to public opinion; wealth, public opinion, and the like may be nothing more than personified abstractions, none the less we may serve them far more consistently than we serve God. Such service is worship, worship of an alien deity; it involves disloyalty to Jehovah, and enrols us amongst the forces of his foes. Quite as easy for us to break this commandment as it was for Israel; it needs to be reiterated in our ears no less persistently than it was in their ears.

II. THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. As the first has to do with the object of worship, so this has to do with the manner of worship. An image degrades the ideal, it can only present God, and that imperfectly, under one out of many aspects. One image of God alone is adequate (Col 1:15). To the Jew, this second commandment was a fence to guard the empty shrine, which shrine could only receive its occupant when “the Word was made flesh” at the incarnation of our Lord. Notice:

1. The effect of braking the commandment. Degrading the God worshipped, it led on naturally to the degradation of the worshipper, and through the worshipper his posterity was affected, so as to become yet more degraded. Who could have a better excuse than Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, for breaking the commandment? Who could have broken it more carefully? Considerations of utility seemed to justify him. He might have argued that the first commandment was all-important, and that to ensure respect for it he must tamper with the second. None the less the effect was manifest (2Ki 17:22, 2Ki 17:23). The sin of Jeroboam was the ruin of his people.

2. The bearing of the commandment on ourselves. Christ has come. The empty shrine is filled. We possess the true image, and can worship God in Christ. “But Christ, you say, is unseen; thoughts wander in prayer, I need some object by which to fix them, some symbol upon which they may stay themselves and rest.” The excuse is plausible; but it is the same excuse as a Jew in old times might have offered. A man may use, as good men have used, the crucifix, e.g; as an aid to devotion. But the crucifix, or any other symbol, is utterly inadequate; it shows Christ only under one aspect: we must worship him in all his fulness if we take him as the image of the invisible Jehovah. To confine our thoughts to Calvary is to limit, and by limiting to degrade the ideal. The crucifix has much to answer for in narrowing men’s views, and making their religion one-sided and incomplete. For a Christian to obey the second commandment, he must worship Christ in all his fulness. Only so can he worship God with that pure worship which is alone acceptable.

“Show me not only Jesus dying,

As on the cross he bled,

Nor in the tomb a captive lying,

For he has left the dead.

Not only in that form suspended,

My Saviour bid me see;

For to the highest heavens ascended,

He reigns in majesty!”

G.

Exo 20:7, Exo 20:8

The first commandment deals with the object of worship; the second, with the manner of worship; in the third and fourth we have the method of worship, true reverence and genuine devotion.

I. THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

1. Obedience to the letter insufficient. None ever obeyed it thus more strictly than the Jews did. The Sacred Name, called the shuddering name; only pronounced once annually by the High Priest on the Great Day of Atonement. So strictly was the command kept that the true pronunciation of the name is lost to us. Even in our own Bibles we have evidence of the ancient practice, “The LORD” being used as a substitute for Jehovah. Yet, with all this, of. Eze 36:20. The name, which was never uttered by the lips, was yet profaned by the conduct of the worshippers. We, too, may never perjure ourselves, or speak profanely, yet the tenor of our whole life may bring God’s name into contempt. The commonest excuse made by those who never enter a place of worship is based upon the inconsistent conduct of those who frequent such places regularly. They may not go themselves, but they know well enough who do go, and they know also the kind of lives which they who do go are leading.

2. The true obedience. They who worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth. True reverence is a thing of the heart, which shines through and illuminates the conduct. This leads us to:

II. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. True reverence will best show itself in copying the example of the person reverenced. The fourth commandment shows us God’s example made plain for a man to copy.

1. The rest-day to be kept holy.

(1) Nature teaches us that a rest-day, a Sabbath, is a necessity. He who works seven days a week is a bad economist of his time. He simply shortens life. The body must be laid aside the sooner to keep its disregarded Sabbaths in the grave.

(2) The Holy-day is no less necessary than the holiday. Man’s nature is complex, and his spirit needs rest and refreshment, quite as surely as his body needs them. [Illust.: You may shut up a man’s piano, but that only rests the instrument, it does not necessarily rest the instrumentalist.

1. The rest for a man’s spirit is only to be obtained by sharing the spiritual rest of God; if the holiday be not a holy-day this spiritual rest will still be lacking.

2. The days of labour to be modelled on God‘s pattern. Labour as much commanded as rest; but labour, as rest, after the Divine model. All that God does, he does earnestly and thoroughly. To work as God works is to work with the heart as well as with the hands (Col 3:23). One cannot wonder that the rest-day is profaned, when the days of toil are profaned no less, when a man’s chief object seems to be not to do his work, but to have done with it. If God had worked as we work, he could scarcely have called his work “very good.” The world by now would have been a dilapidated chaos, more appalling than the waste from which it sprang. The commandment is not “Six days shalt thou loiter,” but “Six days shalt thou labour.”

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.Mere literal keeping of the commandments may bring them and their author into contempt. We can only “magnify the law and make it honourable” by keeping it from the heart outwards. The Jews kept the third and fourth commandments literally enough. Our own Sunday legislation dates from the time of Charles II; when, of all times, God’s law was, perhaps, the most fearfully profaned. “My son, give me thine heart,” that is the invitation which first requires to be accepted. If we would really keep the commandments, let our prayer be: “Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep thy law.”G.

Exo 20:12

Previous commandments have dealt with the object and manner of worship; this deals with the nursery and school of worship. Consider:

I. THE INJUNCTION IN ITSELF.

1. Absolute; parents to be honoured, whether living or departed, known or unknown, good or evil.

2. Hard to obey in some cases; yet always possible, for remember the father and mother may be honoured, even though the individuals fall short of the ideal they should exemplify. One can honour from the standpoint of the child, even those who from any other standpoint may be despicable. [Illust.: Dr. Macdonald’s story of “Robert Falconer;” the father is a reprobate scamp, yet the son, persistently honoring his fatherhood, at length wins him back to respectability.]

3. Mischief of thoughtless disrespect. No honourable shame to be ashamed of one’s own parentage, especially when, if rightly looked at, there is nothing to be ashamed of in it. No doubt apparent disrespect may sometimes grow out of a wholesome familiarity; still, even so, painful to the parent, whilst it injures the child in the opinion of rightminded people. [Common shame of doing, or refusing to do things out of respect to a parent’s wishes. At most, if the wish is respected, it is merely a “humouring of the old people,” as though the command were “humour,” instead of “honour” “thy father and mother.”] Why chafe at such simple duties as those which spring from the most sacred of relations. There is a far worse bondage than that of “a mother’s apron strings;” it is not well to rupture needlessly those cords of a man which are the bonds of love. If you want a reason for the command:

II. HOME REVERENCE IS THE ROOT OF WORSHIP. That ladder which Jacob saw is always reared within the shadow of the home. Even with him, an exile, it was the God of his father who stood above it. The parents, or those who stand in the place of parents, are the only God a child knows at first. Worship, like other things, comes by practice and experience: the first lessons are learnt in the home. Practically, God is revealed through the parent; other things equal, no reverence for parents, there will be no reverence for God. No doubt there are homes and homes; some where you can almost catch the rustle of the angel wings; others, withered husks of home, blasted before the breath of hell. Still, even in the worst homes the ladder is planted, could one but see it. Take away home and its associations, and you leave it with no ground to stand on. Notice in this light the great responsibility of parents. Further:

III. HOME REVERENCE IS THE SOURCE OF INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL PERMANENCE. The position of the commandment teaches its connection with worship, the promise attached to it its connection with prosperity. It ensures:

1. The prosperity of the individual. The man who does not honour and respect his parents has not gained the habit of reverence; he does not honour God, he does not honour all men. What follows?

(1) Not honouring God, there is no power but self to restrain self. Impulses, desires, etc; are likely, unreined, to run away with him. A man so run away with is rushing post haste to death.

(2) Not honouring men, he will hold aloof from men. They may hinder, they are not likely to help him. The friction of life intensified; all that is donedone with twice the effort. Such a man may be successful, not likely to be long-lived. The needless friction must wear out the life. Could the test be applied, an insurance company would be justified in charging a lower premium on one who kept this commandment, than on one who habitually disregarded it.

2. The prosperity of the nation. For

(1) That nation is most stable which founds itself in reverence for the past. The “Land of settled government” is the land

“Where Freedom broadens slowly down
From precedent to precedent.”

(2) That nation is most stable which adopts the principle of the fourth commandment and respects authority above numbers. The commandment does not say, “Honour the family vote,” it says, “Honour thy father and thy mother.”

Conclusion.Home is linked with heaven; the earthly parent with the Father of eternity. Would you reach heaven, then reverence home; would you worship God, then honour your parents.G.

Exo 20:13

The second table.
Fraternal relations; the outward-looking aspect of life. May classify them either

(1) as they affect us personally, or

(2) as they affect man generally.

According to

(1) they deal with our actions, our words, and our thoughts. According to

(2) they teach us:The sanctity of life, of home, of property, of character; whilst the tenth commandment shows further that the heart is the source whence springs reverence for these sanctities. Notice as regards this sixth commandment:

I. ITS BEARING ON ACTIONS. Murder, the criminal taking of life, varies in character; according to the nature of the life destroyed and according to the nature of the action of the destroyer. Life is threefold, of the body, of the mind, and of the spirit: and murder, as against each, may be deliberate or careless, resulting from action or from inaction. Illustrate from cases affecting the bodily life:

1. Deliberate murder. Life taken of malice aforethought.

2. Careless murder, resulting from negligence or culpable ignorance; e.g; the house builder who so builds his house as to injure the health of a tenant, neglecting drains, etc.; or the parent who spreads some infectious disorder through sending his children to school whilst tainted with it.

3. Inactive murder. Paraphrasing Jas 4:17, “He that knoweth to save life and doeth it not, to him it is murder;” e.g; a man who allows his neighbour to murder others deliberately or through carelessness. Like kinds of murder apply to the cases of the mind and spirit. The slave-owner who forbade his slaves to be educated, and who debarred them from religious privileges; the parent who stifles the spiritual development of his child through indifference. These and like cases might be instanced. “Thou shalt do no murder,” such is the command. To the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” the answer is, “Undoubtedly you are.” If you can save life of any kind, and fail to do so, you must be classed with Cain.

II. ITS BEARING ON THOUGHTS (Mat 5:21; 1Jn 3:15). Really a special case of the tenth commandment; or rather, this commandment is viewed in the light of the tenth. The unkind thought, fostered, soon becomes the malicious thought, and a malicious thought acts like leaven, resulting in a murderous heart. [Illustration: cotton wool, pure, soft, innoxious. Treat it with certain chemicals. It looks just the same; but its character is completely altered, it is transformed into an explosive, gun cotton. So, too, treat the human heart with the chemistry of envy, hatred, and malice, and it too will become an explosivemurderous, and ready for murder.] From the murderous heart proceeds murder of the worst kind; but saturate the heart with indifference or carelessness, and you still make it an explosive. “Keep,” i.e; guard “thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life,” or death!

III. A SPECIAL CASE. SUICIDE. Self murder does not imply hatred or malice. Still it is unlawful killing, and may be classed with extreme forms of manslaughter. It is however to be condemned on more general principles as against the spirit of the whole table of the law. It is cowardly. It is selfish. If a brother commit suicide, what are your feelings? What then your brother’s feelings if you destroy your life? Juries should give in such cases more stringent verdicts. A verdict of temporary insanity results from misplaced charity; it cannot do much to alleviate the distress of friends; it helps to facilitate suicide, which would be far less frequent if the verdict on it were usually more severe.

Conclusion.The justification of this commandment is to be found in the sanctity of the life which it protects. Bear in mind that life is God’s gift, an emanation from the Deity. Keep the eyes open and keep the heart open, so will you soon find opportunities to preserve life and ward off death.G.

Exo 20:14

A correspondence between the two tables:

to worship a false god is to aim at the life of the true God. Idolatry is spiritual adultery. Besides this the sixth and seventh commandments are clearly related; the one guards the life of the individual, the other the life of the family, the sanctity of the home. Consider:

I. THE SIN ITSELF. When a man by anticipation, or after marriage, breaks the marriage vow; when a woman acquiesces in the crime thus perpetrated, it is murder aimed at the collective life of the family. Madness for society to make light of such a crime, which, if permitted, must destroy society. For notice, the family, not the individual, is the ultimate social unit. [Illustration. Tree covered with foliage: individual leaves and blossoms are connected with twigs and boughs; you may kill a leaf without injury to the bough, but kill the bough, and what about the leaves?] Individuals are leaves and blossoms on the tree of life; it is through the family that they belong to the tree at all. Adultery poisons the bough, and through that withers the leaves and blossoms. Further, the sin involves a spreading plague. It spreads not merely far and wide, but on and on through future generations. You may keep it hid, you cannot keep it inactive. [Illustrate from case of David and Bathsheba; may we not trace his mother’s influence in Solomon’s sin? He goes after strange women, and then after strange gods. On David’s side we have Amnon’s sin directly connected with Absolom’s rebellion, which again is connected indirectly with the successful rebellion of Jeroboam and resulting idolatry of the northern kingdom. It is still the one sin which spreads; outwards and onwards.] A pure home is a sound spot in the social organism; corrupt its purity, and it becomes a centre of corruption. May notice also, in this connection, that all sins of this class, fornication, uncleanness, etc; do and must manifest themselves in spite of concealment. Other sins (1Co 6:18) are “outside the body.” These are “against the body,” and through the body they declare themselves. The pure may not know why they shun the impure, but instinctively they discern the signs of his impurity. His sin shows through him, as a lurid light shows through a lantern.

II. CAUSES WHICH OCCASION THE SIN.

1. A low ideal of womanhood. According to the Divine ideal, “man” is “male and female;” it is in the union of the sexes that the “image of God” is reflected. According to the human ideal, woman is rather man’s play-mate than his help-mate; he chooses her as he would a picture, because he likes the look of her. She is in thought his toy, his doll. In unchristian countries this low ideal of woman is universally prevalent, but even in Christian countries it is too often tacitly if not verbally accepted. Such an ideal cannot but be mischievous. [Illustration: Take lantern from summit of light-house and place it at the foot. It will still guide the ships, though no longer off the rocks but on to them.] Woman must exert influence; place her high and it will be ennobling, set her low and it will become degrading.

2. A low ideal of manhood. If woman is a toy, then that part of a man’s nature which can require such a costly toy, will be the most important. The animal nature will be uppermost. The desires will rule.

3. A low level of life. This results naturally from 1 and 2. A man cannot live above the level of his own ideals. If man is a mere animal, woman a mere toy, then marriage is a mere convention. All its sanctity has evaporated. A man will marry if he can afford a wife, if not he will take some cheaper substitute. In the light of the Divine ideal, marriage becomes a duty and a privilege; the completion of that Divine idea of which man unmarried is a mere torso. Guard, of course, against improvident marriages; at the same time it is not improvidence to share, in common, sacrifice and self-denial. One man has two hundred pounds per annum and cannot marry under four hundred pounds; another has four hundred pounds and requires one thousand pounds. If a man divides himself into his income and finds he goes once and nothing over, he may set to work and make his income larger, or he may try to make self smaller; many a man could so reduce his divisor, that, without any increase in his income, the quotient should be two, with a fair remainder.

Conclusion.All such evils spring no doubt from a corrupt heart; but a high ideal will guard the heart and tend to purify it if impure. By the help of God’s grace, let man reverence woman, and woman reverence man, and each reverence in himself and in the other that ideal which is their common glory. Before the splendour of the Divine image as thus mirrored in their union, adultery and sins of uncleanness must be driven afar off.G.

Exo 20:15

The eighth commandment

Guards the sanctity of property. Consider:

I. PROPERTY AND THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY. Property is that which gives expression to individual and family life. In some sort it is an extension of the bodily organism, an added possibility of self-revelation in the sphere of sense. Social usage allows a man’s right, or the right of a corporation, to absolute possession of certain things. Primarily, probably, such right is founded on the right of the labourer to the product of his labour; a man’s own is what he has made his own. Such limit, however, has come to be enlarged on grounds of general utility; we may say generally that a man’s property is that which social usage allows him to consider such.

II. OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY.

1. Stealing. Appropriating a man’s property against the will of the owner. All condemn the thief, he is condemned even by his own conscience; however much he may steal from others he can never think it right for them to steal from him! There are, however, various kinds of diluted theft which are equally offences against the eighth commandment, though not so strongly stigmatised by society.

2. Cognate offences. Property in the old times consisted mainly of land, crops, and cattle. The principle involved in the eighth commandment illustrated, as applied to them, by a number of cases in Exo 21:1-36; Exo 22:1-31; all such acts as result in loss to one’s neighbours, provided that loss was not inevitable, are condemned by it. Circumstances, nowadays, are somewhat different, but the principle of honesty still applies. Take a few instances:

(1) Acts of petty dishonesty.

(a) When in a bargain one party takes advantage of the ignorance of the other; e.g; a collector finds some rarity in the possession of a man who does not know its value, and secures it far below its proper price.

(b) Borrowing without definite intention to return; e.g; books, money, or other property.

(c) Leaving bills unpaid for a needlessly long time. In such case, even though paid eventually, the creditor is defrauded of the profit which he might have made by the use of his money.

(2) Mischievous actions; e.g; marking books or scribbling in them. Cutting initials in trees and buildings. No man has any right to depreciate by his actions the value of another man’s property.

(3) Culpable negligence. Must be as careful with the property of others as with our own property. A pure accident is not a pure accident if it would not have happened had the property been our own.

III. COMPENSATION FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY. Cf. Exo 22:9. Not enough to make good the original value, the law of restitution requires double and, in some cases, fivefold or fourfold. Such a law:

1. Emphasises the importance of strict honesty. In view of it possible offenders will be more cautious as to how they offend. Should it be enforced now-a-days; how many struggling tradesmen and mechanics might find themselves rescued from the verge of bankruptcy! How might charity in a thousand places spring up to banish and destroy suspicion!

2. Secures something like adequate atonement. Defraud a man of anything, and you defraud him of more than the value of that thing. His loss occasions further loss; loss of time, loss of temper, anxiety, inconvenience, for all which the sufferer is entitled to a recompense. Fourfold restitution may sound generous, yet even that may be less than just.

Conclusion.Honesty is by no means such a common virtue as some suppose. It behoves us to examine ourselves as to how far our conduct may bear strict scrutiny. Are there none to whom we should make restitution? If so, let us be thankful if we can make it. There are losses which we occasion others, dues which we owe to God and man, yet which now, it may be, we can never make goodno remedy now exists for the lasting evil they have occasioned. There are debts we can still pay, there are others which we can never pay; who has not need to join in the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts”?G.

Exo 20:16

Connect with the preceding commandment. That guards the property, what belongs to a man outside himself. This guards the character, what belongs to a man inside himself. To steal the purse may be only to steal trash, but to defraud a man of his good name is to do him an irreparable injury.

I. COMMONEST FORM OF THE OFFENCE. Most often committed against comparative strangers. We calculate the effect of our words when speaking of people whom we knowthe consequences may be unpleasant to ourselves if we fail to use due care. As regards others, we are far too ready to catch up and publish some prejudicial opinion; it is so much easier to speak evil than to keep silence and say nothing. Take, e.g; the language current with regard to politicians of an opposite party; what disgraceful imputation of unworthy motives is constantly permitted without a protest! We have a right to our own opinion, if we have taken due pains to form it, as to the public acts of public men; we have no right to go beneath those acts and assume that the actors are less honourable than we are. Partisans of the platform and the correspondence column would seem to care nothing for the sanctity of truth, their one aim is to blacken the character of their opponents, so as to emphasise by contrast their own purity.

II. How HABIT STRENGTHENS BY PRACTICE. Bear false witness against a stranger and it will be easier to bear false witness against a friend; the use of unmeasured language in the one case will lead to less measured language in the other. As a fact this is the case. People who express themselves so strongly when speaking of political opponents, are just the people who behind your back will speak of you with inaccurate unkindness. They misrepresent and misinterpret from the mere pleasure of lowering a man in the eyes of others:

“Low desire
Not to feel lowest makes them level all;
Yea they would pare the mountain to the plain.
To leave an equal baseness.”

We are all mirrors in which our neighbours’ characters must be in some sort reflected; let us take care lest we reflect falsely, distorting, through flaws in our own character, the character which is reflected through us. Two special cases should be noted:

1. False witness embodied in accurate speech. We may use true words and yet create a false impression; e.g; a remark made and repeated verbatim. The way, however, in which it is repeated, the special setting, the peculiar intonation; these things give it a very different meaning to that intended by the original speaker. The words are accurate, the testimony is false. (New music alters the character of a song.)

2. False witness may be borne by silence. In discussing a man’s character, silence, with or without significant looks, is eloquent. “He could have spoken,” it is argued, “had he been able to say anything favourable.” Silent acquiescence in the charges made is quite sufficient confirmation of their truth!

Conclusion.The character of our neighbour, whatever his rank or position, whether the neighbour be a Prime Minister or only a domestic servant, ought to be as precious to us as our own character. It is easy enough to injure a man’s good name by thoughtless speech or cowardly silence. We cannot rid ourselves of the responsibility which attaches to our carelessness or cowardice. By speech or silence we give our testimony, whether the testimony be true or false.G.

Exo 20:17

The last commandment of the second table.

Murder, adultery, theft, slander, all these spring from a corrupt heart. The wrong thought admitted nourishes the wrong desire, which in time gives birth to the wrong action. Out of the heart are the issues of life, therefore keep thy heart with all diligence.

I. THE SOURCE OF COVETOUSNESS. There are two ideals by which men mould their lives. One makes God the centre of all things, the other makes self the centre. One says “Thy will be done,” the other says “My will be done.” It is in the heart that accepts this latter ideal that covetousness has its home. Everything is regarded in its relation to selfthe neighbour’s life and home, and property, and character, are only so many possible instruments which may thwart or assist the gratification of selfishness. The thought of something which may give pleasure, leads us to the desire for the possession of that thing, and the desire will only be restrained from fulfilment by external checks which may make fulfilment difficult. A man may refrain from adultery or theft, because of the social penalties which attach to such transgressions; all the same in his inmost heart he may be a thief and an adulterer. Selfishness is the parent of all sins; its offspring is only dwarfed in growth when selfishness is restrained by society. (Cf. Mat 5:22, Mat 5:28.)

II. THE CURE FOR COVETOUSNESS. The only radical remedy is that which starts by cutting at the root of selfishness. God, not the individual man, is the centre of the universe. Man is related directly to him, and to all other things through him. It is God’s will, not our own will, by reference to which we may live righteously. What then is God’s will? It is that which corresponds with his character, which is love. To live as in his sight is to live in the light of love. Love in us is kindled and developed by contemplation and experience of the love which is in him. Love is that Divine affection which alone has power to expel all selfishness. Love alone can purify the heart, guard the thoughts, and discipline the desires. And what is love in practice? It is nothing more nor less than doing to others as we would they should do unto us. All men as related to God are on an equality, all, as in his sight, have equal rights. Here, however much we may differ, we are yet all on common ground. They who acknowledge one God, who accept redemption through one Saviour, who yield to the influence of one sanctifying Spirit, are in the way to the attainment of that love which is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:10.)

Conclusion.Notice how the last commandment links itself on to the fulfilment o! the first. The ten precepts of the two tables are ten golden links in a perfect circle. Thus regarded, that circle is none other than the perfect bond of charity (Col 3:14), a girdle wherewith whoso girds himself ensures a twofold peace, “Peace on earth towards men of good will,” and the peace of God to keep his heart.G.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Exo 20:1. All these words These refer to all that is spoken to the end of the 17th verse; i.e. to the ten words or commandments, as Moses calls them, Deu 4:13 which words God himself spoke from the midst of the fire, Deu 5:22 on which account it is called a fiery law, Deu 33:2. These were the only words which God himself spoke to the people; the rest were delivered to Moses. See Exo 20:21-22 compared with Deu 5:22. And it is most probable, that, in this solemn intercourse with the Deity, the heavenly host which attended his Divine Presence, ministered and mediated between the Lord and Moses, as Moses mediated between the Lord and the people: in which view, those passages in the New Testament are easily explained, which speak of the law as given by the ministration of angels: but, of these passages, we shall say more on Deu 33:2 when we come to them in their proper places. God spake, it is supposed by many, by the ministration of angels; and it is no uncommon mode of expression, we know, in Scripture, to say God does that himself, which he does by his ministers.

Before we enter upon any comment on the COMMANDMENTS, it may be necessary to observe, first, that it does not appear to have been the purpose of God to have delivered, in the audience of the people, either the whole law, or any compendium, but only those precepts which were of greater importance: to which, afterwards, those of less moment were added in the hearing of Moses only. When we speak of precepts of greater or less moment, we do not mean that those which were now omitted could be neglected with impunity; but that, from the neglect of these which were now delivered by God, those greater evils would arise, against which a law-giver was more especially to provide; as every one may easily perceive, who reflects upon these commandments. Besides, these observed, through grace, the future observation of the rest would become easy: therefore it will not seem strange, if many things were now omitted, which God elsewhere required from the Israelites, and which respected their duty both to him and their neighbours: for these particulars, we must consult those laws which are afterwards delivered in the remaining part of the Pentateuch; which, properly speaking, are a supplement to the decalogue, and perhaps the best commentary upon it. Divines have endeavoured to deduce from the ten commandments all natural religion and all the moral precepts of the Gospel; in which, though perhaps they may have sometimes carried their speculations to too great a degree of refinement; yet, certainly, by just consequences, the most important duties may be deduced from them. JESUS CHRIST, in his excellent sermon on the mount, has shewn us the way to do so. Secondly, let it be observed, that although the precepts of the decalogue were given to the Israelites alone, and in a peculiar manner imposed upon, and appropriated to them; these precepts, nevertheless, oblige all mankind, so far as they are a part of eternal right; and all Christians in particular, so far as they have been confirmed by the Gospel.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

SECOND SECTION

The Threefold Law of the Covenant for the Covenant People on the Basis of the Prophetic, Ethico-religious Divine Law of the Ten Commandments. Historical Prophecy
Exodus 20-31

a.The ten words, or the ethical law; and the terrified people, or the rise of the need of sacrificial rites

Exo 20:1-21

1, 2And God spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God, which [who] have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me [over against me].1 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto [upon] 6the third and [and upon the] fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 7Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of [a sabbath unto] Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, 11nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. 13Thou shalt not kill. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors. 18And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed [reeled backward], and stood afar off. 19And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20And Moses said unto the people, Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces [upon you], that ye sin not. 21And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[The exact meaning of here and in Deu 5:7 is disputed. The rendering before me was doubtless meant by our Translators to convey the notion, in my presence = . Perhaps the ordinary reader is apt to understand it to mean, in preference to me. Luther, Kalisch, Geddes, Keil, Knobel, Bunsen, and Riggs (Suggested Emendations), following the LXX. ( ), translate, besides me. De Wette, Rosenmller, Maurer, Philippson, Frst, Arnheim, Bush, Murphy, Cook (in Speakers Commentary), and Lange, following the Vulgate (coram me), translate before me, i.e., in my presence. In order to a satisfactory settlement of the question, it is necessary to investigate the use of the phrase in general. An examination of all the passages in which it occurs yields the following result: The phrase, followed by a Genitive or a Pronominal Suffix, occurs 210 times. In 125 of these cases, it has its literal sense of upon the face (or surface) of; as, e.g., 2Sa 17:19, The woman took and spread a covering over the wells mouth; Gen 50:1, Joseph fell upon his fathers face; or it is merely a longer form for the simpler (upon); as, e.g., Job 5:10, Who sendeth waters upon the fields. The remaining 85 cases are divided as follows: (1) 28 times is used in describing the relation of localities to each other. E.g., Jdg 16:3, Samson carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron. Sometimes (and more properly) in such cases the phrase is rendered over against in the A. V. The other passages in which is thus used are Gen 23:19; Gen 25:9; Gen 25:18; Gen 49:30; Gen 50:13; Num 21:11; Num 33:7; Deu 32:49; Deu 34:1; Jos 13:3; Jos 13:25; Jos 15:8; Jos 17:7; Jos 18:14; Jos 18:16; Jos 19:11; 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 26:1; 1Sa 26:3; 2Sa 2:24; 1Ki 11:7; 1Ki 17:3; 1Ki 17:15; 2Ki 23:13; Eze 48:15; Eze 48:21; Zec 14:4. It is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that in these connections means to the east of, according to the Hebrew mode of conceiving of the cardinal points. For in Jos 18:14 we read of the hill that lieth before () Beth-horon southward; and in Jos 15:8, of the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward. We are rather to suppose that the phrase indicates such a relation of two places as is expressed by over against, the physical conformation of the localities naturally suggesting such a description.(2) We observe, next, that 13 times is used of the position of things in relation to buildings. E.g., 1Ki 6:3, the porch before the temple. In the same verse occurs twice more in the same sense. The other passages are 1Ki 7:6 (bis); Exo 8:8; 2Ch 3:4 (bis), 8, 17; Exo 5:9; Eze 40:15; Eze 42:8. In these cases the meaning is obvious: on the front of, confronting.(3) Six times is used in the sense of towards or down upon after verbs of looking, or (once) of going. E.g., Gen 18:16, The men looked toward (, down upon) Sodom. So Gen 19:28 (bis), Num 21:20; Num 23:28; 2Sa 15:23. Here may be regarded as a fuller form of as sometimes used after verbs of motion.(4) Five times it is used after verbs signifying pass by, and is rendered before. E. g, Exo 33:19, I will make all my goodness pass before thee. So Exo 34:6; Gen 32:22 (21); 2Sa 15:18; Job 4:15. In these passages differs from as used, e.g., in 2Ki 4:31, Gehazi passed on before them; where indicates that Gehazi went on in advance of the others; whereas, e.g., in 2Sa 15:18, the meaning is that the king stopped, and the others went by him.(5) In 12 passages is used after verbs meaning to cast out, and is usually rendered from the presence (or sight) of. They are 1Ki 9:7; 2Ki 13:23; 2Ki 17:18; 2Ki 17:23; 2Ki 24:3; 2Ki 24:20; 2Ch 7:20; Jer 7:15; Jer 15:1; Jer 23:39; Jer 32:31; Jer 52:3. Possibly also Gen 23:3, Abraham stood up from before his dead, i.e., went away from the presence of; but we may understand it more literally, viz., stood up from upon the face of. There is a manifest difference between and . The former is used of a removal from a state of juxtaposition or opposition. The latter is used in the stricter sense of from before. E.g., in Deu 9:4, For the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee (). Here it is not meant that the relation between the Jews and the other nations was to be broken up, but rather that it was never to be formed; whereas, e.g., in Jer 7:15, I will cast you out of my sight, the implication is that the people had been near Jehovah, but were now to be banished.(6) Four times is used with the meaning, to the face of. E.g., Isa 45:3, A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face. So Job 1:11 (parallel with Exo 2:5, where is used); Exo 6:28 (as correctly rendered); Exo 21:31. Here the notion of hostility, often expressed by the simple , is involved.Similar to these are (7) the three passages, Eze 32:10, Nah 2:2 (1), and Psa 21:13 (12), where is used after verbs descriptive of hostile demonstrations, and means either, literally, against the face of, or over against, in defiance.(8) In Exo 20:20, where the A. V. renders, that his fear may be before your faces, the meaning clearly is the same as in such expressions as Exo 15:16, where the simple is used. So Deu 2:25.(9) In one case, Psa 18:43 (42), is used of tho dust before the wind, just as is used in Job 21:18, They are as stubble before the wind.(10) Tho passage, Job 16:14, He breaketh me with breach upon () breach, has no precise parallel. But here, too, it is most natural to understand as a fuller, poetic form for . Comp. Gen 32:12 (11), the mother with () the children; Amo 3:15, I will smite the winter-house with (, i.e., together with, in addition to) the summer-house.(11) There are three passages (possibly four), in which has a peculiar meaning, as denoting the relation of two persons to each other. Haran, we are told, Gen 11:28, died before () his father Terah. This seems to mean, died before his father did. But though such a priority is implied, it is not directly expressed. is sometimes used to denote such priority in time, e.g., Gen 30:30; Exo 10:14; Jos 10:14; but is nowhere clearly used in this sense, so that it is more natural to understand it (as the commentators do) here to mean either in the presence of, or during the life-time of. The next passage, Num 3:4, illustrates the meaning: Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priests office in the sight of () Aaron their father. It is hardly possible that pains would be taken to lay stress on the fact that Aaron saw them acting the part of priests, especially as the verb hardly means anything more than to be priest. Not more admissible is the interpretation of Gesenius and others, who here translate under the supervision of. There is not the faintest analogy for such a meaning of the phrase. At the same time, it is hardly supposable that it can be literally translated, during the life-time of. The notion of physical presence, or nearness, is so uniformly involved in that we must, in strictness, here understand it to mean, over against, in view of, the point of the expression, however, not consisting in the circumstance that Aaron watched them in their ministrations, but that they performed them over against him, i.e., as coupled with him, together with him, (and so) during his life-time. Here belongs also probably Deu 21:16, He may not make the son of the beloved first-born before () the son of the hated. One might naturally understand before here to mean, in preference to; and this certainly would yield an appropriate sensea sense certainly involved, yet probably not directly expressed. At least there is no clear analogy for such a meaning, unless we find it in the passages now under consideration, viz., Exo 20:3 and Deu 5:7. The best commentators understand in Deu 21:16, to mean during the life-time of. An analogous use of is found in Psa 72:5, where it is said of the king, They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, literally before () the sun and moon. Similarly Exo 20:17.The other of the four passages above mentioned is Gen 25:18. There we read: He (i.e., Ishmael) died (literally, fell) in the presence of () his brethren. There is now, however, general unanimity in translating here settled rather than died, so that the passage is to be reckoned in the following class, in which also the relation of persons to each other is expressed, but in a somewhat different sense.(12) Knobel explains in Gen 25:18 as = to the east of. So Del., Lange, Keil, Maurer, De W., and others. But, as we have already seen, does not have this meaning. This passage is to be explained by the parallel one, Gen 16:12, where it is also said of Ishmael, He shall dwell in the presence of () all his brethren. Here the context is, His hand will be against every man, and every mans hand against him; and he shall dwell all his brethren. Keil and Lange are unable to satisfy themselves with the interpretation east of here; and it is clear that that would not be a statement at all in place here, even if ordinarily had the meaning east of. Evidently the angel expresses the fact that the Ishmaelites were to dwell over against their brethren as an independent, defiant, nation. If so, then Exo 25:18 is to be understood in the same way, as a statement of the fulfilment of the prophecy here made. In addition to these two passages there are three others in which the relation of persons to each other is expressed. They are Lev 10:3, Psa 9:20 (19), and Jer 6:7. In the first we read that Jehovah said, Before () all the people I will be glorified; this is preceded by the statement, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. The verse follows the account of the destruction of Nadah and Abihu. To render in view of, or in the presence of, would make good and appropriate sense; and certainly it is implied that by the summary punishment of the presumptuous priests Jehovah intended to glorify Himself in the sight of His people. Yet, while men are frequently represented as being or acting before () Jehovah, it is extremely unusual to speak of Jehovah as being or doing anything before (in the sight of) men. And since, if that were here meant, would probably have been used, it is much better here to understand the meaning to be over against, implying separation and contrast. Likewise Psa 9:20 (19): Let the heathen be judged in thy sight (). Certainly the meaning cannot simply be: Let the heathen be judged, while God looks on as a spectator. God is Himself the judge; and the heathen are to be judged over against Him; i.e., in such a way as to exhibit the contrast between them and Him. There remains only Jer 6:7, Before me () continually is grief and wounds. The context describes the prospective destruction of Jerusalem. Her wickedness is described in Exo 20:7 : As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness; violence and spoil is heard in her; before me continually is grief and wounds (sickness and blows). Undoubtedly this implies that the manifestations of the wickedness of the people were in Jehovahs sight; but here, too, there is implied the notion that these things are over against Him: on the one side, Jehovah in His holiness: on the other, Jerusalem in her wickedness. This conception is naturally suggested by the representation that Jehovah is about to make war upon her.

Having now given a complete exhibition of the use of in all the other passages, we are prepared to consider what it means in the first commandment. Several things may be regarded as established: (i) is far from being synonymous with . The latter is used hundreds of times in the simple sense of before in reference to persons; the former is used most frequently of places, and in all cases has more or less of its ordinary meaning, upon, or against (over against), (ii) The phrase has nowhere unequivocally the meaning besides. The nearest approach to this is in Job 16:14, under (10), where may be rendered in addition to. But this is not quite the same as besides, and the phrase has there evidently a poetic use. A solitary case like this, where too not persons, but things, are spoken of, is altogether insufficient to establish the hypothesis that in the first commandment means besides. (iii) The most general notion conveyed by the phrase in question is that of one object confronting another. Leaving out of account, as of no special pertinency, those instances in which it verges upon the literal sense of upon (or against) the face of, and those in which the meaning of predominates, (viz., classes (3), (6), (7), (8), (10), we find that all others are sufficiently explained by this generic notion of confronting. Thus, in all the cases where places are spoken of as one another, class (1); where objects are described as in front of buildings, class (2); and where persons are spoken of as passing in front of others, class (4).So, too, in the cases in which is used, class (5), in every instance it follows a verb which implies a previous state of hostility; men are to be removed from being over against Jehovah, from confronting Him with their offensive deeds.So the instance in Psa 18:43 (42), class (9); the dust before the wind is compared with Gods enemies destroyed by Him; the dust confronting the wind illustrates the powerlessness of men confronting an angry God.So the examples under (12). The translation over against satisfies all of the cases. A relation of contrast and opposition is implied.Likewise, also, the three passages under (11). The son of the beloved wife (Deu 21:16) is not to bo invested with the rights of primogeniture over against the son of the hated one, i.e., in contrast with, distinction from, the other one, while yet by natural right the latter is entitled to the privilege. The phrase may here, therefore, be understood to mean in preference to, or in the life-time of, but neither one nor the other literally and directly, yet both one and the other by implication. In Num 3:4 Aarons sons are represented as being priests over against their father, i.e., not succeeding him, but together with him, as two hills, instead of being distant from one another, are, as it were, companions, confronting each other. So in Gen 11:28 Haran is said to have died over against his father. In his death he confronted his father, i.e., did not, as most naturally happens, die after him, when his father would have been taken away from being with him. By thus anticipating his father in his decease he, as it were, passed in front of him, confronted him, so that this case is quite analogous to those under class (4). In this case, therefore, as in some others, tho meaning of closely borders upon that of , yet is not the same.

The application of this discussion to Exo 20:3 and Deu 5:7 is obvious. Israel is to have no other gods over against Jehovah. The simple meaning before, i.e., in the presence of, would have little point and force, and besides would have been expressed by . The meaning besides would have been expressed by ,, or some other of the phrases having that meaning. The meaning over against, the usual meaning of the phrase, is perfectly appropriate here. All false gods are opposed to tho true God. The worship of them is incompatible with the worship of Jehovah. The command therefore is, Thou shalt have no other gods to confront me, to be set up as rival objects of service and adoration. All that is pertinent in the other two renderings is involved hero. Gods that are set up over against Jehovah may be said to be before Him, in His sight; that they are gods besides, in addition to, Him, is a matter of course: but, more than this, they are gods opposed to Him.Tr.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Analysis.The whole Mosaic legislation is typical and Messianic. Typical, as is, evident from the existence of Deuteronomy, inasmuch as this presents the first instance of an interpretation which gives to the law a more profound and spiritual meaning. Messianic, for the ten commandments contain a description of Christs active obedience, whilst the sacrificial rites contain the leading features of His passive obedience. Everywhere in the three books are shadowed forth the three offices of the Messiah. The first book comprises, together with the prophetico-ethical covenant law of the ten commandments, also the outlines of the ceremonial and social (civil) law, because those two subjects of legislation flow as consequences out of the ethical law. The priesthood (or the church) and the state depend, in their unity as well as in their diversity, on the ethico-religious legislation of the life of the God-man.

The first form of elemental ethico-religious, but therefore all-embracing legislation, comprises the law, the festivals, and the house, of the covenant (chaps. 2031). It is different from the second form of the legislation (chaps. 3234 sqq) on account of the breaking of the covenant.

This first legislation, the law or book of the covenant in the narrower sense, is evidently the outline of the whole legislation. The presentation of the prophetico-ethical law is found in the ten commandments (Exo 20:1-17); the outline of the ceremonial law and the reasons for it follow on (Exo 20:18-26); in conclusion comes the third part, the outline of the social laws of the Israelites (2123).

Three questions are here to be settled: (1) How are the several acts of legislation related to the history? (2) How are the several groups of laws related to each other? (3) How is there indicated in this relation a gradual development of legislation?
As to the ten commandments in particular, we are to consider: (1) the form of the promulgation; (2) the relation of the law in Exodus to the phase it presents in Deuteronomy; (3) the analysis of the ten commandments themselves.
That the laws are not artificially introduced into the history of Israel, as e.g. Bertheau assumes, is shown by their definite connection with the historical occasions of them. Thus, e.g., the law of the ten commandments is occasioned by the vow of covenant obedience made beforehand by the people. The ceremonial law as a law of atonement is occasioned by the fright and flight of the people at the thunders of Sinai (Exo 20:21). Thus the holy nation is established; and not till now is there occasion for the theocratico-social legislation, according to which every individual is to be recognised as a worthy member of this nation. The setting up of the golden calf furnished historical occasion for special precepts. The gradually progressive legislation recorded in the Book of Numbers most markedly illustrates the influence of historical events. We have before become acquainted with similar instances. This is true in a general way of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The commands concerning the sanctification of the firstborn and concerning the reckoning of time refer to the exodus from Egypt. The hallowing of the seventh day is connected with the gift of manna; the bitter water occasions the fundamental law of hygienics, Exodus 15. The attack of Amalek is the actual foundation of the ordinance concerning holy wars. So in earlier times the Noachian command (Genesis 9) was a law which looked back to the godless violence of the perished generation; it connected the command to reverence God with the precept to hold human life sacred. So the fundamental command of the covenant with Abraham, the command of circumcision, as a symbol of generation consecrated with reference to regeneration, appears after the history of the expulsion of Ishmael, who was born according to the flesh (comp. Genesis 17 with Genesis 16). But that the book of Deuteronomyaccording to the memorabilia on which it is foundedgrew out of the danger that Israel might be led by the giving of the law to decline into observance of the mere letter, we have already elsewhere noticed. It may be remarked by the way that the Song of Moses and Moses Blessing at the close of Deuteronomy seem like the hearts blood of the whole book, a song of cursing, and a song of blessing; in the Psalter and prophetic books scarcely anything similar can be found.

How are the individual groups of laws related to one another? That they essentially and unconditionally require one another, and that accordingly they could not have appeared separately, is not hard to show. The decalogue, taken by itself, would lead into scholastic casuistry; the system of sacrifice, taken by itself, into magic rites; the political marshalling of the host, into despotism or greed of conquest. Compare Schleiermachers argument in his Dogmatik, to show that the three offices of Christ require each other.
From what has been said it follows also that the development of the legislation was gradual. We may distinguish four stages in the Mosaic period: (1) The Passover as the foundation of the whole legislation, and the several special laws up to the arrival at Sinai (primogeniture, reckoning of time, sanitary regulation, Sabbath); (2) the covenant law, or book of the covenant, before the covenant was broken by the erecting of the golden calf; (3) the expansion and modification of the law, on account of the breach of the covenant, in the direction of the hierarchy, the ritual, and the beginning of the proclamation of grace in the name of Jehovah; (4) the deeper and more inward meaning given to the law in Deuteronomy, as an introduction to the age of the Psalms and Prophets.

The Form of the Promulgation of the Decalogue

We assume that this form is indicated in Exo 19:19. The passage, Deu 5:4, Jehovah talked with you face to face in the mount, is defined by Exo 20:5, I stood between Jehovah and you at that time, to show you the word of Jehovah. In spite of this declaration and the mysterious passages, Act 7:53, Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2, the notion has arisen, not only among the Jews, but also within the sphere of Christian scholastic theology, that God spoke audibly from Mt. Sinai to the whole people. Vid. Keil, II. p. 106 sqq. Buxt.: Hebrorum interpretes ad unum pne omnes: deum verba decalogi per se immediate locutum esse, dei nempe potentia, non autem angelorum opera ac ministerio voces in are formatas fuisse. The interpolation of spirits of nature by von Hofmann (vid. Keil, p. 108) must be as far from the reality as from the literal meaning of the language. It must not be forgotten that Moses, at the head of his people in the breadless and waterless desert, moves, as it were, on the border region of this world. A sort of symbolical element is without doubt to be found even in the Rabbinical tradition, that God spoke from Sinai in a language which divided itself into all the languages of the seventy nations, and extended audibly over all the earth;evidently a symbol of the fact that the language of the ten commandments gave expression to the language of the conscience of all mankind.

The Relation of the Law in Exodus to the Form of it in Deuteronomy

First of all is to be noticed that in the most literal part of the Holy Scriptures, where everything seems to depend on the most exact phraseology, viz., in the statement of the law, there is yet not a perfect agreement between the two statements; just as is the case in the N.T. with the Lords Prayer, and in church history with the ecumenical symbols, which, moreover, have failed to agree on a seven-fold division of it. Keil rightly makes the text in Exodus the original one; whilst Kurtz, in a manner hazardous for his standpoint, inverts the relation, making the form in Deuteronomy the original one. Both of them overlook the fact that according to the spirit of the letter the one edition is as original as the other. We have already (Genesis, p. 92) attempted to explain the reason of the discrepancies which Keil in note 1, II., p. 105, has cited. In the repetition of the Sabbath law the ethical and humane bearing of it is unmistakably made prominent (Deu 5:15), as in relation to the tenth commandment the wife is put before the house. In the form of the command to honor father and mother, the blessing of prosperity is made more emphatic. The expressions for , for the repetition of (in the second part of the tenth commandment) savor also of a spiritualizing tendency. By the copula , moreover, the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, and the following ones are, so to speak, united into one commandment.

Furthermore is to be noticed the difference between the first oral proclamation of the law through the mediation of Moses and the engraved inscription of it on two tablets. This begins after the solemn ratification of the covenant, Exo 24:15, Exo 31:18 Exo 32:19, Exo 34:1. Thus at this point also in the giving of the law the oral revelation precedes the written, although at the same point the revealed word and the written word blend intimately together, in order typically to exhibit the intimate relation between the two throughout the Holy Scriptures. A positive command of Holy Scripture has already been made, Exo 17:14 : eternal war against Amalek, in a typical sense. The fact also is of permanent significance, that Aaron the priest was making the golden calf for the people at the same time that Moses on the mount was receiving the tables of the law. That the ten commandments were written on the two tables, that therefore the ethico-religious law of the covenant is divided into ten commandments, is affirmed in Exo 34:28, and Deu 10:4. But on the question, how they are to be counted, and how divided between the two tables, opinions differ. Says Keil: The words of the covenant, or the ten commandments, were written by God on two tables of stone (Exo 31:18), and, as being the sum and kernel of the law, are called as early as in Exo 24:12 [the law and the commandment]. But as to their number, and their twofold division, the Biblical text furnishes neither positive statements nor certain indicationsa clear proof that these points are of less importance than dogmatic zeal has often attached to them. In the course of the centuries two leading views have been developed. Some divide the commandments into two divisions of five each, and assign to the first table the commandments respecting (1) other gods, (2) images, (3) the name of God, (4) the Sabbath, and (5) parents; to the second those concerning (1) murder, (2) adultery, (3) stealing, (4) false witness, and (5) covetousness. Others assign to the first table three commandments, and to the second, seven. They specify, as the first three, the commandments concerning (1) other gods, (2) the name of God, (3) the Sabbath; which three comprise the duties owed to God: and, as the seven of the second table, those concerning (1) parents, (2) murder, (3) adultery, (4) stealing, (5) false witness, (6) coveting ones neighbors house, (7) coveting a neighbors wife, servants, cattle, and other possessions; as comprising the duties owed to ones neighbor.The first opinion, with the division into two tables of five commandments each, is found in Josephus (Ant. III., 5, 8) and Philo (Quis rer. divin. hr. 35, De Decal. 12 et al.). It is unanimously approved by the church fathers of the first four centuries, and has been retained by the Oriental and Reformed churches to this day. The later Jews also agree with this, so far as that they assume only one commandment respecting covetousness, but dissent from it in that they unite the prohibition of images with the prohibition of strange gods, but regard the introductory sentence, I am Jehovah, thy God, as the first commandment. This method of enumeration, of which the first traces are found in Julian, the Apostate, quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julianum, Lib. V. init., and in a casual remark of Jerome on Hos 10:10, is certainly of later origin, and perhaps propounded only from opposition to the Christians; but it still prevails among the modern Jews.

The second leading view was brought into favor by Augustine; and before him no one is known to have advocated it. In Qust. 71 in Exod., Augustine expresses himself on the question how the ten commandments are to be divided: (Utrum quatuor sint usque ad prceptum de Sabbatho, qu ad ipsum Deum pertinent, sex autem reliqua quorum primum: Honor a patrem et matrem, qu ad hominem pertinent: an potius illa tria sint et ista septem) after a further presentation of the two views, as follows: Mihi tamen videntur congruentius accipi illa tria et ista septem, quoniam Trinitatem videntur illa qu ad Deum pertinent, insinuare diligentius intuentibus; and he then aims to show, further, that by the prohibition of images the prohibition of other gods is only explained perfectius, while the prohibition of covetousness, although concupiscentia uxoris alien et concupiscentia domus alien tantum in peccando differant, is divided by the repetition of the non concupisces into two commandments. In this division Augustine, following the text of Deuteronomy, generally reckoned the command not to covet ones neighbors wife as the ninth, though in individual passages, following the text of Exodus, he puts the one concerning the neighbors house first (vid. Geffken, Ueber die verschiedene Eintheilung des Dekalogs, Hamburg, 1838, p. 174). Through Augustines great influence this division of the commandments became the prevalent one in the Western church, and was also adopted by Luther and the Lutheran church, with the difference, however, that the Catholic and Lutheran churches, following Exodus, made the ninth commandment refer to the house, while only a few, with Augustine, gave the preference to the order as found in Deuteronomy 2

We have the more readily borrowed the language of a decided Lutheran on this question, inasmuch as he, in distinction from some others who seem to regard adherence to the medival division as essential to Lutheran orthodoxy, displays a commendable impartiality. The leading reasons for the ancient, theocratic division are the following: (1) The transposition of the first object of covetousness in Exodus and Deuteronomy, thy neighbors house, thy neighbors wife. The advocates of the ecclesiastical view would here rather assume a corruption of the text, even in the tables of the law, than see in this transposition a weaving of the two precepts into one commandment. (2) The difference, amply established by sacred history, as well as by the history of religion in general, between the worship of symbolic images, and the worship of mythological deities: in accordance with which distinction the two prohibitions are not to be blended into one commandment. (3) Of very special importance is the brief explanation of the law given by Paul in Rom 7:7 with the words, Thou shalt not covet. According to this explanation, the emphasis rests on the prohibition of covetousness, and the expansion thy neighbors house, etc., serves merely to exemplify it. But when the commandment is divided into two, the chief force of the prohibition rests on the several objects of desire, so that these two last commandments would lead one to make the law consist in the vague prohibition of external things, and need to be supplemented by a great etc.; whereas the emphasizing of covetousness as an important point leads one to refer the law to the inward life, and, so understood, looks back to the spiritual foundation of the whole law in the first commandment, whilst a kindred element of spirituality is found in the middle of the law, connected with the precept to honor father and mother.As to the distribution of the law into two ideal tables, the division into two groups of five commandments each is favored especially by the fact that all the commandments of the second table from the sixth commandment on are connected by the conjunction [and; in the A. V. rendered, together with the negative, neither] in Deuteronomy (Exo 20:17, etc.). Moreover, in favor of the same division is the consideration that parents in the fifth commandment stand as representatives of the Deity and of the divine rule. As the first commandment expresses the law of true religion, and the second, the requirement to make ones religious conceptions spiritual and to keep them pure; so the three following commandments evidently designate ramifications of religious conduct: the duty of maintaining the sanctity of religious knowledge and doctrine; of religious humanity (or of worship), and of the most original nursery of religion, the household, and of its most original form, piety. Nevertheless, when one would divide the ten commandments between the two actual tables of Moses, he fails to find distinct indications; hardly, however, can the assumption be established that only the precepts themselves stood on the tables, but not the reasons that are given for some of them.

As to the whole system of the Mosaic legislation, we are to consider the arrangement which Bertheau has made in his work Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Bchern des Pentateuchs (Gttingen, 1840). According to him, the number 7, multiplied by 10, taken seven times, lies at the foundation of the arrangement. We have already observed that we do not regard as well grounded the dissolution of the Mosaic code of laws from history as its basis. Moreover, a clear carrying out of the system would show that we could regard the origin of it only as instinctive, not as the conscious work of Rabbinic design. The ten commandments, Exo 20:1-17, form the introduction of this arrangement. But the ritual law follows immediately, beginning with a group, not of ten, but of four laws, Exo 20:28 sqq.

1. The Lawgiver. That Jehovah is the lawgiver does not exclude the mediation mentioned Gal 3:19 and elsewhere. Comp. Comm. on Gen 6:1-8. Quite as little, however, does this mediation obscure the name of the lawgiver, Jehovah. Keil (II. p. 114) inconclusively opposes the view of Knobel, who takes the first words, I am Jehovah, as a confession, or as the foundation of the whole theocratic law. Just because the words have this force, are they also the foundation of the obligation of the people to keep the theocratic commandments. For the lawgiver puts the people under the highest obligation by their recognising him as benefactor and liberator. An absolute despot as such is no lawgiver. Israels law is based on his typical liberation, and his obedience to the law on faith in that liberation. The law itself is the objective form in which for educational purposes the obligations are expressed, which are involved in its foundation.

2. The first Commandment. The absolute negation stands significantly at the beginning. So further on. Antithetic to it is the absolute [I] of Jehovah at the opening of His commandments. , the gods become, spring up gradually in the conceptions of the sinful people, hence in connection with is to be explained as = (according to Gal 1:6) with the LXX. and the Vulgate (alieni, foreign), not = alii, other. may mean before my face, over against my face, against my face, besides my face, beyond it. The central feature of the thought may be: beyond my personal, revealed form, and in opposition to itrecognizing, together with the error a remnant of religiosity in the worship of the gods.The coram me of the Vulgate expresses one factor of the notion, as Luthers neben mir [by my side] does another. [vid. under Textual and Grammatical].

3. The Prohibition of Image Worship, Exo 20:4-6. Image, , from , to hew wood or stone. It therefore denotes primarily a plastic image. does not signify an image made by man, but only a form which appears to him, Num 12:8, Deu 4:12; Deu 4:15 sqq., Job 4:16, Psa 17:15. In Deu 5:8 (comp. Exo 4:16) we find , image of any form. Accordingly is here to be taken as explanatory of , and as explicative, even any form (Keil). Image is therefore used absolutely in the sense of religious representation of the Deity, and the various forms are conceived as the forms of the image. Comp. Deu 4:15, for ye saw no manner of similitude [no form] on the day that Jehovah spake unto you in Horeb. The medium of legislation therefore continued to be a miracle of hearing; it became a miracle of sight only in the accompanying phenomena given for the purpose of perpetually preventing every kind of image-worship.In heaven. Keil says: on the heaven, explaining it as referring to the birds, and not the angels, at the most, according to Deu 4:19, as perhaps including the stars. The angels proper could not possibly have been meant as copies of Jehovah, since they themselves appear only in visions; and even if the constellations were specially meant, yet they too were for the most part pictorially represented [and in this sense only is the worship of them here prohibited]. The worship of stars as such is covered by the first commandment. Comp. Romans 1.Under the earth. Beneath, under the level of the solid land, lower than it. Marine creatures are therefore meant. This commandment deals throughout only with religious conduct. The bowing down designates the act of adoration; the serving denotes the system of worship. Keil quotes from Calvin: quod stulte quidam putarunt, hic damnari sculpturas et picturas quaslibet, refutatione non indiget. Still it is clear from Romans 1 that the gradual transition from the over-estimate of the symbolical image to the superstitious reverence for it is included.

According to Keil the threat and promise following the second commandment refer to the two first as being embraced in a higher unity. But this higher unity is resolvable in this way, that the sin against the second commandment is to be regarded as the source of the sin against the first. With image worship, or the deification of symbols, idolatry begins. Hence image worship is condemned as being the germ of the whole succeeding development of sin. That which in the classical writings of the Greeks and Romans is signified by , the fatal beginning of a connected series of crimes which come to a conclusion only in one or more tragic catastrophes, is signified in the theocratic sphere by , perversion, perverseness. The evil-doing of the fathers has a genealogical succession which cannot be broken till the third or fourth generations (grandchildren and great-grandchildren) are visited. This is shown also by the Greek tragedy, and the third and fourth generation is still to be traced in the five acts of the modern tragedy. Now the image-worshipper is worse than the idolater in that he makes this fatal beginning. But as the proceeds from an insolence towards the gods which may be called hatred, so also image-worship arises out of an insolent apostasy from the active control of the pure conception of God, from the control of the Spirit. In the Old Testament, it is the golden calves of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba which are followed by such catastrophes in Israel. It may also be asked: What has the medival image-worship cost certain European nations in particular? That the hereditary guilt thus contracted forms no absolute fatality, is shown by the addition, of them that hate me. This is a condition, or limitation, which is echoed in the of Rom 5:12. But the condition cannot be made the foundation, as is done by Keil, who says that by the words and [of them that hate me and of them that love me] the punishment and the grace are traced back to their ultimate ground. This would vitiate the force of what he afterwards says of the organic relations of humanity. The organic hereditary conditions of guilt, of which even the heathen know how to speak (vid. Keil, p. 117), are limited by morally guilty actions. Because reference is here made to organic consequences, the fathers themselves are not mentioned. Because the transmission of the curse is hindered by the counter influence of ethical forces and natures, checks grow up as early as between the third and fourth generations. The sovereignty of grace is concerned in this, as also in the opposite parallel, unto the thousands, i.e., unto a thousand generations. This wonderfully subtle and profound doctrine of original sin is not Augustinian, inasmuch as it assumes special cases of sin and individual and generic counteracting influences within the sphere of the general condition of sin. It is, however, still less Pelagian; yet, as compared with the notion of guilt embodied in the Greek tragedians, it is exceedingly mild. The hereditary descendants of such a guilty parentage fill up the measure of the guilt of their fathers, Mat 23:32. In this passage also the notion of guilt, as distinguished from that of sin, is brought out. Guilt is the organic side of sin; sin is the ethical side of guilt. The whole judicial economy, moreover, is founded on the jealousy of God; i.e., as being the absolute personality, He insists that persons shall not dissolve the bond of personal communion with Him, that they shall not descend from the sphere of love into that of sensuous conceptions.

4. The third commandment. The sin against the first commandment banishes the name of Jehovah by means of idol names; the sin against the second obscures and disfigures it; the sin against this third one abuses it. Here then the name, the right apprehension, or at least knowledge and confession, of the name, are presupposed; but the correctness of the apprehension is hypocritically employed by the transgressor of this commandment in the interest of selfishness and vice. According to Keil does not mean to utter the name, and does not mean lie. But to lift up a name must surely mean to lift it up by uttering it, though doubtless in a solemn way; and though signifies wasteness and emptiness, yet it is here to be understood of wasteness and emptiness in speech. The moral culmination of this sin is perjury, Lev 19:12 : hypocrisy in the application of sacred things to criminal uses, especially also sorcery in all forms.Here the punitive retribution is put immediately upon the person who sins, as an unavoidable one which surely finds its object, and whose law rests on the nature of Jehovah Himself.

5. Exo 20:9-11. Here is to be considered: (1) The significance of the law of the Sabbath; (2) the institution of the Sabbath; (3) the ordinance of the Sabbath; (4) the reason for the Sabbath. The idea of the Sabbath will never be rightly apprehended, unless it is seen to be a union of two laws. The first is the ethical law of humanity, which here predominates; the second is the strictly religious law, which is made prominent in Leviticus 23. The law of the Sabbath would not stand in the decalogue, if it did not have a moral principle to establish as much as the commandments not to kill, commit adultery, or steal. The physical nature shall not be worn out, dishonored, and slowly murdered by restless occupation. Hence the specification: No kind of work or business; and that, not only in reference to son and daughter, man-servant and maid-servant, but also in reference to the beasts themselves and the stranger within the gates of Israel (i.e., in their cities and villages, not in the houses of the stranger), as the foreigner might imagine that he could publicly emancipate himself from this sacred humane ordinance. This point is brought out in Deu 5:14-15; Exo 23:12. It is seen further on, in the sabbatical year and in the great year of jubilee, Reference is made to it in Deu 16:11.That there existed already a tradition of the Sabbath rest, may be inferred from the tradition of the days of creation; so also circumcision as a custom prevailed before the institution of it as a sacrament. But that circumcision, as a patriarchal law, symbolically comprehending all the ten commandments, continued to outrank the Mosaic law of the Sabbath, which was not till now raised to the rank of one of the chief ethical commandments, is shown by the Jewish custom as indicated in Christs declaration, Joh 7:22-23.The ordinance of the Sabbath first specifies the subjects of the command: Those who are to rest are divided into two classes by the omission of the conjunction before (Keil). Next, the degree of rest: , business (comp. Gen 2:2), in distinction from , labor, means not so much the lighter work (Schultz) as rather, in general, the accomplishment of any task, whether hard or easy; is the execution of a particular work, whether agricultural (Psa 104:23), or mechanical (Exo 39:32), or sacerdotal, including both the priestly service and the labor necessary for the performance of the ritual (Exo 12:25 sq., Num 4:47). On the Sabbath, as also on the day of atonement (Lev 23:28; Lev 23:31) every employment was to cease; on the other feast-days, only laborious occupations, (Lev 23:7 sqq.), i.e., occupations which come under the head of toilsome labor, civil business, and the prosecution of ones trade (Keil).The reason: for in six days, etc. This implies that God blessed and hallowed the seventh day because He rested on it (Keil). According to Schultz man should, in a degree, make the pulsations of the divine life his own. So much is certainly true, that the rhythmical antithesis between labor and rest in the divine creation should be not only the prototype, but also the rule for human activity. All the more, inasmuch as not only human nature, but nature in general, needs intervals of rest to keep it from being consumed with disquietude. Hence the commandment contains an ethical principle, a law designed to secure vigor of life, as the sixth commandment protects life itself, Exo 23:12, Deu 5:14 sq. Furthermore is to be considered that the seventh day of God has a beginning, but no end; accordingly mans day of rest should have its issue, not in time, but in eternity (vid. Heb 4:10, Rev 14:13). Keil would here make a distinction between the labor of Paradise and labor after the fall; but the typical days of creation preceded the fall. The positive side of the day of rest, the solemn celebration, first appears in the form of the ritual law of the Sabbath. The ritual makes the day of rest a festival. And, inasmuch as the festival is the soul of the day of rest, a day in which man should rest, and keep holy day in God, as on that day God rests and keeps holy day in man, it could also be transformed from the Jewish Sabbath into the Christian Sunday.

6. Exo 20:12. The fifth commandment. This concludes the first table, and forms at the same time a transition to the second. In the requisition of honor to parents it lays the foundation for the sanctification of all social life, in that it teaches us to recognise a divine authority in it (Oehler, in Herzogs Real-Encyclopdie, under Dekalog). In the parental house the distinction between the dynamical majority that is to train and govern, and the numerical majority which is to be subject to the other, becomes conspicuous: one pair of parents, and perhaps two, three, or four times as many children. Here the government of an absolute majority would be an absolute absurdity. On the fifth commandment vid. Keil, p. 122.

7. The sixth commandment. The protection of life in its existence. It is at the same time the basis of all the following commandments. Lev 19:18, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Hence killing, when permitted or even commanded, is to be regarded as in principle a consequence of the duty of the preservation of life in the higher sense. So the seventh commandment serves to protect marriage as the source of life and the means of keeping it pure; the eighth commandment, to protect property and equity, as the condition of the dignity of life; the ninth commandment, to protect truth and the judiciary against falsehood and slander, as being the spiritual vitiation of life; the tenth commandment, to guard the issues of life from within outwards. The progress from violence to seduction, and thence on to fraud, prepares the way for the transition to the chief sin of the tongue and the chief sin of the thought, primarily as related to ones neighbor. On this mirum et aptum ordinem, as Luther calls it, see Keil II., p. 123. Thus the circle is formed; the law returns to the beginning: only by the sanctification of the heart according to the tenth commandment can the worship of God according to the first commandment be secured.Not kill. Every thing belonging here is taught in the catechism; vid. also Keil, p. 123 (comp. Gen 9:6). In the exposition, suicide, the killing of beasts, etc., are to be considered. By the omission of the object the emphasis lying on the notion of killing is strengthened. In so far as the beast has no complete life, it cannot be killed in the same sense as a man can be. But every form of cruelty to beasts is an offence against the image of human life.

8. Not commit adultery. This commandment holds the same relation to the sixth as the second to the first. Idolatry proper corresponds with the murder of ones neighbor, the latter being an offence against the divine in man. Image-worship, however, corresponds with adultery, as this too rests on a subtle deification of the image of man; it is spiritual idolatry, as image-worship is spiritual adultery, Lev 20:10. Here observe also the expansion of the thought in the catechism, according to which simple whoredom too in all its forms, as well as unchastity, is included.

9. Not steal.Vid. the expansion, Exo 21:33; Exo 22:13; Exo 23:4-5, Deu 22:1-4. The correspondence between this commandment and the misuse of the name of God, which robs God of His honor, is also not to be overlooked. In the case of false oaths in business the two offences coalesce.

10. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. , Deut. , an intensification of the expression. Not only every lying, but in general every untrue and unfounded, testimony is forbidden; also not only testimony before the judge, but in general every untrue testimony (Keil). Aside from the fact that the judicial oaths in court form a sort of religious ceremony, which reminds one of the law of the Sabbath, it is also the office of the Sabbath to suppress the false excitements of the week of labor, out of which sins of the tongue, especially also false testimony, proceed.

11. Thou shalt not covet. The emphasis lies on coveting, not on the several objects of coveting. This emphasis of the inward state is made secure by reckoning the commandment as one. The repetition of [thou shalt not covet] no more proves that the words form two distinct commandments than the substitution of [desire] for [covet] in Deu 5:18 (21) (Keil). The repetition in Exodus gives prominence to the thought that the house, the sum total of domestic life, as a unit, is superior to the individual; in Deut., that the wife, ideally considered, is superior to the house (Pro 12:4; Pro 31:10). Vid. Keils note in reply to Kurtz, who regards the text in Exodus as corrupt.3 The relation between the fifth and the tenth commandment is less marked, yet it may be said: a genuine pupil of a pious house will not covet his neighbors house. The house of God in the pious family keeps peace with the house of the neighbor. Every house is to the pious man a house consecrated by justice, like a house of God.

The Effect

Exo 20:18-21; Deu 5:23-33. According to Keil, the frightful phenomena under which the Lord manifested His majesty made the designed impression on the people. It was indeed designed that the people should be penetrated with the fear of God, in order that they might not sin; but not that in their fear they should stand off and beg Moses as their mediator to talk with God. Hence it is said, God is come to try you. A trial is always a test, which, through the influence of false notions, may occasion a twofold view of it. That the Jews as sinners should be startled by the phenomena of the majesty of God, was the intent of this revelation; but that they should retire trembling and desire a mediator, was a misunderstanding occasioned by their carnal fear and spiritual sluggishness. Here, therefore, is the key to the understanding of the hierarchy. The lay feeling of the people desired a mediating priesthood, which the person of Moses first had to represent. For the priest is the man who can dare to approach God without being overwhelmed with the fear of death (Jer 30:21). The people now, although they have found out by experience that men can hear God speak without dying, yet yield to the fear that they will be destroyed by fire when in immediate intercourse with God (Deu 5:24-25). And because this is now their attitude of soul, Jehovah complies with it (Deu 5:28), just as He afterwards gave to the people a king. This origin of the Old Testament hierarchy explains why immediately afterwards mention is made of altars. In consequence of that arrangement, therefore, the people now stood henceforth afar off: Moses had for the present assumed the whole mediatorship.

Footnotes:

[1] [The exact meaning of here and in Deu 5:7 is disputed. The rendering before me was doubtless meant by our Translators to convey the notion, in my presence = . Perhaps the ordinary reader is apt to understand it to mean, in preference to me. Luther, Kalisch, Geddes, Keil, Knobel, Bunsen, and Riggs (Suggested Emendations), following the LXX. ( ), translate, besides me. De Wette, Rosenmller, Maurer, Philippson, Frst, Arnheim, Bush, Murphy, Cook (in Speakers Commentary), and Lange, following the Vulgate (coram me), translate before me, i.e., in my presence. In order to a satisfactory settlement of the question, it is necessary to investigate the use of the phrase in general. An examination of all the passages in which it occurs yields the following result: The phrase, followed by a Genitive or a Pronominal Suffix, occurs 210 times. In 125 of these cases, it has its literal sense of upon the face (or surface) of; as, e.g., 2Sa 17:19, The woman took and spread a covering over the wells mouth; Gen 50:1, Joseph fell upon his fathers face; or it is merely a longer form for the simpler (upon); as, e.g., Job 5:10, Who sendeth waters upon the fields. The remaining 85 cases are divided as follows: (1) 28 times is used in describing the relation of localities to each other. E.g., Jdg 16:3, Samson carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron. Sometimes (and more properly) in such cases the phrase is rendered over against in the A. V. The other passages in which is thus used are Gen 23:19; Gen 25:9; Gen 25:18; Gen 49:30; Gen 50:13; Num 21:11; Num 33:7; Deu 32:49; Deu 34:1; Jos 13:3; Jos 13:25; Jos 15:8; Jos 17:7; Jos 18:14; Jos 18:16; Jos 19:11; 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 26:1; 1Sa 26:3; 2Sa 2:24; 1Ki 11:7; 1Ki 17:3; 1Ki 17:15; 2Ki 23:13; Eze 48:15; Eze 48:21; Zec 14:4. It is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that in these connections means to the east of, according to the Hebrew mode of conceiving of the cardinal points. For in Jos 18:14 we read of the hill that lieth before () Beth-horon southward; and in Jos 15:8, of the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward. We are rather to suppose that the phrase indicates such a relation of two places as is expressed by over against, the physical conformation of the localities naturally suggesting such a description.(2) We observe, next, that 13 times is used of the position of things in relation to buildings. E.g., 1Ki 6:3, the porch before the temple. In the same verse occurs twice more in the same sense. The other passages are 1Ki 7:6 (bis); Exo 8:8; 2Ch 3:4 (bis), 8, 17; Exo 5:9; Eze 40:15; Eze 42:8. In these cases the meaning is obvious: on the front of, confronting.(3) Six times is used in the sense of towards or down upon after verbs of looking, or (once) of going. E.g., Gen 18:16, The men looked toward (, down upon) Sodom. So Gen 19:28 (bis), Num 21:20; Num 23:28; 2Sa 15:23. Here may be regarded as a fuller form of as sometimes used after verbs of motion.(4) Five times it is used after verbs signifying pass by, and is rendered before. E. g, Exo 33:19, I will make all my goodness pass before thee. So Exo 34:6; Gen 32:22 (21); 2Sa 15:18; Job 4:15. In these passages differs from as used, e.g., in 2Ki 4:31, Gehazi passed on before them; where indicates that Gehazi went on in advance of the others; whereas, e.g., in 2Sa 15:18, the meaning is that the king stopped, and the others went by him.(5) In 12 passages is used after verbs meaning to cast out, and is usually rendered from the presence (or sight) of. They are 1Ki 9:7; 2Ki 13:23; 2Ki 17:18; 2Ki 17:23; 2Ki 24:3; 2Ki 24:20; 2Ch 7:20; Jer 7:15; Jer 15:1; Jer 23:39; Jer 32:31; Jer 52:3. Possibly also Gen 23:3, Abraham stood up from before his dead, i.e., went away from the presence of; but we may understand it more literally, viz., stood up from upon the face of. There is a manifest difference between and . The former is used of a removal from a state of juxtaposition or opposition. The latter is used in the stricter sense of from before. E.g., in Deu 9:4, For the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee (). Here it is not meant that the relation between the Jews and the other nations was to be broken up, but rather that it was never to be formed; whereas, e.g., in Jer 7:15, I will cast you out of my sight, the implication is that the people had been near Jehovah, but were now to be banished.(6) Four times is used with the meaning, to the face of. E.g., Isa 45:3, A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face. So Job 1:11 (parallel with Exo 2:5, where is used); Exo 6:28 (as correctly rendered); Exo 21:31. Here the notion of hostility, often expressed by the simple , is involved.Similar to these are (7) the three passages, Eze 32:10, Nah 2:2 (1), and Psa 21:13 (12), where is used after verbs descriptive of hostile demonstrations, and means either, literally, against the face of, or over against, in defiance.(8) In Exo 20:20, where the A. V. renders, that his fear may be before your faces, the meaning clearly is the same as in such expressions as Exo 15:16, where the simple is used. So Deu 2:25.(9) In one case, Psa 18:43 (42), is used of tho dust before the wind, just as is used in Job 21:18, They are as stubble before the wind.(10) Tho passage, Job 16:14, He breaketh me with breach upon () breach, has no precise parallel. But here, too, it is most natural to understand as a fuller, poetic form for . Comp. Gen 32:12 (11), the mother with () the children; Amo 3:15, I will smite the winter-house with (, i.e., together with, in addition to) the summer-house.(11) There are three passages (possibly four), in which has a peculiar meaning, as denoting the relation of two persons to each other. Haran, we are told, Gen 11:28, died before () his father Terah. This seems to mean, died before his father did. But though such a priority is implied, it is not directly expressed. is sometimes used to denote such priority in time, e.g., Gen 30:30; Exo 10:14; Jos 10:14; but is nowhere clearly used in this sense, so that it is more natural to understand it (as the commentators do) here to mean either in the presence of, or during the life-time of. The next passage, Num 3:4, illustrates the meaning: Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priests office in the sight of () Aaron their father. It is hardly possible that pains would be taken to lay stress on the fact that Aaron saw them acting the part of priests, especially as the verb hardly means anything more than to be priest. Not more admissible is the interpretation of Gesenius and others, who here translate under the supervision of. There is not the faintest analogy for such a meaning of the phrase. At the same time, it is hardly supposable that it can be literally translated, during the life-time of. The notion of physical presence, or nearness, is so uniformly involved in that we must, in strictness, here understand it to mean, over against, in view of, the point of the expression, however, not consisting in the circumstance that Aaron watched them in their ministrations, but that they performed them over against him, i.e., as coupled with him, together with him, (and so) during his life-time. Here belongs also probably Deu 21:16, He may not make the son of the beloved first-born before () the son of the hated. One might naturally understand before here to mean, in preference to; and this certainly would yield an appropriate sensea sense certainly involved, yet probably not directly expressed. At least there is no clear analogy for such a meaning, unless we find it in the passages now under consideration, viz., Exo 20:3 and Deu 5:7. The best commentators understand in Deu 21:16, to mean during the life-time of. An analogous use of is found in Psa 72:5, where it is said of the king, They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, literally before () the sun and moon. Similarly Exo 20:17.The other of the four passages above mentioned is Gen 25:18. There we read: He (i.e., Ishmael) died (literally, fell) in the presence of () his brethren. There is now, however, general unanimity in translating here settled rather than died, so that the passage is to be reckoned in the following class, in which also the relation of persons to each other is expressed, but in a somewhat different sense.(12) Knobel explains in Gen 25:18 as = to the east of. So Del., Lange, Keil, Maurer, De W., and others. But, as we have already seen, does not have this meaning. This passage is to be explained by the parallel one, Gen 16:12, where it is also said of Ishmael, He shall dwell in the presence of () all his brethren. Here the context is, His hand will be against every man, and every mans hand against him; and he shall dwell all his brethren. Keil and Lange are unable to satisfy themselves with the interpretation east of here; and it is clear that that would not be a statement at all in place here, even if ordinarily had the meaning east of. Evidently the angel expresses the fact that the Ishmaelites were to dwell over against their brethren as an independent, defiant, nation. If so, then Exo 25:18 is to be understood in the same way, as a statement of the fulfilment of the prophecy here made. In addition to these two passages there are three others in which the relation of persons to each other is expressed. They are Lev 10:3, Psa 9:20 (19), and Jer 6:7. In the first we read that Jehovah said, Before () all the people I will be glorified; this is preceded by the statement, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. The verse follows the account of the destruction of Nadah and Abihu. To render in view of, or in the presence of, would make good and appropriate sense; and certainly it is implied that by the summary punishment of the presumptuous priests Jehovah intended to glorify Himself in the sight of His people. Yet, while men are frequently represented as being or acting before () Jehovah, it is extremely unusual to speak of Jehovah as being or doing anything before (in the sight of) men. And since, if that were here meant, would probably have been used, it is much better here to understand the meaning to be over against, implying separation and contrast. Likewise Psa 9:20 (19): Let the heathen be judged in thy sight (). Certainly the meaning cannot simply be: Let the heathen be judged, while God looks on as a spectator. God is Himself the judge; and the heathen are to be judged over against Him; i.e., in such a way as to exhibit the contrast between them and Him. There remains only Jer 6:7, Before me () continually is grief and wounds. The context describes the prospective destruction of Jerusalem. Her wickedness is described in Exo 20:7 : As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness; violence and spoil is heard in her; before me continually is grief and wounds (sickness and blows). Undoubtedly this implies that the manifestations of the wickedness of the people were in Jehovahs sight; but here, too, there is implied the notion that these things are over against Him: on the one side, Jehovah in His holiness: on the other, Jerusalem in her wickedness. This conception is naturally suggested by the representation that Jehovah is about to make war upon her.

Having now given a complete exhibition of the use of in all the other passages, we are prepared to consider what it means in the first commandment. Several things may be regarded as established: (i) is far from being synonymous with . The latter is used hundreds of times in the simple sense of before in reference to persons; the former is used most frequently of places, and in all cases has more or less of its ordinary meaning, upon, or against (over against), (ii) The phrase has nowhere unequivocally the meaning besides. The nearest approach to this is in Job 16:14, under (10), where may be rendered in addition to. But this is not quite the same as besides, and the phrase has there evidently a poetic use. A solitary case like this, where too not persons, but things, are spoken of, is altogether insufficient to establish the hypothesis that in the first commandment means besides. (iii) The most general notion conveyed by the phrase in question is that of one object confronting another. Leaving out of account, as of no special pertinency, those instances in which it verges upon the literal sense of upon (or against) the face of, and those in which the meaning of predominates, (viz., classes (3), (6), (7), (8), (10), we find that all others are sufficiently explained by this generic notion of confronting. Thus, in all the cases where places are spoken of as one another, class (1); where objects are described as in front of buildings, class (2); and where persons are spoken of as passing in front of others, class (4).So, too, in the cases in which is used, class (5), in every instance it follows a verb which implies a previous state of hostility; men are to be removed from being over against Jehovah, from confronting Him with their offensive deeds.So the instance in Psa 18:43 (42), class (9); the dust before the wind is compared with Gods enemies destroyed by Him; the dust confronting the wind illustrates the powerlessness of men confronting an angry God.So the examples under (12). The translation over against satisfies all of the cases. A relation of contrast and opposition is implied.Likewise, also, the three passages under (11). The son of the beloved wife (Deu 21:16) is not to bo invested with the rights of primogeniture over against the son of the hated one, i.e., in contrast with, distinction from, the other one, while yet by natural right the latter is entitled to the privilege. The phrase may here, therefore, be understood to mean in preference to, or in the life-time of, but neither one nor the other literally and directly, yet both one and the other by implication. In Num 3:4 Aarons sons are represented as being priests over against their father, i.e., not succeeding him, but together with him, as two hills, instead of being distant from one another, are, as it were, companions, confronting each other. So in Gen 11:28 Haran is said to have died over against his father. In his death he confronted his father, i.e., did not, as most naturally happens, die after him, when his father would have been taken away from being with him. By thus anticipating his father in his decease he, as it were, passed in front of him, confronted him, so that this case is quite analogous to those under class (4). In this case, therefore, as in some others, tho meaning of closely borders upon that of , yet is not the same.

The application of this discussion to Exo 20:3 and Deu 5:7 is obvious. Israel is to have no other gods over against Jehovah. The simple meaning before, i.e., in the presence of, would have little point and force, and besides would have been expressed by . The meaning besides would have been expressed by ,, or some other of the phrases having that meaning. The meaning over against, the usual meaning of the phrase, is perfectly appropriate here. All false gods are opposed to tho true God. The worship of them is incompatible with the worship of Jehovah. The command therefore is, Thou shalt have no other gods to confront me, to be set up as rival objects of service and adoration. All that is pertinent in the other two renderings is involved hero. Gods that are set up over against Jehovah may be said to be before Him, in His sight; that they are gods besides, in addition to, Him, is a matter of course: but, more than this, they are gods opposed to Him.Tr.].

[2]In modern discussions of this subject, the Augustinian division is defended by Sonntag, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 61 sqq. and 1837, p. 243 sqq., and by Kurtz in his History of the Old Covenant, III., p. 123 sqq., and in the Kirchl. Zeitschrift of Kliefoth and Meier, 1835, parts 46. The Lutheran view, by C. W. Otto, Dekalog. Untersuchungen, Halle, 1857. The Reformed view, as the original one, and the one borne out by the text, by Zllig, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1837, p. 47 sqq.; J. Geffken, in the above-mentioned treatise, which fully treats the historical testimony; Berthean, Die 7 Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze, Gttingen, 1840, p. 10 sqq.; Oehler, in Herzogs Realencyklopdie, Art. Dekalog; by anonymous writers in the Evang. Kirchenzeitung, 1857, No. 62 sq., and in the Erlanger Zeitschrift fr Protestantismus, Vol. 33, parts 1 and 2; finally, by F. W. Schultz, in a full, thorough, and candid treatment, of the question in Rudelbach and Guerickes Zeitschrift, 1858, part 1, and in his Comm. on Deu 5:6 sqq.E. in the Erlanger Zeitschrift, Vol. 36, part 4, p. 298 sqq.; and Knobel on Exodus 20., enter the lists for the Rabbinical view. Finally, E. Meier, Die ursprngliche Form des Dekalogs (Mannheim, 1836) launches out into arbitrary conjectures (Keil). See more on Rabbini al and Catholic divisions in Keil II., p. 111, and Bertheau, p. 13. [Comp. also Stanley, Jewish Church, Lect. VII., and the Article Ten Commandments in Smiths Bible Dictionary, and Decalogue in Kittos Cyclopedia.Tr.]

[3][The note is not given in the English edition. Kurtz argues that lusting after ones neighbors wife, and coveting his possessions, are two quite distinct sins; hence he regards the use of two distinct verbs for the two sins in Deuteronomy as the most accurate form of the commandments, and therefore conjectures that through some copyist the text of Exodus has been changed. He confesses, however, that there is no external evidence of any weight in favor of the conjecture.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The former Chapter was preparatory to this. In that, we saw the very solemn and awful manner in which Jehovah was pleased to manifest the tokens of his presence, on Mount Sinai. And in this, we have the declarations he made, in the delivery of the Ten Commandments to the people. The effect this discourse, accompanied with the awful signs, had upon the people. Their request to Moses, to act as their Mediator upon this occasion; and the will of God communicated unto them by Moses, are also related in this Chapter.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Observe the argument the Lord is pleased to make use of, for more strongly enforcing the divine precepts that follow in this Chapter. He saith I am the Lord. The Lord, the Creator, the first self-existing cause of all. His authority therefore is indisputable, to command. But this is not all. I am the Lord that God; that is, thy God in a covenant way; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Exo 9:25 . Neither is this all. He asserts his authority not merely by right of Creation, and covenant engagements, but also by redemption: that brought thee out of Egypt. Reader! See whether you know God under these precious characters also: for then your language will be like that of the Psalmist, Psa 116:16 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Exo 20:1

‘We have had thirty years of unexampled clerical activity among us,’ said Froude to the St. Andrews’ students in 1869. ‘Churches have been doubled; theological books, magazines, reviews, newspapers have been passed out by the hundreds of thousands; while by the side of it there has sprung up an equally astonishing development of moral dishonesty…. We have false weights, false measures, cheating and shoddy everywhere. Yet the clergy have seen all this grow up in absolute indifference; and the great question which at this moment is agitating the Church of England is the colour of the ecclesiastical petticoats. Many a hundred sermons have I heard in England, many a dissertation on the mysteries of the faith, on the divine mission of the clergy, on apostolical succession, on bishops, and justification, and the theory of good works, and verbal inspiration, and the efficacy of the sacrament; but never, during these thirty wonderful years, never one that I can recollect on common honesty, or these primitive commandments, Thou shalt not lie, and Thou shalt not steal.’ The teaching of art is the suggestion far more convincing than assertion of an ethical science, the germs of which are to the mass of mankind incommunicable; and the broad daylight of this teaching can be diffused only by those who live in and absorb the direct splendour of an unknown, and, to the generality, an unknowable sun. The mere ignoring of morality, which is what the more respectable of modern artists profess, will not lift them into the region of such teachers; much less will the denial of morality do so, as some modern artists seem to think. The Decalogue is not art, but it is the guide-post which points direct to where the source of art springs; and it is now, as in the days when Numa and Moses made their laws: he is profane who presents to the gods the fruit of an unpruned vine; that is, sensitive worship before the sensitive soul has been sanctified by habitual confession of and obedience to the rational; and still worse than he who offers the Muses the ‘false fire’ of his gross senses, is he who heats the flesh-pots of Egypt with flames from the altar, and renders emotions, which were intended to make the mortal immortal, themselves the means and the subjects of corruption. Of all kinds of corruption, says St. Francis of Sales, the most malodorous is rotten lilies.

Coventry Patmore, Religio Poet, pp. 88, 89.

There is no strange self-deceit more deeply and obstinately fixed in men’s hearts than this: that those whom God favours may take liberties that others may not; that religious men may venture more safely to transgress than others; that good men may allow themselves to do wrong things. There is no more certain fact in the range of human experience than that with strong and earnest religious feeling there may be a feeble and imperfect hold on the moral law, often a very loose sense of justice, truth, purity…. All history is full of warnings: of great religious characters spoiled or distorted, of great religious efforts hopelessly marred and degenerate, because in the eagerness and confidence of a good intention the Ten Commandments were left on one side, or kept out of view, or it was taken for granted that of course they were obeyed, because people meant to do God service.

R. W. Church, Discipline of Christian Character, pp. 41, 48.

References. XX. 1. T. F. Lockyer, The Inspirations of the Christian Life, p. 19. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 37. H. Scott Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxix. 1906, p. 264. XX. 1, 2. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxi. 1902, p. 214. XX. 1-11. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Exodus, etc., p. 97. XX. 1-17. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. li. No. 2928.

Exo 20:2

‘I have many times essayed,’ said Luther in his Table-Talk, ‘thoroughly to investigate the Ten Commandments; but at the very outset, “I am the Lord thy God,” I stuck fast; that very one word, I, put me to a non-plus. He that has but one word of God before him, and out of that word cannot make a sermon, can never be a preacher.’

From Egypt to Canaan

Exo 20:2

Life is a journey, on which we did not start for ourselves to travel to God; but He started us. He brought us out of the dark night of nothingness, and made us living creatures; He gave us man’s powers of thinking and working and loving. It was not, we may be sure, for nothing. This is true of the life of each one of us; it is true of that larger life of which we are each one little part, the life of mankind on earth. What God begins, He means to carry on, and to bring to a good end. And so the very root truth of religion is this: God is, and there is a purpose in life.

I. Redemption has been wrought for us; and we walk in the light of it. Egypt and the Red Sea lie behind. Consider what this means. What is the bondage under which the world groans? (1) There is the bondage of sin: the evil which holds us, and we cannot do right. But Jesus Christ broke that bondage once for all by being entirely and perfectly good; by making a good human life a living reality, and not merely a dream; so that now even our imperfect goodnesses, joining on to Him, have got a sure promise of victory. (2) There is the bondage of guilt. But Jesus Christ broke that bondage too, He ‘made peace through the blood of His Cross’. (3) There is once more the bondage of pain and grief and death: but Christ suffered every pain of that iron slavery; He died the death of the slave, and through death, like a new Red Sea, passed to victory.

II. How true it is that the Christian Church is the body which bears the stamp of that deliverance. You see it in her faith; in her sure and certain hope; in her patience and her joy. She knows whence she started: the start has made her sure of the finish.

III. And that is what in the Church each of us must learn. The true Christian is a man upon whose life, mind, and character a great deliverance from God has set its stamp. The power of it was given to each of us in our baptism. That is our beginning; from it we are to go, sure that God is with us, sure that He will be with us to bring us through; sure that He Who brought us out of Egypt has strength to bring us to Canaan, and means to do it; sure that He will perform the cause which we have in hand.

This is what gives its strength and firmness to the Christian character, and lights it with hope and joy and peace which are not of the world. But this also is what makes us penitent. What will stir us really to repent is not to be told that if we do perhaps God will redeem us, but to know of a surety that He has redeemed us; that we have been forgetfully, ungratefully, rebelliously sinning against our redemption; but that the Redeemer, with His longsuffering patience, waits for us to turn to Him, and when we do so, will accomplish for us His Redemption.

Bishop Talbot, Sermons Preached in the Leeds Parish Church, 1889-95, p. 117.

Reference. XX. 2, 3. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. 1900, p. 155.

Exo 20:3

‘What is the whole Psalter,’ said Luther, ‘but merely thought and exercises on the First Commandment?’

‘It is evident to my reason that the existence of God,’ says Coleridge in his Omeriana, ‘is absolutely and necessarily insusceptible of a scientific demonstration, and that Scripture has so represented it. For it commands us to believe in one God. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have none other gods but Me. Now all commandment necessarily relates to the will; whereas all scientific demonstration is independent of the will.’

All self-sacrifice, made solely for the love of man, or for the gratification of some merely human ambition, is not a righteous but a sinful thing and, as sin, will assuredly find its punishment. This furnishes, apparently, a solution to the great mystery, why so many noble self-sacrifices are so futile, so aimless, so positively injurious. ‘I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have none other gods but Me.’ If we make to ourselves idols of any sort that is, if we allow love to conquer right, and set aside what we ought to do in favour of what we like to do, we suffer accordingly and God Himself, who is justice as well as mercy, cannot save us from suffering.

Mrs. Craik, Sermons Out of Church, pp. 39-40.

References. XX. 3. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. ix. p. 240. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 105; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 129. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The School of Christ, p. 73. W. C. E. Newbolt, Church Times, vol. xxix. 1891, p. 1059. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. 1900, p. 61. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxi. 1902, p. 264.

Exo 20:4

‘In regard to idolatry,’ says Melanchthon to Calvin in Landor’s Imaginary Conversations, ‘I see more criminals who are guilty of it than you do. I go beyond the stone quarry and the pasture, beyond the graven image and the ox-stall. If we bow before the distant image of God, while there exists within our reach one solitary object of substantial sorrow, which sorrow our efforts can remove, we are guilty (I pronounce it) of idolatry; we prefer the intangible effigy to the living form. Surely we neglect the service of our Maker if we neglect His children.’

Exo 20:4

There is a whole life reluctant as well as a life consenting. The involuntary words, the thoughts we would not think, the things we would not do, and those that we do not love, are among the strongest influences of our lives.

Miss Thackeray in Old Kensington.

References. XX. 4. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, pp. 123, 321; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 145. XX. 4, 5. J. Hamilton, Faith in God, p. 61. XX. 4, 5, 6. Bishop Gore, Church Times, vol. xliii. 1900, p. 315; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. 1900, p. 161. G. S. Barrett, ibid. vol. lxi. 1902, p. 358.

An Inheritance of Blessing

Exo 20:5-6

I. Visiting the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children. The Jews spoke of that visitation as a Divine punishment for a particular sin. Here we have a law of nature, a law which is continually fulfilling itself in that district of nature which we call human society. The moral struggle of each man that is born into the world is made harder for him by each failure to resist sin on the part of those who went before him. When we hear men speak of the law of heredity, it is this that they generally have in their minds, the transmitted tendency to evil.

II. Visiting the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children . Is that all? Nay; for He shows mercy unto thousands of them, that love Him and keep His commandments.

The inheritance of evil is not the sole inheritance which we receive from our forefathers. The scathing satire which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Antony:

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones,

was certainly not intended to teach that the influence of evil is more potent than the influence of good. There is no law of life which tells that evil tendencies are handed down from father to son which does not tell us more plainly that good tendencies are. That, indeed, is the very law by which the world grows. The survival of the fittest what does it mean but that good is more enduring than evil? That evil propagates itself is true; but in each succeeding generation its influence becomes less and less baneful. The curse is to the third and fourth generation. Good, on the other hand, increases in power and in fertility as it is handed on from one to another in the march of the race.

III. The true inheritance of the Christian soul is the grace of Jesus Christ, Incarnate, tempted, suffering, but victorious over sin as over death. Here again is a heritage which comes to you through no conscious act of your own. Just as surely as the disciplined lives of your fathers make it easier for you to lead disciplined lives, far more surely than the sins of your fathers beset you in your conflict with sin is the grace of Christ yours for battle, for endurance, for achievement. Here at least is an inheritance with no taint of evil, which may be used for yourselves and for those who shall come after you in untold blessing. Ye see your calling. And the Voice which calls you is the Voice of Jesus Christ Himself, in whose Body ye are very members incorporate.

J. H. Bernard, Via Domini, p. 92.

References. XX. 5. G. Tyrrell, Oil and Wine, p. 230. C. Kingsley, Sermons on National Subjects, pp. 144, 153. XX. 5, 6. A. H. Moncure Sime, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. 1897, p. 74. W. G. Elmslie, Expository Lectures and Sermons, p. 150.

Exo 20:7

‘Many persons,’ says Julius Hare in Guesses at Truth, ‘are so afraid of breaking the third commandment that they never speak of God at all; and to make assurance doubly sure, never think of Him. Others seem to interpret it by the law of contraries: for they never take God’s name except in vain.

The Sacred Banner

Exo 20:7

The Hebrew word translated ‘take’ has sometimes been connected by commentators with the solemn phrase which refers to Jehovah’s name as the banner or standard under which we advance to work or to fight. It was under that standard that Moses and Joshua secured the first victory of the Lord’s people in the earliest beginning of their national life and recorded it in the name of Jehovah Nissi the Lord my banner.

I. New Tests of Loyalty. ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.’ The temptation comes in two different ways. Have we a right to claim the title and privileges of Christian believers in the Lord God if we are ceasing firmly and courageously and openly to defend His banner the banner under which we were enlisted in Baptism from those who do it wrong? If we think that nothing in the realm of belief matters very much, it is not likely that we shall be particularly brave or outspoken in its defence. To claim as a Christian, the ‘holy sanction’ of our Redeemer’s Name means, or ought to mean, a quite deliberate admission of the demands, sometimes the exacting demands, to which membership in His society makes us liable.

The Church has been put in trust with a sacred deposit of essential truth which God has in Jesus Christ revealed to man, and no respect for other people’s opinions, much less any mere good-natured and almost careless kindliness, will justify us in tampering with that deposit or belittling its unique authority.

II. The Spirit of Persecution. We must be not less sternly on our guard against too ready an appropriation of that sacred banner and its sanctions, on behalf of every honest opinion which we may any of us form in matters of Christian faith or Christian usage. There is more than one way in which genuinely religious people can take the Name of the Lord their God in vain.

III. Conscience and the Law. The danger is, I suppose, greatest when we reach the border, or cross the border of what is commonly called the realm of conscience. Is it possible that the old-fashioned reverence for law and order shown forth in things Divine and human, in Nature and in national life, has somewhat waned amongst us, and not least amongst earnestly religious men?

IV. ‘Verities’ and ‘Opinions’. There are great things and small, great issues and small, in our religious life. There are mighty and unchallengeable verities, the things which cannot be shaken, and there are pious and reasonable opinions, and devout and wholesome usages which stand upon a humbler level, and are neither unchallengeable nor unchallenged. Do not confuse the two kinds of verities, or mistake the one for the other.

Archbishop Davidson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. LXXII. 1907, p. 218.

References. XX. 7. Bishop Gore, Church Times, vol. xlii. 1899, p. 174. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 143; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 321. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. 1900, p. 301. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 27.

Exo 20:8

What is meant by to ‘keep holy’? Nothing but to devote ourselves to holy words, works, and life. For the day requires no special hallowing: it is holy in itself; but God wills that it be holy to thee.

Luther.

There was a time when it delighted me to flash my satire on the English Sunday; I could see nothing but antiquated foolishness and modern hypocrisy in this weekly pause from labour and from bustle. Now I prize it as an inestimable boon, and dread every encroachment upon its restful stillness…. The idea is surely as good a one as ever came to heavy-laden mortals; let one whole day in every week be removed from the common life of the world, lifted above common pleasures as above common cares. With all the abuses of fanaticism, this thought remained rich in blessings; …if its ancient use perish from among us, so much the worse for our country.

George Gissing, Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft, pp. 86-87.

References. XX. 8. J. Percival, Some Helps for School Life, p. 186. C. Holland, Gleanings from a Ministry of Fifty Years, p. 233. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 163; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 337. R. W. Church, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 337. XX. 8, 9. E. Fowle, Plain Preaching to Poor People (3rd Series), p. 25. XX. 8, 11. Lyman Abbott, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 412. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 13. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 84. XX. 9. W. J. Hocking, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xli. 1892, p. 284. J. H. Shakespeare, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 248. XX. 10. A. Murray, The Children for Christ, p. 100.

Exo 20:12

In the first of his lectures on Alexandria and Her Schools Kingsley applies this commandment to the true relation of one generation to another. ‘On reverence for the authority of bygone generations, depends the permanence of every form of thought or belief, as much as of all social, national, and family life: but on reverence of the spirit, not of the letter; of the methods of our ancestors, not of their conclusions.’

And this is maternity to give the best years and best love to ensure the fate of being despised.

Thomas Hardy, The Return of the Native.

‘I don’t know who would be a mother,’ says Mrs. Transome to her son in Felix Holt (chap. 11.), ‘if she could foresee what a slight thing she will be to her son when she is old.’ And in her essay on Riehl, George Eliot observes how ‘among rustic moral tales and parables’ of the German peasantry, ‘not one is more universal than the story of the ungrateful children, who made their grey-headed father, dependent on them for a maintenance, eat at a wooden trough, because he shook the food out of his trembling hands. Then these same ungrateful children observed one day that their own little boy was making a tiny wooden trough; and when they asked him what it was for, he answered that his father and mother might eat out of it, when he was a man and had to keep them.’

Of all forms of self-elevation, the one which, even when it amounts to absolute self-sacrifice, we cannot but regard with very tender and lenient eyes, is the devotion of the young to the old, of children to parents. No doubt, there is a boundary beyond which even this ought not to be permitted; but the remedy lies on the elder side. There are such things as unworthy, selfish, exacting parents, to whom duty must be done, simply for the sake of parenthood, without regarding their personality. ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ is the absolute command, bounded by no proviso as to whether the parents are good or bad. Of course no one can literally ‘honour’ that which is bad still one can respect the abstract bond, in having patience with the individual. But I think every high or honourable instinct in human nature will feel that there is hardly a limit to be set to the devotion of a child to a good parent righteous devotion, repaying to a failing life all that its own young life once received, of care and comfort and blessing.

Mrs. Craik, Sermons Out of Church, pp. 37-38.

References. XX. 12. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 187; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xl. 1891, p. 353. A. Murray, The Children for Christ, p. 108. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 93. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 139. XX. 12-21. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Exodus, etc., p. 107.

Exo 20:13

Catholics still revere the memory of Carlo Borromeo, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, who gave his blessing to Campion and Parson, on their way to stir up rebellion in England, as well as in Ireland, and to assassinate Elizabeth if opportunity should serve. God said, ‘Thou shalt do no murder’. The Pope, however, thought that God had spoken too broadly, and that some qualification was required. The sixth commandment could not have been intended for the protection of heretics; and the Jesuits, if they did not inspire, at least believed him.

Herbert Paul, Life of Froude, p. 140.

References. XX. 13. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 209; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xli. 1892, p. 1. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 156.

Exo 20:14

The Bible is God’s great Police Court, as well as His Temple, and till life ceases to be coarse, lessons on coarseness will be needed.

Edward Thring.

Those who penetrate below the surface of society cannot bring themselves to speak lightly of these sins. They are destructive alike to the family and to the State. For the State is based on justice, and voluptuousness is a cruel injustice, for it engages in a combat which is both unequal and cowardly; the aggressor risks comparatively nothing, and the victim risks all.

Vinet.

References. XX. 14. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 233. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 294.

Exo 20:15

Under ‘stealing, generically taken,’ says Carlyle, ‘you may include the whole art of scoundrelism; for what is lying itself but a theft of my belief?’

So far as a nation is to be considered a natural being, ‘thou shalt not steal’ is as much a natural law as ‘thou shalt not breathe without oxygen’. National life is as impossible without honesty as natural life without oxygen.

Miss Wedgwood, Message of Israel, p. 280.

What is there in the world worth lying, or robbing, or ferociously striving for? If one could cheat death by cheating one’s neighbour, there might be some sense in it. If one could steal genius or knowledge could filch away ‘this man’s art and that man’s scope’ in that, too, there would be some show of reason. But nothing worth having is capable of being stolen, either by force or fraud. What can be stolen, or otherwise basely acquired, is the means of enjoying the pleasures of ostentation, sensuality, or sport the very things which a religion of the intellect would most decisively discount.’

Let Youth But Know, p. 198.

References. XX. 15. S. Pearson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. 1897, p. 99. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lviii. 1900, p. 326. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 416. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 257.

Exo 20:16

Dr. Johnson, once arguing with Garrick and Gifford on the lack of accent and emphasis in actors’ reading, declared, ‘Well now, I’ll give you something to speak, with which you are little acquainted, and then we shall see how just my observation is. That shall be the criterion. Let me hear you repeat the ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.’ ‘Both tried at it,’ says Boswell, reporting a friend’s account of the incident, ‘and both mistook the emphasis, which should be upon not and false witness. Johnson put them right, and enjoyed his victory with great glee.’

References. XX. 16. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 281. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. 1901, p. 13. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiii. 1903, p. 35. XX. 17. F. W. Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 302; see also Christian World Pulpit, vol. xli. 1892, p. 177. G. Campbell Morgan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. 1901, p. 116. G. S. Barrett, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiii. 1903, p. 123. XX. 18-20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxv. No. 2097.

Exo 20:19

As men’s prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect. They say with those foolish Israelites, ‘Let not God speak to us lest we die. Speak thou, speak any man with us, and we will obey.’ Everywhere I am hindered of meeting God in my brother, because he has shut his own temple doors and recites fables merely of his brother’s or his brothers’ brother’s God.

Emerson on Self-Reliance.

Let nothing come between you and the light. Respect men as brothers only. When you travel to the Celestial City, carry no letter of introduction. When you knock, ask to see God none of the servants. Thoreau.

The Children of Israel in times past said unto Moses, ‘Speak thou unto us, and we will hear: let not the Lord God speak to us, lest we die’. Not so, Lord, not so do I beseech Thee. Let not Moses nor any of the prophets speak to me, but rather Thou Thyself, who inspirest and enlightenest all prophets. For Thou, apart from them, canst instruct me perfectly, whereas without Thee they can avail nothing. Let not Moses therefore speak unto me, but Thou, O Lord my God, the Truth Eternal, lest I die and prove unfruitful, being only warmed outwardly and not kindled inwardly.

The Imitatio Christi (vol. IV. chap. II.).

References. XX. 21. ‘Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. ii. p. 89. XX. 23. H. Scott Holland, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxix. 1906, p. 280. XX. 24. (R.V.) F. S. Webster, In Remembrance of Me, p. 11.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

The Commandments

Exodus 19-20

We cannot get rid of Sinai in human education. If we persuade ourselves by some false reasoning that the things recorded in these chapters did not literally happen, we are playing the fool with ourselves. God could only come to us at the first by the letter. He touches us by infinite accommodations of his own nature and by a gracious study of our own. This is the plague of the imperfect reason, that it will quibble about the incident, the wrappage, and decoration of things. It seems to be unable to penetrate to inmost thoughts, essences, qualities, and meanings. Sinai is in every life. Let us part with as much as we can of the merely external, and still there remains the fact that in our lives are lightnings, and thunderings, and great trumpetings of power, as well as solemn claims and urgent appeals to every quality and force in our nature. Who has not been in stony places in the carrying out of his education, great, black, inhospitable localities, well called wildernesses; wild and howling deserts; mountains of stone; embodiments of difficulty; types of arduous discipline and inexorable demand? Why play the fool? Why miss the wine of God’s grace and wisdom by asking narrow or foolish questions about the vessel which contains it, when within the whole mystery of life there stands the barren mountain the inhospitable sand stretches mile on mile on every hand and nothing speaks to us in all the terrific scene but law, claim, and obligation the tremendous demand of an unyielding creditor, who has come to arrest and imprison us until the uttermost farthing be paid? Our spiritual experience makes the letter quite small. There are still those who are asking questions about the local Sinai, the narrow and comparatively trivial incident, and are missing all the poetry of the occasion, not hearing the Divine and solemn voice, and not answering the sublime demand for more perfect purification, completer refinement, and profounder obedience. Why not start our inquiries from the other side? What is this voice of law? What is this standard of discipline which forces itself upon our moral attention? What is this claim that is pressed upon us by every variety of expression which follows us, now affrontingly, now pleading, according to the moral phase which we exhibit towards it? Did we begin our inquiry at that end, and so come along the line of revelation, Sinai, the local mountain, and the desert, and all trumpetings, thunderings, lightnings, tempests, all upheavals, and earthquakes, and terrible scenes, would fall into their right proportion and relation, and the one sovereign thought would be, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

Instead of looking at the commandments one by one, and thus running the risk of missing their whole meaning, let us look at the commandments in their totality and call them One Commandment with many different phases, and aspects, and bearings upon human life.

What is the teaching of that great law pronounced from heaven? Is there any grace in it? Is there any touch of love? Is there any trembling of pathos? Is it all hard iron? Is it all tremendous exaction, pitiless, tyrannous claim? Have we always read the commandments aright? and have we been just to their innermost meaning when we have characterised them as hard? I think not. What do these commandments urge upon us? A right view of God. That is the first injunction. We are called to right theology not of a formal and technical, but of a moral and spiritual kind. The great movement of the heart must first of all be Godward. We cannot work until the soul is brought into the right mood and proper quality by a full perception of the sovereignty and righteous claim and tender grace of God. We cannot break in upon the commandments where we please, and obey the law in parts and parcels. There is a temptation to think we can do so. We are sometimes tempted to think that we can keep the eighth commandment, but not the fifth; the fourth, but not the ninth; the tenth, but not the first, and so on. That is impossible. To keep one commandment is to keep all; to offend in one commandment is to break all. This may not seem to be so on the surface; but a complete analysis of the occasion and circumstances will result in the finding that the commandments are one law, complete, indivisible, only set forth in points and aspects for the convenience of learners, and as an accommodation to the infirmity or incompleteness of children. First of all, then, we are called to a right view of God. We cannot move one step in a right direction until something like this view has been realised. Every succeeding commandment will be dumb to us, if we have not entered into the mystery of the first. What is God to us? What are his claims upon us? What is there in us that responds to his presence, and that, so to say, reveals him before he comes with any obvious manifestation of his personality upon us? Are we akin? Are we his children? Is there any sound in the ear or the heart which, being interpreted, means, “In the beginning God made man in his own image and likeness”? That is our first study. We shall be mere moralists if we begin at the second commandment. That is so-called legalism and morality, the pedantry which snaps off the commandments from the great central stem and treats them as separate particles, as isolated possibilities of virtue. We must come from the Divine point, from the spiritual communion of the soul with God, and then the commandments will come upon our souls as appeals to our power, and as sweet necessities, not as arbitrary impositions and tyrannies.

What next have we in this consolidated commandment? Having a right view of God, we have a right view, in the next place, of labour. God condescends to take notice of our working ways, of our allotments and appointments of a temporal kind. The voice of mercy is in this injunction regarding labour. In effect, God says to us, “You must not always toil; your heads must not be bent down in continual proneness to the earth; you may labour six days, but the seventh part of your time should be devoted to spiritual communion, to the culture of the upper and better nature, to the promotion of your higher and nobler education.” This is the gracious law; but, say, is this law without tears? Is this commandment without grace? Is there no mercy here? Is there not a subtle allusion to an earlier charter in which God made man to commune with himself? If you are doomed to seven days’ work, it is against God’s mind. If any have to work seven days for the mouthful of bread they need, it is the doing of an enemy; it is not the claim of God. I ask you to praise him for this defence of feeble human nature and this plea for a higher human education. Do not fritter away the blessing by technical inquiry and pedantic analysis of meaning. The sublime, infinite purpose is this: that man is more than a labourer; he is a worshipper; he is a kinsman of God; he has belongings in the sky. A religion that thus comes to me and takes me away from my toil, and bids me rest awhile and think of the larger quantities, and the more ample time, and the heavenly kingdoms, is a religion I cannot afford to do without. It is a religion of grace; it is a religion which knows my necessities, pities my infirmities, spares my wasting strength. The Sabbath, in its spiritual aspect and meaning, is one of the strongest defences of the inspiration of the Bible and the Divinity of the religion which it reveals. It is man’s day and God’s day; more thoroughly man’s day because completely God’s day. It is their united time, time of fellowship, hour of communion, opportunity for deeper reading, larger prayer, and Diviner consecration.

Having a right view of God and a right view of labour, we have also a right view of physiology. The Bible takes care of man’s body. Thou shalt not waste it; thou shalt not poison it; thou shalt not degrade the inner nature by a prostitution of the outer constitution. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” A commandment which so speaks to us is associated with a religion that is no merely spiritual phantasy. This is a practical monitor. It enters every room, remains in the house night and day, tarries as a guest seven days a week, goes out with us to the marketplace, takes care of our bodily ablution and cleansing, and regards the sanctity of the body with a Divine care. Who are they that tell us that the Bible religion is a superstition, an affair of fancy, something having in it bright points here and there, and to be treated with proportionate respect? The Bible searches us, tries us, and finds if there is any wicked way in us, and is as careful about the body in its degree as about the soul in its higher plane, because nobler quantity. No man ill-treats his body with the permission of the Bible; no soul quenches its thirst at forbidden wells with the sanction of the Book which we believe to be God’s. The Bible would keep society sweet, would watch over our life with ineffable tenderness, would have us right in tone, wholesome, good at every point. A book so graciously exacting, charged with so Divine a spirit of discipline, is a book which will survive every assault made upon it, and return to the confidence of man after many an act of apostacy and ingratitude on his part.

A right view of God, a right view of labour, a right view of physiology, and then a right view of society. Not only is God interested in the individual man, he is also interested in the social, imperial, national world humanity. What says he? “Thou shalt not kill,” however hot thy blood, thou shalt not kill; however apparently just thine anger, restrain thyself, lift not the hand to strike, have no weapon in thy fist, “Thou shalt not kill.” Woe betide society when it holds human life lightly, when it regards human existence as a mere trifle in an infinite aggregate of circumstances and events! Blessed be that society which numbers the hairs of its children, in which a sparrow is not lost without knowledge, and in which a gracious economy will gather up the fragments that nothing be lost! This is Christian society which will not allow one chair to be vacant. Seeing that vacant chair, Christian solicitude becomes akin to Divine agony; a parental yearning makes the heart sore because one little child is absent, one wanderer is not at home, one man is missing.

“Thou shalt not steal.” It is not enough to be less than a murderer, we must be honest, not superficially honest, not having hands merely untainted with overt crime, and theft, and felony; but thoroughly honest, sweet in the soul, really, superbly, almost Divinely honest in thought, in speech, in feeling, and in all the relations of life. Where is there an honest man, except in the common and superficial sense of a man who is not a thief? Honesty is not a negative virtue; honesty is a positive excellence. It renders to every man his due; it steals no man’s reputation; it trifles with the property of no heart; it is more anxious to give than to take away. “Thou shalt not covet.” We are becoming more spiritual still. “Thou shalt not kill,” to that we assented readily; “Thou shalt not steal,” to that we also assented with large concession; “Thou shalt not covet,” who knows when he covets? We can covet in secret; we can covet, and never speak about the covetousness. Desire need not commit itself to audible terms. We can desire what another man has and yet can look the embodiment of innocence. The law is now becoming sharper, keener, more like a two-edged sword piercing to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow. We cannot keep company with this law in its inner and deeper meanings without finding that its intention is to divide us asunder, and search us, and try us, and never leave us until we become like the Lawgiver himself. Can we wonder that Jesus Christ said he had not come to destroy but to fulfil? that is, to interpret the law and give it its fullest and deepest meaning. When asked what the law was, he said, ‘All the law is fulfilled in one word love.” But we read the commandments and found no love in them, because we misread every tone in the ancient and solemn music. You could not have the commandment but for the love which makes it law. Outwardly it looks iron-like, stern, rigorous, exacting, pitiless; but within its heart is large as the heart of God.

Mark the elevation of the commandments, of what god are they unworthy? Their Divinity must have impressed us. Point out one weak word; lay the critical finger upon one line that is wanting in intellectual dignity or in moral splendour. By the nature of the laws themselves their inspiration may be vindicated. A bold task it was for any mere poet or dreamer to attempt to invent a commandment which would be worthy of God; but the task was realised. Great opening lines have been expressed in the very finest terms, in the most delicate and exquisite exactions and compulsions. Nowhere does this Decalogue fray away into pointlessness, vagueness, intellectual meanness, moral declension. From first to last the level is one, and the level is worthy of God. To find fault with the commandments is to injure ourselves; to trifle with the commandments is to jeopardise society. They are not repeated formally in the New Testament, but they are fulfilled in that holy covenant. We are now in Christ Jesus, if we are living up to Gospel privileges and opportunities; and, being in him, we breathe the commandments, rather than execute them as with arduous effort. They become part of our very life; they belong to us as the fragrance belongs to the odorous flower. They are no longer burdens grievous to be borne. We love them because we have experienced their love. Away with moral legerdemain! Away with the gymnastics which attempt to climb to heaven by their own moral cleverness! We must go the right road, from God to man, from the law to the neighbour, from the heavenly image to the social obligation; and if the Church would, in the spirit of Christ, without one taint of legalism or servility, keep the commandments, we should have a right view of God, a right view of labour, a right view of the body, and a right view of society. The life would be consolidated upon love and law, and lifting itself up with infinite strength, would be crowned with beauty, and on the top of the pillar would be lilywork; RIGHTEOUSNESS and GRACE would form one noble, sublime, everlasting figure.

Note

“The promulgation of the law, including the construction of the tabernacle, occupied nearly twelve months from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide as we should say. Throughout this period the people were encamped in the wide plain at the foot of the ‘Mount of God.’ The whole region seems to be called ‘Horeb’; the mount is called ‘Sinai.’ Travellers seem now disposed to identify it with an isolated mountain which rises so abruptly from the great plain at its foot, that its northern cliff might be said to be touched by one standing in the plain. The northern peak is called Ras-Susfeh; the southern, Jebel-Msa. It rises to a height of 2,000 feet above the plain, and about 7,000 above the sea level.” Bible Educator.

“A spacious plain (Er Rahah) confronts a precipitous cliff 2,000 feet in height, which forms the north-western boundary of that great mountain block called Jebel-Msa, which tradition and the opinion of travellers and authors of eminence alike point to as the mountain of the law. The plain is of a level character as flat as the palm ( rahah ) of the open hand. It is large enough, if needs be, to encamp all the hosts of the Israelites. There are fully 400 acres of the plain proper, exactly facing the mount, with a wide lateral valley, which extends right and left from the base of the cliffs. Besides this, there is a considerable further open space extending northwestward from the watershed or crest of the plain, but still in sight of the mount the very spot, it may be, to which the trembling Israelites ‘removed and stood afar off’ when they feared to come nigh by reason of the cloud and thick darkness.” Captain Palmer.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XIV

THE DECALOGUE THE FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS

Exo 20:1-6 ; Deu 5:6-10

We are now expounding the covenant at Sinai, and particularly Part I, the Moral Law. And here I wish to commend two books to which I have already referred. First, a copy of the University Lectures on the Ten Commandments by Boardman, which is the best in the world. I have never seen anything half-way equal to it. If I were a young preacher, I would live on one meal a day to purchase it, if I had not enough money, and could not get it any other way. It is impossible for me to go into details with the exposition as Dr. Boardman does, and yet there is not a superfluous word in the book. There is one position of his, however, which I do not endorse; but it is a great book.

The last time I saw Dr. Boardman was at the Southern Baptist Convention at Asheville, North Carolina. He was helped upon the platform; he was so old and feeble that he could not walk up the steps. He was introduced to our convention by Dr. J. B. Hawthorne. He has since died. I regret to say that in his later life Dr. Boardman lapsed into radical criticism to a considerable extent; but there is none of it in this book. The other book I commend is the Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Commandments. They beat the Baptists in instructing their children in the Word of God. I say it to our shame, that we seldom use a catechism in our families. As a rule, Presbyterian children are better instructed religiously than any other children.

1. What books are specifically commended?

Ans. The Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Command ments and Boardman’s University Lectures on the Ten Commandments.

2. What are the variations in the form of the Ten Commandments as they appear in Deu 5 ?

Ans. The variations are very slight. In the Fourth Commandment there is this addition by Moses: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.” There is a change in the order of the words of the Tenth Commandment: “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s wife.” The explanation of the variations is that Exodus is the law as it was given; Deuteronomy is an orator’s public restatement of the law.

3. Which is the original form?

Ans. The original form is in Exo 20 .

4. Which one of the Ten Commandments is not quoted in the New Testament?

Ans. The Fourth. I will put this additional rider on the question: Why is the Fourth Commandment, “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy,” not specifically quoted in the New Testament? What is your explanation of that? There is a great distinction between the sabbath and the seventh day. Sabbaton, sabbath, is a perpetual law, but the seventh day is not; the seventh day, the hebdomedal sabbath, the seventh-day sabbath of the Old Testament, is changed; the change, the transition from the seventh to the first day is significant. You will find the whole matter discussed in the first book of sermons by the author. There are three sermons on the sabbath day. If you wish to pursue that subject further, go to that book.

5. What are the characteristics of the Ten Commandments?

Ans. I cite five:

(1) Their solidarity. It is not necessary to break all of them in order to make a breach in the covenant. “He that is guilty in one point is guilty of all.” And that same solidarity you can observe in our law. If a man is indicted for murder, it is not justification that he has not stolen, that he has not committed adultery, that he has not refused to honor his father and his mother. If he is guilty of murder, he loses his life. The one point is sufficient.

(2) Every one of these commandments has the negative and positive form, whether it is expressed or not. Sometimes it is given in the negative form: “Thou shalt not kill”; and sometimes in the positive: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” But in each case, whether it be expressed or not, there are both forms; a negation and prescription of what is right, and a proscription of what is wrong.

(3) The third characteristic may be expressed in three ways: (a) Deep, broad, and high, one way; that is, these commandments go to the root, to the trunk, to the branches, and they go to the fruit; or they prohibit the following thought as well as the following speech or the following deed our Saviour in interpreting these commandments said that “whosoever hateth is a murderer”; that he is a murderer in his heart; that he is a murderer in the sight of God, whether he ever killed anybody or not. That is the root of it. It goes down into the mind where the germ, the spring, the source of action lies; it goes to the intent. Then (b) the psalmist says: “Thy commandments are exceedingly broad”; they touch every correlative thing. And (c) they are exceedingly high; they touch the throne of God.

(4) The next characteristic is that these commandments are moral. Now, you know, or ought to know, the difference between a positive enactment and a moral enactments. A positive enactment has only one reason; that is, that God has commanded. A moral commandment is one which has a reason for it; to be seen by an intelligent mind and calling forth a decision. The commandment to be baptized is a positive ordinance; “thou shalt not kill,” is a moral commandment. Wherever in any commandment a reason is given for the commandment, that is proof of the moral character of the commandment. Let us take the First Commandment to illustrate: “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before [or besides] me.” There a reason is given. Now take the Fourth Commandment: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy,” because in six days Jehovah created everything and rested on the seventh day and because they were in bondage in Egypt and God delivered them. A man can take hold of those reasons.

(5) The last characteristic is that though these commandments were addressed to a vast multitude of people, millions of them, every one of them is personal: “Thou” shalt not; “thou” shalt not, etc. Now we come to the exposition of the first two commandments, taking up the First Commandment under question.

6. What is the meaning of the name Jehovah?

Ans. If you go back to Exo 3:1-15 , you will find that Jehovah himself gives to Moses an explanation of that name: “I am that I am” or “that I will be,” and when you study it out you will find that word covers these thoughts:

(1) that Jehovah is the personal, self-existing, eternal, everacting One;

(2) who first reveals Elohim: “I am Jehovah, thy Elohim.” He is the revealing God, that is why in Genesis I, God said “Elohim,” and in the chapter 2, it is Jehovah Elohim, who

(3) covenants with his people. “Jehovah” is the name of the covenanting God, who reveals the Father, and enters into relations with his people and delivers them. Now let me repeat; What is the meaning of the name, Jehalvah? It means (1) the personal, self-existing, eternal, the ever-acting One, who (2) reveals the Elohim, (3) covenants with his people and (4) delivers them.

7. What are the affirmations, denials, and prohibitions of the First Commandment?

Ans. It affirms the existence and government of one God; it denies polytheism (many gods), atheism (no God), matribalism, which is another form of atheism, assuming the self existence of matter, and the bringing about of everything by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. What it prohibits: “Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.” “Before me” is the same as “besides me”; that is the sense. There is but one God: “Thou shalt have no other God”; that is what it prohibits. The reader will understand that from the Semitic people came the three great religions which advocate monotheism, that is, one God the Jewish, the Mohammedan, and the Christian.

8. What is the application of this commandment to us?

Ans. Jesus is our Jehovah. He is Jehovah the self-existing One; “Before Abraham was I am”; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh.” He is the revealer of the Father. We would not know the Father except as Jesus makes the Father known to us. He is called “The express image of the Father”; He is the visible of the invisible God; he is the Immanuel, God with us. “Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.” His eternity is expressed in such expressions as these: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.” His immutability is expressed in such as these: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day and for ever.” In making the application to us, he is our Deliverer. Jehovah delivered the Jews from Pharaoh; Jesus delivers us from the devil. They were delivered from Egyptian bondage; we are delivered from spiritual bondage.

9. Cite the poem of Hildebert.

Ans. I will give the poem quoted by Boardman as to the meaning of the name Jehovah. It is in Latin. I will give the translation by Herbert Kynaston: First and last of faith’s receiving, Source and sea of man’s believing, God, whose might is all potential, God, whose truth is truth’s essential, Good supreme in thy subsisting, Good in all thy seen existing; Over all things, all things under, Touching all, from all asunder; Centre thou, but not intruded, Compassing, and yet included; Over all, and not ascending, Under all, but not depending; Over all, the world ordaining, Under all, the world sustaining; All without, in all surrounding, All within, in grace abounding; Inmost, yet not comprehended, Outer still, and not extended; Over, yet on nothing founded, Under, but by space unbounded; Omnipresent, yet indwelling, Self-impelled, the world impelling: Force, nor fate’s predestination, Sways thee to one alternation; Ours to-day, thyself forever, Still commencing, ending never; Past with thee is time’s beginning, Present all its future winning; With thy counsels first ordaining Comes thy counsel’s last attaining; One the light’s first radiance darting And the elements departing. That is a remarkable expression of the idea of God.

10. How does it forbid polytheism, atheism & materialism?

Ans. Study the poem for these three points and give your own answer.

We come to the Second Commandment and I will quote it from Deuteronomy: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them.” That is the commandment itself.

11. Is worship an instinct?

Ans. Here’s a commandment not to worship any graven image; and in order to get at the fulness of the thought, I raise this question, Is worship an instinct? It surely is.

12. Cite Plutarch against Colotes the Epicurean.

Ans. I give Boardman, who quotes Plutarch. An Epicurean is an atheist. Plutarch writes: “If you go through the world, you may find cities without walls, without letters, without rulers, without houses, without money, without theaters and games: but there was never yet seen nor shall be seen by man a single city without temples and gods, or without prayers, oaths, prophecies, and sacrifices, used to obtain blessings and benefits, or to avert curses and calamities: nay, I am of opinion that a city might be sooner built without any ground beneath it, than a commonwealth could be constituted, could be preserved.” If you find in the people of North America what you do not find in the people of South America; or if you find among the people of Europe that you do not find among the people of Asia, then whatever that is, the principle beneath it is not innate, not universal. But whatever is presented in man in his personality, whether white or black, rich or poor, Barbarian, Scythian, Jew or Greek, bond or free, that is innate; and we do find in man, wherever we find him, an instinct to worship superhuman power. Plutarch makes a fine point in his argument there.

13. How may this instinct be perverted, and why?

Ans. Paul gives the explanation in his letter to the Romans in chapter 1. I am getting at fundamental things which underlie this commandment. Paul says, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven [he is speaking of nature now] against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder [hold] the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that [here is the reason for perverting it], knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom 1:18-23 ). Now, whenever a man knows God, either through nature or revelation, if he does not like to retain the thought of God in his mind, then he cannot escape that instinct to worship which is in him. It is ineradicable, but he may pervert it as to the object of his worship.

14. How does this Second Commandment forbid idolatry?

Ans. Exo 20:5 a.

15. Does this commandment forbid art, painting, and sculpture?

Ans. Up there on the wall is a likeness of the author; is that against this commandment? How are paintings, sculpture, etc., not prohibited by this commandment? Because the commandment does not stop in saying, “Thou shalt make unto thee no graven image . . . that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,” but it goes on to say, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them.” That portrait is not an idol; you do not bow down to worship it. Thou shalt not make a likeness of anything and call that likeness God, and bow down before it and worship it.

16. Cite Isaiah’s ridicule of idols.

Ans. Isa 40:18-20 ; Isa 44:9-20 . I want you to see how he turns the power of his sarcasm against idol worship.

17. Cite the remarkable statement of Paul, when in the cultivated city of Athens.

Ans. He was brought before their supreme court in the Areopagus on the charge of setting forth strange gods. And that seemed to be a wise law that there should be no additions to the gods of Athens, for they certainly had plenty. As a writer has said, you could oftener see a god in Athens than you could see a man; there were gods in the valleys, on the hills, and high over all on the Acropolis was their marvelous temple of gods, and towering over the city was a colossal statue of Minerva. They were too religious, so far as the objects of their devotion were concerned. Now Paul standing there says, “The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Act 27:24-25 ). His spirit was stirred within him when he observed the objects worshiped by the Athenians.

18. What are the reasons for the commandment?

Ans. I cite three.

(1) The first is given in Deuteronomy. Commenting upon the commandment, he says, “You remember that when God appeared on Mount Sinai you saw no likeness, no similitude; you heard his voice, but you did not see him, and by that he meant to convey to you the prohibition to attempt to make a likeness when he had given you no likeness.”

(2) Then Jehovah is a jealous God. The idea is that this covenant was a marriage covenant; Jehovah is the husband of this nation, and if the wife worships somebody else than her husband, that naturally excites jealousy on the part of the husband. “I, Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God.” Now, as those people by that covenant were wedded to Jehovah, so we in the new covenant are wedded to God; the church is the bride of Jesus, the Bridegroom; he performs the part of the husband. He loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it and cleanse it with the washing through the word, and might present it to himself a glorious church, without spot or blemish. Now shall the church, the bride of Jesus Christ, turn away from her husband, Jesus Christ? He says, “I am a jealous God.”

(3) The next reason assigned is that this God takes cognizance in his governments of the law of heredity in both directions, visiting the iniquity of evil men upon the third and fourth generation and visiting upon good men to the thousandth generation their good. Now, in view of that double law of heredity, if I today worship idols, and I am the father of a family; if I turn away from Jehovah to make some other being my God, the consequences of what I do pass to the children, to the third and fourth generation; but if I love Jehovah and adhere to Jehovah, the blessings pass to the thousandth generation. That reason is assigned.

19. Last of all, what is the necessity of this commandment?

Ans. The necessity arises out of the fact that man has an ineradicable instinct to worship. He cannot escape worship. He will worship something. If man had not fallen, that instinct would have prohibited him from worshiping wrong things; and as a proof of it, take the history of the world. Go back yonder to Abraham, when God called him. At that time, nearly the whole world worshiped idols, even Abraham’s father. “Remember,” says Joshua, “that your fathers in Mesopotamia worshiped idols.” Suppose now you come a little further down, to this very occasion at Sinai, to see the necessity of giving this law. Just as soon as Moses was out of sight on the mountain, and passed out of the minds of the people, they said, “As to this Moses, we know not what has become of him; come here, Aaron, and make us a god.” And they took their jewels and their gold, and they made a calf idol following the Egyptian fashion, the worship of the ox. They had Aaron to make an idol, and they made a breach in the covenant by that. And but for the interposition of Moses, the whole nation would have been blotted out right there for breaking the covenant. Then we are told by one of the prophets that when they broke the covenant again at Kadesh-barnea, all through the thirty-eight years of wandering they worshiped idols; they did not worship Jehovah. And when we come to the book of Judges, we see the tribe of Dan getting out of the territory assigned to him to make a god to worship. When we come to Solomon’s time, we see how he established idols in his old age on every hill. We see Ahab multiplying images of idolatry all over the land. We hear the words of Isaiah just cited, but his sarcasm did not stop the idol worship. When the kingdom was divided, Jeroboam set up a calf at Dan and at Bethel. Come still further down in the history and you see that remarkable vision of Ezekiel, where through a hole in the wall, from a secret chamber, he saw people who externally professed to worship the true God worshiping the rising sun and the stars. You see the necessity expressed in the words of Job: “If at any time I have secretly caused my hand –,” etc. And coming down to the time of Christ, except the Jews, the whole world was given to idolatry, notwithstanding all of the culture of the Greeks, whether at Athens or at Ephesus, or at Corinth, or any other cities that they established in their colonies, everywhere their religion was a most debasing worship of idols. It was so at Rome, so in the German forests and amid the Druidic system of England. Now that tendency of the human heart having the instinct to worship, and not wishing to retain a knowledge of God in their minds, they pervert that instinct and worship something else. Therefore God gave this Second Commandment to those who were lovers of idol worship. The Jews all through their history, if they had a chance, would lapse into idolatry; and they would now create over again that idolatry, but for the Babylonian captivity. No Jew since then, as far as I know, has ever been an idolater. And with their return from that captivity came the synagogue, which was a safeguard against idolatry. This Torah, this law, was taught in every community. Now I am not going into great detail, but there are some things in these commandments that I want to bring out.

A question: “Was the covenant broken before the Ten Commandments were given?”

Ans. No. Moses was coming down from the mountain. These Commandments he was bringing down on the tables of stone were uttered by a voice, and the covenant was made and ratified before that golden calf was made. So that the golden calf was not made before the Commandments were given to Israel. The people knew them, as is recorded in Exo 20 .

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

XII

THE COVENANT AT SINAI ITS GENERAL FEATURES

Exo 19:1-24:11

The covenant at Sinai is the central part of the Old Testament. There is no more important part than the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, coupled with all of the transactions that took place while the children of Israel remained there. We first discuss, in catechetical form, the covenant in its general features.

1. Describe the place of the covenant.

Ans. The name of the place is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses himself calls it each one. Horeb is the range of mountains of which Sinai is the chief peak. So you speak truly when you say that the law was given at Horeb and at Sinai. But that there is a distinction between the two, you have only to see that at Rephidim, where the rock was smitten, it was a part of the high range, and is called, in Exo 17:6 , the rock in Horeb; and yet the succeeding chapters show that they had not yet gotten to Sinai. In describing the place, then, the first thing is to give its name, which is the range of mountains called Horeb, whose chief peak is Sinai. The second idea of the place is that this range of mountains, including Sinai, is situated in Southern Arabia between two arms of the sea, and the triangular district between those two arms of the sea is called the Sianitic peninsula. The third part of the answer in describing the place is this: The immediate place has a valley two and one half miles long by one and one-half miles wide, perfectly level and right under Sinai. Sinai goes up like a precipice for a considerable distance, then slopes toward the peak, and Overlooks a valley and a plain, for it is a long way above the level of the sea. This valley is the only place in all tin country where the people could be brought together in one body for such purposes as were transacted here. Modern re- search has made it perfectly clear that this valley right under Sinai is the place for the camp, and you can put three millions of people there, and then up the gorges on the mountain sides there is abundant range for their flocks and herds.

2. What are the historical associations of this place, before and since?

Ans. It was called the Mount of God before Moses ever saw it, and there was a good road into these mountains prepared by the Egyptians in order to get to certain mines which they had in the mountains of Horeb. Since that time we associate Horeb with Elijah when he got scared and ran a the way from Samaria to Mount Sinai a big run; he was very badly scared; and what he was scared at was more terrible than a man; a woman was after him. He was not afraid of Ahab, but he was afraid of Jezebel. Now, Sinai is associated with Elijah; and I believe that Jesus went to Sinai, an I am sure Paul did. He says when he was called to preach, “I did not go to Jerusalem for the people there to tell me now to preach, but I went into Arabia.” He stayed there three years, and, as I think, he came down to this place when the Law was given, in order to catch the spirit of the occasion of the giving of the Law from looking at the mountain itself and there received the revelations of the new covenant which was to supersede the covenant given upon Mount Sinai. Long after Paul’s time the historical associations of Sinai are abundant. Many of the books that teach about the Crusades have remarkable incidents in connection with the Sinaitic Peninsula and particularly this mountain. If you were there today, you would see buildings perpetuating Mosaic incidents, and on this mountain is a convent belonging to the Eastern, the Greek church, rather than to the Roman church; and in that convent Tischendorf found the famous Sinaitic manuscript of the New Testament, which is the oldest, the best and the most complete. There are associations in connection with Sinai which extend to the fifteenth century and even after.

3. What was the time of the arrival of these people at this mountain?

Ans. The record says, “In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the game day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.” In chapter 16 it says: “And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.” They left Egypt on the fifteenth and were in the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth of the next month, one month’s time; but while it is only one month in time, it covered parts of two months. “Now in the third month”, but just where in it the record does not say they reached Sinai. Another question on that directly.

In discussing this subject, I shall have the following general heads: (1) The Preparation for the Covenant; (2) The Covenant Itself; (3) The Stipulations of the Covenant; (4) The Covenant Accepted; (5) The Covenant Ratified; (6) The Feast of the Covenant. That will be the order of this chapter.

4. What was the proposition and reply?

Ans. In chapter 19 the proposition for the covenant comes from God in these words: “And Moses went up unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel [here’s the proposition]: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: For all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” On those terms God proposes a covenant. Now, let us see if the people agree to enter into covenant with God: “And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Jehovah commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do.” Moses then reported back to God what the people said here was a mutual agreement on the part of the people enter into a covenant (Exo 19:7-8 ).

5. What was the method of Jehovah’s approach in order enter the covenant?

Ans. The theophanv. “Theonhany” means an appearance of God. God says to Moses, in describing how he will come, that he will come in a cloud; that they won’t see him; but they will see the cloud and hear his voice; an appearance of God, some of it visible, a cloud that envelops God, and voice Heard.

6. What was the preparation for this covenant they se to enter into?

Ans. The first part of it was to sanctify the mountain “Sanctify” means to set apart, or to make holy; to sanctify a mountain is to set it apart. That mountain which was to be the scene and place of this great covenant between God and the people was set apart, things set upon it, fenced about’, with the prohibitions of God: “Don’t you come too close I it; don’t touch it.” Just as God fenced the burning bush when he said to Moses “Don’t, draw nigh; stop, you are enough; take the shoes off your feet; this is holy ground.” The next part of the preparation was to sanctify the people. This was done ceremonially. They were ceremonially purified, as is expressed in these words: “Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto Jehovah to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also that come near to Jehovah, sanctify themselves, lest Jehovah break forth upon them.”

7. What was to be the signal which would bring the people close to that mountain and put them into the presence of God?

Ans. It was a trumpet sound, described on this occasion in such a way as to thrill the people hearing the sound. This sound was prolonged, and thus it waxed louder and louder and louder a fearful, unearthly sound. No human lips blew that trumpet earth never heard it before; the earth will hear it again only one more time, and that when Christ comes to judge the world; he will then come with the sound of a trumpet.

8. What was to be the time when God and the people, after this preparation, should come together?

Ans. On the third day.

9. Describe Jehovah’s coming on the third day and compare Deu 4:10-12 .

Ans. The record says, “And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And Mount Sinai) the whole of it, smoked, because Jehovah descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice” (Exo 19:16-19 ). In Deu 4:10-12 , Moses describes it again, referring to that great occasion, the theophany, and he uses this language: “The day that thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God in Horeb, when Jehovah said unto me, Assemble me the people, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. And Jehovah spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of words but ye saw no form; only ye heard a voice.” “Form” or similitude is a likeness; “you heard a voice, but saw no likeness or similitude of God.”

10. Who was the mediator of this covenant between God: and the people?

Ans. You will notice that the people and God do not come together directly. In the book of Job he says, “There is no daysman who shall stand between me and God, touching God, touching me.” If God had revealed himself visibly to the people and directly, the sight would have killed them, for they were a sinful people. In order to get to them, then, there was a necessity for a middleman, a mediator; one who should approach God for the people and approach the people for God. Now who was this mediator? Moses.

11. What part did the angels take, and how signified?

Ans. In the later books of the Bible we learn that this law was given by the disposition of angels and was signified by that trumpet, the trumpet served to summon the whole army of God’s angels.

12. When again will it sound, and why?

Ans. When the judgment day comes: “He shall come with the sound of the trumpet”; and when that trumpet sounds, its object is not to wake the dead, according to the Negro theology, but to marshal the angels, to bring them back with him.

13. What are the great lessons of this preparation?

Ans. Let us get these clearly in our minds:

(1) That this is to be a theocratic covenant. I want you to get the idea of this, viz.: The difference between a democratic covenant (made with all the people), an aristocratic covenant (made with the nobles, the best of the people) and a theocratic covenant, one in which God alone makes the stipulation. The people don’t prescribe anything. God tells everything that is to be done, either on his part or on their part. All the people have to do in a theocratic covenant is to say “yes” or “no”; to accept or reject.

(2) That it was a mediatorial covenant) not a covenant directly between God and the people, but a covenant in which a daysman goes between, a mediator to transmit from God to the people, and from the people to God.

(3) The third great lesson is that the people, in order to enter into a covenant with God, even through a mediator, must have the following requirements:

(a) They must make a great voluntary decision (Exo 24:8 ). You remember when Elijah summoned all the people to meet him on the mountain with the prophets of Baal, and had the test as to who was God, and the prophets of Baal were to try to bring proof that they represented God, and he was to prove that he represented God; that he proposed to them that day to make a great decision: “How long halt ye?” “Halt” does not mean to “linger,” but to “limp”; a halting man in the Bible is a “limping” man. “How long hobble ye as a limping man between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal be God, follow him” (1Ki 18:21-40 ). This is the lesson: That what the people must do was to make this great decision. Moses could not make it for them. They were brought up there; they had plenty of ground on which to stand; that valley was two and a half miles long and one and a half miles wide; and God could speak loud enough for them to hear him, and anything they said he could hear. “Now, you people, will you make this decision?” And they said, “We will.”

(b) The people must have fear toward Jehovah. “You are not entering into a covenant with a dumb idol, but with the living God.”

(c) “And you must have reverence. Don’t get too close to the divine presence; don’t try to break through that fence; don’t touch the mountain; do not presume to be intimate with Jehovah. You must have reverence.”

(d) The next requirement was holiness; and that holiness is a sanctifying by the ceremonial purification. The last requirement

(e) is obedience. “Will you obey? Will you do it.?” Suppose now, to give you, the idea perfectly, I ask again: What are the great lesson from this preparation? Theocratic covenant; lessons of the mediatorial covenant; What the people must do: decide, fear God, have reverence, be purified, obey God. That discusses the first part of the preparation for the covenant. We will now discuss, in general terms, the covenant itself.

14. Give proofs that what we call the giving of the law of Mount Sinai is a covenant as well as a law.

Ans. The evidence of its being a covenant is presented by the meaning of the word “covenant,” viz.: agreement between two, under stipulations binding either party. That is a covenant; and the ratification takes place by the sacrifice of a victim. All the covenants of the Old Testament are of that kind. As a proof that this is a covenant, God, the party of the first part, makes the proposition to enter into the covenant; then the people agree to it; and next, God prescribes, what he will do, and what they must do. These are the stipulations of the covenant. Then the people must accept formally after they have heard all the stipulations, and then comes the ratification. In Exo 24:1-8 , we have an account of the ratification. In this chapter I shall speak of it more as a covenant than as a law.

15. What are its three constituent parts, binding the people?

Ans. Whatever mistakes you make, do not make a mistake in answering this question. It is just as clear as a sunbeam that this covenant entered into on Mount Sinai has three distinctive, constituent parts:

(1) The moral law (Exo 20:17 ), the Ten Commandments, the first part of the covenant.

(2) The altar, or law of approach to God (Exo 20:24-26 ; Exo 23:14-19 ). In case you cannot keep the moral law, the law of the altar comes in.

(3) The civil or national law, (Exodus 1-23:13). Now, what are the constituent parts of the covenant? Moral law, law of the altar, or way of approach to God, also the civil, or national law. The civil law of judgments covers several chapters: they are all a part of this covenant. Now, let us separate those ideas:

(1) Relates to the character of the person;

(2) to the way you can approach God, if you fail in character;

(3) to the civil, or national affairs. Israel was a nation. This is not Abraham making a covenant; it is not Moses making one; it is a nation entering into a covenant with God, to be his treasure, his peculiar people. And I venture to say that everything else in the Pentateuch, whether in the rest of the book of Exodus, in Leviticus, in Numbers, or in Deuteronomy, everything is developed from one or other of these three things. All Leviticus is developed from the law of the altar; it is just simply an elaboration of that part of this covenant they entered into with God, and was enacted when they were at Sinai. All that part of Numbers up to the time they left Sinai (first ten chapters) is a development of one or another of these three parts. Every new enactment which comes in Numbers, every restatement occurring in Deuteronomy must be collocated there with the moral law and with the altar law, or with the national law. I had the pleasure at Brownwood, Texas, at the request of the school, the churches, and the people there, to deliver a lecture on Leviticus, so as in one lecture to give those people an idea of the book. And the first thing I wrote on the blackboard was: “Everything in the book of Leviticus is developed from that part of the covenant given on Mount Sinai which relates to the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God.”

16. In what prophecy is it shown that this covenant given on Mount Sinai shall be superseded by a new covenant with different terms?

Ans. Jeremiah is the prophet. The passage commences: “In the last days, saith the Lord, I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant I made with them when I led them out of Egypt.” Jeremiah then shows how different the terms of the new covenant shall be from those of the covenant given at Sinai (Jer 31:31-34 ).

17. Where in the New Testament are the terms of the two covenants contrasted in this form: “Do and thou shalt live,” and “Live and (thou shalt) do”?

Ans. You are bound to see that there is a sharp contrast between the new and the old covenants. If this old covenant says, “Do in order to live,” and the new one says, “Live in order to do,” you must be alive before you can do; and they then start in different directions, keep going away from each other, one going up, the other going down. Where in the New Testament is that thought brought out? (Rom 10:5 ff.)

18. Where in the New Testament is the contrast between the two covenants expressed in allegory?

Ans. Gal 4:24 ff.

19. What three books of the New Testament best expound the covenants as contrasted?

Ans. Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews (in that order), particularly, Hebrews. And now comes a question of chronology.

20. What is the support for the Jewish tradition that this covenant was enacted the fiftieth day after the Passover sacrifice in Exo 12 ?

Ans. You know the Jews always have maintained that the law given on Mount Sinai was on the fiftieth day after the Passover was celebrated; just as in the New Testament the Holy Spirit was given on the fiftieth day after the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Alexander Campbell makes a great point of that: The giving of the new covenant law must be on the fiftieth day after Christ’s crucifixion. You could make it a proof this way: Exo 12 says that this month Abib, later called Nisan, i.e., after the captivity it was so called, shall be the beginning of the year to you, and on the fifteenth day of that month they left Egypt, not on the first day of the month, but on the fifteenth, which was the beginning of the new year. The Passover was slain on the night of the fourteenth, and hurriedly eaten. On the fifteenth they marched out. Chapter 16 tells us that on the fifteenth day of the next month, which would be about a month after they left Egypt, they were then in the wilderness of Sin, not very far from Mount Sinai, but only one month gone. Now, there are several stations at which they stopped before reaching Sinai, and they could be at Sinai and waiting three days, devoting the time to preparation, and making the giving of the law on the fiftieth day. The argument can be made out so that the time covered from the leaving of Rameses in Egypt to the arrival at Sinai would be less than two months, as fifty days does not equal two lunar months; there must be fifty-six days to get two lunar months, even.

21. The next question bears on the stipulations of the covenant. Where do we find the stipulations of what God would do for his part?

Ans. What God proposes to do is expressed in Exo 19:5 : “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Then in Exo 23:20 he enumerates what he will do. “I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. . . . Mine angel shall go before thee . . . and I will cut off the opposing nations . . . and ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he will bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee . . . I will drive these nations out from before thee. . . . And I will set thy border from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness unto the river [i.e., Euphrates].” In other words, he will do what he promised to Abraham he would do, as to their boundary. That is what he proposes to do.

22. What must the people do?

Aug. Keep those three parts of that covenant, having fear and reverence toward God, and toward his angels and toward Moses, the mediator. That is their part of the covenant.

23. Cite the passage to prove that the people agreed to enter into the covenant when proposed, and cite the passage showing their acceptance of it when stated. Pause Key (Key: Enter!)

Ans. – The covenant having been stated in all of its parts, God propounds to the people the plain question: “Will you accept it?” thus: “Moses told the people all the words of the law,” i.e., the Decalogue, with the judgments, or the civil law, and the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God. And Moses wrote these words and said to the people, “Will you do them?” They said, “We will.” It is very plain that after they had heard they accepted. And the next thing is the ratification.

24. Describe the ratification.

Ans. – I quote it: “Moses rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto Jehovah. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant [wrote those in a book; what both parties had obligated themselves to observe] and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that Jehovah hath spoken will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words” (Exo 24:4-8 ). That was the ratification.

25. What are the developments in the rest of the Pentateuch from each of the three parts of the covenant?

Ans. – The last chapter of Exodus, all of Leviticus, a large part of Numbers are devoted to the development of the Law of the Altar, Deuteronomy, to the Ten Commandments; a large part of Exodus and some of Deuteronomy, to the Civil Code.

26. In what part was the gospel germ?

Ans. – In the Altar, or Law of Approach to God.

27. What three books are specially commended?

Ans. – Boardman’s Lectures on the Ten Commandments; Butler’s Bible on the Giving of the Law at Sinai; and the) Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Commandments.

28. What is the sign, or token of the covenant? Cite scripture.

Ans. — Circumcision. Gal 5:2 .

29. How long after the call of Abraham and the promise to him, was this?

Ans. – Paul says, “Four hundred and thirty years.” See Gal 3:17 .

XIII

THE COVENANT AT SINAI (Continued)

Scripture: Same as in preceding chapter

1. The first question is based on Exo 24:7 : “And he took the book of the covenant.” What is this book of the covenant?

Ans. All that part of Exodus 19-24-11. Moses wrote it then.

2. How may this book be regarded and what is its relation to all subsequent legislation in the Pentateuch?

Ans. You may regard the book of the covenant as a constitution and all subsequent legislation as statutes evolved from that constitution. The United States adopted a constitution of principles and the revised statutes of the United States are all evolved from the principles contained in that constitution. So that this book of the covenant may be regarded as a national constitution.

3. Why, then, is the whole of the Pentateuch called the law?

Ans. Because every part of the Pentateuch is essential to the understanding of the law. The historical part is just as necessary to the understanding of the law as any particular provision in the constitution, or any particular statute evolved from the constitution. The history must commence back at creation and go down to the passage over into the Promised Land. Very appropriately, then, do the Jews call the Pentateuch the torah, the law.

4. What other Pentateuchs?

Ans. The five books of the Psalter. When you come to study the psalms, I will show you just where each book of the psalms commences and where it ends. They are just as distinct as the five books of Moses. Another Pentateuch is the fivefold Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul; and as Moses’ Pentateuch is followed by Joshua the man of deeds, the Gospel Pentateuch is followed by Acts, which means deeds.

5. Where and when was a restatement and renewal of this covenant at Sinai?

Ans. In the book of Deuteronomy. There not only had been a breach of the covenant in the case of the golden calf, which was forgiven, but there came a more permanent breach at Kadesh-barnea when the people refused, after God brought them to the border, to go over into the Promised Land, and they wandered until all that generation died. Their children are brought where their fathers would have been brought, and it became necessary to renew that covenant. You find the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy just as you find them here.

6. State again exactly the three parts of the covenant.

Ans. (1) The Ten Commandments, or moral law (Exo 20:1-17 ); (2) the law of the altar, or the way of approach to God, in case the Ten Commandments were violated; (3) The judgments, or the civil law. Now from those three parts, the constituent elements of the covenant, are evolved everything, you might say, in all the rest of the books of the Bible. Leviticus is all evolved from the law of the altar; very much of Numbers and Deuteronomy is evolved from the civil law. Now before I consider Part I, that is, the Decalogue, I want to make a brief restatement of some things in the preceding chapter. The first is the covenant. A covenant is an agreement or compact between two or more parties with expressed stipulations showing what the two parties are to do. The parties to this Sinai covenant are: God upon the first part, and the people on the second part, with Moses as the daysman or mediator. In the preceding chapter we had the following outline:

A proposition upon God’s part for a covenant and the people’s acceptance of that proposition; A preparation for entering into that covenant; The covenant itself as expressed in three parts; The stipulations of the covenant as shown in the last chapter; The covenant ratified; The Feast of the Covenant.

Now we take up Part (1) the moral law; and we are to consider that moral law first, generally, then specifically. I can, in this chapter, get into only a part of the specifics of it.

7. What do we call Part I of this Covenant?

Ans. We call it the moral law; or, using a Greek word, the Decalogue.

8. What are the three scriptural names?

Ans. The Bible gives (1) “the ten words”; that is what “decalogue” means, “the ten words spoken.” God spake all these words. (2) “The tables” or “tablets,” whereon these words were written, and (3) “the tables of the testimony.” When this written form was deposited in the ark of the covenant, from that time on they are called “the tables of the testimony.”

9. Give the history of these tablets.

Ans. They were written on tables of stone by the finger of God; that was the original copy. Moses broke them when the people made a breach of the covenant in the matter of the golden calf. God called him up into the mountain again and rewrote these Ten Commandments; that was the second copy. Both of these God wrote. These two tables that God wrote on were deposited in the ark when it was constructed, and that, too, before they left this Mount Sinai. The last time they were seen, you learn from 1Ki 8 , was when Solomon moved that ark out of the tabernacle into the Temple which he had built. He had it opened and in there were the two tables of atone on which God had written. The probable fate of them is this, that when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, he may have taken the ark of the covenant with the things in it as memorials of his victory, just as when Titus destroyed the Temple he took away the sacred things of the Temple; the seven-branched golden candlestick was carried in triumph into the city of Rome.

10. Divide these ten words first into grand divisions, and then into subdivisions.

Ans. The grand divisions were two tables, one of them were the commandments relating to God, i.e., man’s duty to God, and the other were the commandments expressing man’s relation to his fellowman. The subdivisions are these: all that part of Exodus from Exo 20:2-17 is divided into ten parts. Those are the subdivisions of the two tables. We will note them precisely a little further on in the comments for Exo 20:1-6 .

11. What is the Romanist method of subdivision and what are the objections thereto?

Ans. The Romanists make one out of the first two commandments, and two out of the last. We say that the First Commandment is, “Thou shall have no other gods before me,” and they say the first command is: “I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, etc.,” to the end of the Second Commandment.

12. What other ten words and how do you compare them?

Ans. The ten words of creation and the ten Beatitudes spoken by our Lord. We compare them by a responsive reading.

13. How and where does Moses compress the ten into two?

Ans. I will give the compression. In one place Moses says, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” In another place Moses says, “Thou shalt love their neighbour as thyself,” compressing the first table into one and the second table into one (Deu 6:4 f; Lev 19:18 ).

14. What was the occasion of Christ’s quotation of Moses compression?

Ans. An inquirer came to him propounding this question: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus, quoting Moses, says, “This is the great and first commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.”

15. What New Testament scripture shows the solidarity of the law?

Ans. The solidarity of a thing means the inability to touch any part without touching it all; and if you violate one commandment you violate all the Decalogue, and if you are guilty of one you are guilty of all. The place in the New Testament where it is said, “He that is guilty of one point in the law is guilty of all,” is Jas 2:10 . That passage expresses the solidarity of the law.

16. How does the New Testament compress the ten into one?

Ans. This passage is: “All the law is fulfilled in this one word, love,” (Gal 5:14 ).

17. Is this giving of the law, orally or in writing, the origin of the law? That is, was there no law before? Was it the origin of the law; and if not, what is it, and why is it?

Ans. This is not the origin of the law, but it is an addition. The Scriptures say, “The law was added because of trans-gression.”

18. Then, what is law?

Ans. Law is that intent or purpose in the mind of the Creator, concerning any being or thing that he causes to be. Now, the intent that he had in his mind, the purpose, when he made man, is the law of man. The intent or purpose that he had in mind when he created the tree is the law of the tree. That law may not be expressed. It inheres: it is there in the nature of the thing. It may be expressed in the spoken commandment or in the written one. But you do not have to wait until the word is spoken or till the spoken word is written in order to have law. For example, Paul says, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses.” But death is the penalty of the law, and “where there is no law there is no transgression.” Now, if law didn’t exist before given on Mount Sinai, why did those people die?

19. If the spoken or written law at Sinai was added because of transgression, show more particularly and illustrate its purpose, both negatively and positively. Now, if a law exists in God’s mind and in the nature of the things that he creates, why did he afterward speak that law and have it written?

Ans. (1) Because of transgression. We now show the mean ing of that, and illustrate it. We have the answer in this form: The purpose of speaking this law and of having it written negatively, was not to save men by it. They were lost when it was developed. But first it was to discover sin. Sin is hidden and there was a law, but it was not written or spoken. Now, God put that law in writing so that it could be held up by the side of a man, and his life, and his deeds to discover sin in him. Paul says, “I had not known sin except by the law.” (2) This sin by the law is discovered to the man in order to convict him of this sin. Paul says, ” I was alive without the law once [that is, before I knew it I felt like I was all right], but when the commandment came sin revived and I died. I saw myself to be a dead man.” In the next place, (3) it was to make the sin, which looked like something else before the man had the law, appear to be sin, as Paul says in his letter to the Romans, and also, to make it appear to be “exceedingly sinful.” Now to illustrate: Suppose on a blackboard we were to trace a zigzag turning line. That is the path a man walks; he is in the woods and thinks he is going straight, and he feels all right. Now you put a rule there, which is exactly straight, and just watch how that zigzag walk of his is sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. The rule discovers the variations; it makes it known. Now here is (4) another purpose of the, Law: To incite to sin in order that the heinousness of the exceeding sinfulness of sin may be made manifest. Now, maybe you don’t believe that. Paul says it is so, and I can give you an illustration that will enable you to see just how it is so. I never saw one of the Baylor University boys put his foot on top of the mail box at the street corner, but if the faculty should pass a law that no boy should put his foot on that mail box, some boy’s foot would go on top of it, certainly. Now, that boy may have imagined all along that he was law abiding. But put a standard there and he wants to test it right away. I illustrate again: A little boy once saw a baldheaded man going along up the side of a hill, and the boy said, “Go up, thou bald head! Now trot out your bears.” He had been told that if he was irreverent toward an old, baldheaded man, as the boys were toward Elisha, the bears would tear him to pieces.

20. Explain carefully the Christian’s relation to this law.

Ans. It is a part of the old covenant, you say, and we have a new covenant now. Then is a Christian under obligations to keep this law? Is the law binding on you not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, not to commit adultery? We certainly would be extreme antinomians if we were to say that as an obligation that does not rest on us. It does rest on us, but it does not rest on us as a way to eternal life. You see the distinction? The time never will come when it will be right for a man to kill, to steal, to commit adultery, to covet, and no matter who does any one of these things, whether saint or sinner, it is sin. But the keeping of the Decalogue is an obligation upon the Christian because it is in the nature of his being, as when it was spoken at Sinai, yet that is not the Christian’s way to obtain eternal life.

21. What is the form of the statement of the ten words?

Ans. Negative and positive. For some of them: “Thou shalt not”; for others, positive: “Honour thy father,” etc.; but whether the form be positive or negative if it is negative, it has a positive idea attached, and if it is positive it has a negative idea. If it is an affirmation, it is also a prohibition. No matter what the form, it does prescribe certain things and it does proscribe certain things.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Ver. 1. God spake all, &c. ] All the ten are of divine authority. Papists disannulling the second, that yet they may retain the number of ten words, so loath are heretics to have their asses’ ears seen, divide the last, which yet is called “the commandment,” not the commandments. Rom 7:7 Vasques, not able to answer our argument, saith that the second commandment belonged to the Jews only. See Trapp (for summary of Law) on “ Exo 20:17 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Exodus

THE DECALOGUE: I-MAN AND GOD

Exo 20:1 – – Exo 20:11 .

An obscure tribe of Egyptian slaves plunges into the desert to hide from pursuit, and emerges, after forty years, with a code gathered into ‘ten words,’ so brief, so complete, so intertwining morality and religion, so free from local or national peculiarities, so close fitting to fundamental duties, that it is to-day, after more than three thousand years, authoritative in the most enlightened peoples. The voice that spoke from Sinai reverberates in all lands. The Old World had other lawgivers who professed to formulate their precepts by divine inspiration: they are all fallen silent. But this voice, like the trumpet on that day, waxes louder and louder as the years roll. Whose voice was it? The only answer explaining the supreme purity of the commandments, and their immortal freshness, is found in the first sentence of this paragraph, ‘God spake all these words.’

I. We have first the revelation, which precedes and lays the foundation for the commandments; ‘I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.’ God speaks to the nation as a whole, establishing a special relation between Himself and them, which is founded on His redeeming act, and is reciprocal, requiring that they should be His people, as He is their God. The manifestation in act of His power and of His love precedes the claim for reverence and obedience. This is a universal truth. God gives before He asks us to give. He is not a hard taskmaster, ‘gathering where He has not strawn.’ Even in that system which is eminently ‘the law,’ the foundation is a divine act of deliverance, and only when He has won the people for Himself by redeeming them from bondage does He call on them for obedience. His rule is built on benefits. He urges no mere right of the mightier, nor cares for service which is not the glad answer of gratitude. The flashing flames which ran as swift heralds before His descending chariot wheels, the quaking mountain, the long-drawn blasts of the trumpet, awed the gathered crowd. But the first articulate words made a tenderer appeal, and sought to found His right to command on His love, and their duty to obey on their gratitude. The great gospel principle, that the Redeemer is the lawgiver, and the redeemed are joyful subjects because their hearts are touched with love, underlies the apparently sterner system of the Old Testament. God opens His heart first, and then asks for men’s.

This prelude certainly confines the Decalogue to the people of Israel. Their deliverance is the ground on which the law is rested, therefore, plainly, the obligation can be no wider than the benefit. But though we are not bound to obey any of the Ten Commandments, because they were given to Israel, they are all, with one exception, demonstrably, a transcript of laws written on the heart of mankind; and this fact carries with it a strong presumption that the law of the Sabbath, which is the exception referred to, should be regarded as not an exception, but as a statute of the primeval law, witnessed to by conscience, republished in wondrous precision and completeness in these venerable precepts. The Ten Commandments are binding on us; but they are not binding as part, though the fundamental part, of the Jewish law.

Two general observations may be made. One is on the negative character of the commandments as a whole. Law prohibits because men are sinful. But prohibitions pre-suppose as their foundation positive commands. We are forbidden to do something because we are inclined to do it, and because we ought to do the opposite. Every ‘thou shalt not’ implies a deeper ‘thou shalt.’ The cold negation really rests on the converse affirmative command.

The second remark on the law as a whole is as to the relation which it establishes between religion and morality, making the latter a part of the former, but regarding it as secured only by the prior discharge of the obligations of the former. Morality is the garb of religion; religion is the animating principle of morality. The attempts to build up a theory of ethics without reference to our relations to God, or to secure the practice of righteousness without such reference, or to substitute, with a late champion of unbelief, ‘the service of man’ for the worship of God, are all condemned by the deeper and simpler wisdom of this law. Christians should learn the lesson, which the most Jewish of the New Testament writers had drawn from it, that, ‘pure and undefiled service’ of God is the service of man, and should beware of putting asunder what God has joined so closely.

II. The first commandment bears in its negative form marks of the condition of the world when it was spoken, and of the strong temptation to polytheism which the Israelites were to resist. Everywhere but in that corner among the wild rocks of Sinai, men believed in ‘gods many.’ Egypt swarmed with them; and, no doubt, the purity of Abraham’s faith had been sadly tarnished in his sons. We cannot understand the strange fascination of polytheism. It is a disease of humanity in an earlier stage than ours. But how strong it was and is, all history shows. All these many gods were on amicable terms with one another, and ready to welcome newcomers. But the monotheism, which was here laid at the very foundation of Israel’s national life, parted it by a deep gulf from all the world, and determined its history.

The prohibition has little force for us; but the positive command which underlies it is of eternal force. We should rather think of it as a revelation and an invitation than as a mere command. For what is it but the declaration that at the centre of things is throned, not a rabble of godlings, nor a stony impersonal somewhat, nor a hypothetical unknowable entity, nor a shadowy abstraction, but a living Person, who can say ‘Me,’ and whom we can call on as ‘Thou,’ and be sure that He hears? No accumulation of finite excellences, however fair, can satisfy the imagination, which feels after one Being, the personal ideal of all perfectness. The understanding needs one ultimate Cause on which it can rest amid the dance of fleeting phenomena; the heart cannot pour out its love to be shared among many. No string of goodly pearls will ever give the merchantman assurance that his quest is complete. Only when human nature finds all in One, and that One a living Person, the Lover and Friend of all souls, does it fold its wings and rest as a bird after long flight.

The first commandment enjoins, or rather blesses us by showing us that we may cherish, supreme affection, worship, trust, self-surrender, aspiration, towards one God. After all, our God is that which we think most precious, for which we are ready to make the greatest sacrifices, which draws our warmest love; which, lost, would leave us desolate; which, possessed, makes us blessed. If we search our hearts with this ‘candle of the Lord,’ we shall find many an idol set up in their dark corners, and be startled to discover how much we need to bring ourselves to be judged and condemned by this commandment It is the foundation of all human duty. Obedience to it is the condition of peace and blessedness, light and leading for mind, heart, will, affections, desires, hopes, fears, and all the world within, that longs for one living Person even when it least knows the meaning of its longings and the reason of its unrest.

III. The second commandment forbids all representations, whether of the one God or of false deities. The golden calf, which was a symbol of Jehovah, is condemned equally with the fair forms that haunted the Greek Olympus, or the half-bestial shapes of Egyptian mythology. The reasons for the prohibition may be considered as two,-the impossibility of setting forth the glory of the Infinite Spirit in any form, and the certainty that the attempt will sink the worshipper deeper in the mire of sense. An image degrades God and damages men. By it religion reverses its nature, and becomes another clog to keep the soul among the things seen, and an ally of all fleshly inclinations. We know how idolatry seemed to cast a spell over the Israelites from Egypt to Babylon, and how their first relapse into it took place almost before the voice which ‘spake all these words’ had ceased.

In its grosser form, we have no temptation to it. But there are other ways of breaking the commandment than setting up an image. All sensuous worship in which the treacherous aid of art is called in to elevate the soul, comes perilously near to contradicting its spirit, if not its letter. The attempt to make of the senses a ladder for the soul to climb to God by, is a great deal more likely to end in the soul’s going down the ladder than up it. The history of public worship in the Christian Church teaches that the less it has to do with such slippery help the better. There is a strong current running in England, at all events, in the direction of bringing in a more artistic, or, as it is called, a ‘less bare,’ form of service. We need to remember that the God who is a Spirit is worshipped ‘in spirit,’ and that outward forms may easily choke, and outward aids hinder, that worship.

The especial difficulty of obedience to this commandment is marked by the reason or sanction annexed. That opens a wide field, on which it would be folly to venture here. There is a glimpse of God’s character, and a statement of a law of His working. He is a ‘jealous’ God, We need not be afraid of the word. It means nothing but what is congruous with the loftiest conception of a loving God. It means that He allows of no rival in our hearts’ affection, or in our submission for love’s sake to Him. A half trust in God is no trust. How can worship be shared, or love be parted out, among a pantheon? Our poor hearts ask of one another and get from one another, wherever a man and a woman truly love, just what God asks,-’All in all, or not at all.’ His jealousy is but infinite love seeking to be known as such, and asking for a whole heart.

The law of His providence sounds hard, but it is nothing more than stating in plain words the course of the world’s history, which cannot be otherwise if there is to be any bond of human society at all. We hear a great deal in modern language about solidarity and sometimes it is spelled with a final ‘e,’ to look more philosophical and heredity. The teaching of this commandment is simply a statement of the same facts, with the addition that the Lawgiver is visible behind the law. The consequences of conduct do not die with the doers. ‘The evil that men do, lives after them.’ The generations are so knit together, and the full results of deeds are often so slow-growing, that one generation sows and another reaps. Who sowed the seed that fruited in misery, and was gathered in a bitter harvest of horrors and crimes in the French Revolution? Who planted the tree under which the citizens of the United States sit? Did not the seedling go over in the Mayflower ? As long as the generations of men are more closely connected than those of sheep or birds, this solemn word must be true. Let us see that we sow no tares to poison our children when we are in our graves. The saying had immediate application to the consequences of idolatry in the history of Israel, and was a forecast of their future. But it is true evermore and everywhere.

IV. The third commandment must be so understood as to bring it into line with the two preceding, as of equal breadth and equally fundamental. It cannot, therefore, be confined to the use of the name of God in oaths, whether false or trivial. No doubt, perjury and profane swearing are included in the sweep of the prohibition; but it reaches far beyond them. The name of God is the declaration of His being and character. We take His name ‘in vain’ when we speak of Him unworthily. Many a glib and formal prayer, many a mechanical or self-glorifying sermon, many an erudite controversy, comes under the lash of this prohibition. Professions of devotion far more fervid than real, confessions in which the conscience is not stricken, orthodox teachings with no throb of life in them, unconscious hypocrisies of worship, and much besides, are gibbeted here. The most vain of all words are those which have become traditional stock in trade for religious people, which once expressed deep convictions, and are now a world too wide for the shrunk faith which wears them.

The positive side underlying the negative is the requirement that our speech of God shall fit our thought of God, and our thought of Him shall fit His Name; that our words shall mirror our affections, and our affection be a true reflection of His beauty and sweetness; that cleansed lips shall reverently utter the Name above every name, which, after all speech, must remain unspoken; and that we shall feel it to be not the least wonderful or merciful of His condescensions that He ‘is extolled with our tongues.’

V. The series of commandments referring to Israel’s relations with God is distinctly progressive from the first to the fourth, which deals with the Sabbath. The fact that it appears here, side by side with these absolutely universal and first principles of religion and worship, clearly shows that the giver of the code regarded it as of equal comprehensiveness. If we believe that the giver of the code was God, we seem shut up to the conclusion that, though the Sabbath is a positive institution, and in so far unlike the preceding commandments, it is to be taken as not merely a temporary or Jewish ordinance. The ground on which it is rested here points to the same conclusion. The version of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy bases it on the Egyptian deliverance, but this, on the divine rest after creation. As we have already said, we do not regard the Decalogue as binding on us because given to Israel; but we do regard it as containing laws universally binding, which are written by God’s finger, not on tables of stone, but on ‘the fleshly tables of the heart.’ All the others are admittedly of this nature. Is not the Sabbath law likewise? It is not, indeed, inscribed on the conscience, but is the need for it not stamped on the physical nature? The human organism requires the seventh-day rest, whether men toil with hand or brain. Historically, it is not true that the Sabbath was founded by this legislation. The traces of its observance in Genesis are few and doubtful; but we know from the inscriptions that the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of the moon were set apart by the Assyrians, and scholars can supply other instances. The ‘Remember’ of this commandment can scarcely be urged as establishing this, for it may quite as naturally be explained to mean ‘Remember, as each successive seventh day comes round, to consecrate it.’ But apart from that, the law written on body, mind, and soul says plainly to all men, ‘Rest on the seventh day.’ Body and mind need repose; the soul needs quiet communion with God. No vigorous physical, intellectual, or religious life will long be kept up, if that need be disregarded. The week was meant to be given to work, which is blessed and right if done after the pattern of God’s. The Sabbath was meant to lift to a share in His rest, to bring eternity into time, to renew wasted strength ‘by a wise passiveness,’ and to draw hearts dissipated by contact with fleeting tasks back into the stillness where they can find themselves in fellowship with God.

We have not the Jewish Sabbath, nor is it binding on us. But as men we ought to rest, and resting, to worship, on one day in the week. The unwritten law of Christianity, moulding all outward forms by its own free spirit, gradually, and without premeditation, slid from the seventh to the first day, as it had clear right to do. It was the day of Christ’s resurrection, probably of His ascension, and of Pentecost. It is ‘the Lord’s Day.’ In observing it, we unite both the reasons for the Sabbath given in Exodus and Deuteronomy,-the completion of a higher creation in the resurrection rest of the Son of God, and the deliverance from a sorer bondage by a better Moses. The Christian Sunday and its religious observance are indispensable to the religious life of individuals and nations. The day of rest is indispensable to their well-being. Our hard-working millions will bitterly rue their folly, if they are tempted to cast it away on the plea of obtaining opportunities for intellectual culture and enjoyment. It is

‘The couch of time, care’s balm and bay,’

and we shall be wise if we hold fast by it; not because the Jews were bid to hallow the seventh day, but because we need it for repose, and we need it for religion.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

God spake. Hebrew. Elohim: hence of universal application. Compare Hebrews 1. Deu 4:12. Heb 12:26; Not Jehovah, for this title would have limited the law to Israel. See App-4, and note on Exo 6:2.

all these words. It has been asserted that there are three strata of laws in the Pentateuch

(1) The Prophetic code. Exodus. 20-23 and Exo 34:17-20.

(2) The Priest code. Rest of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

(3) The Deuteronomy code.

But the Structures of these books, displayed above, show that these were all in perfect order, spoken “at sundry times and in divers manners. “

The Ten Commandments divided by Christ into two [tables], Duty to God and Neighbour (Mat 22:37-40). Divided by man into four and six. By Roman Catholics (in their Catechism) the second is joined to the first, and the tenth is divided into two. But this is impossible: see the Structure of Commandment X on Exo 20:17.

The Structure of the whole divides them into 5 + 5, the number of Grace. See App-10, and p. Joh 1:17, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”, which, by the Figure of speech, Hendiadys (App-6) = “true grace”. For there was grace in the law, seeing no other nation was favoured with it. Moreover, the first five are linked together by the words “the LORD thy God”, the second five by the word “Thou”.

saying. The Ten Commandments begin, therefore, with Exo 20:2. See App-39.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 20

And God spake these words, saying ( Exo 20:1 ),

Now the people said, “All that the Lord commands, we will do.” All right this is what the Lord has spoken. Now these are the commandments of God.

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me ( Exo 20:2-3 ).

First of all, “I am Jehovah thy God.” The word Jehovah is a beautiful word; it is a verb which means, “the becoming one”. A word by which God expresses Himself and that which, in that which He desires to be to His people. God wishes to become to you whatever your need might be. “The becoming one”, Yahweh, a verb “to be”. So God becoming to you, “I am Yahweh thy God who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Now as we said this morning, that doesn’t mean that God has to, you know, that God is first in your life, and then you can have all other kinds of gods, as long as He’s first God in your life, before in a sense of precedence. “I’ve got to be the greatest God of your life, and then you can have all kinds of gods under me.” No. Before, that is, “in the presence of Me, you’re to worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” You’re not to have any other gods. He is to be the exclusive God of your life. “You shall have no other gods in the presence of me, before me.”

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments ( Exo 20:4-6 ).

So the prohibition of making graven images. And it goes actually of any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, which would include then the angelic beings, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, whatever those creatures might look like. “Thou shalt not make them, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them.”

Now men, as we pointed out this morning, have always been guilty of making their own gods. Man is conscious of God. The heavens declare the glory of God, the earth shows forth His handiwork, and there’s a universal consciousness of God in every culture of man. Concepts, ideas of God exist.

Now many men have been guilty of making their own gods. A man, when he makes his own god usually starts out with this premise, “If I were God, this is what I would be. This is what I would do. This is how I would respond. This is how I would react.” So the Greeks made their own gods. In your Greek mythology, you have their concepts of god, which are really an expression of what they would be if they were God.

Now some fellow having been in love with a girl, and another suitor won her away from him, “If I were God, you know, I could live up there and I could bring magic potions, and I could use my powers and then she would be mine instead of his.” So you have your gods that are entwining themselves in the love affairs of man, and all of these kinds of things. Because, “If I were God I would use these powers for an advantage in my relationship with men.” And thus, you find that is sort of a basis of your Greek mythology, men creating their own gods.

When a man makes a god, he actually makes the god like himself. A man’s god is usually a projection of himself. A man is oftentimes worshiping himself, a projection of himself, and that is what he is worshiping. Most generally when a man rejects the true and the living God, his god is just a projection of himself.

This is why I sort of cringe whenever anybody comes up to me and says, “Well, I don’t know why God would do this”. What they are saying is, “If I were God I wouldn’t do that. I could sure figure out a better way of doing it than this way.” That person is close to creating his own god.

“If I were God this is what I would do. If I were God this is how I would respond”. And if God doesn’t respond the way I would respond, then I get angry, and I say, “Well I can’t understand why God did that, why God allowed that.” As though God has made a real blunder. “He really goofed on this one. I don’t know how God could be so stupid” is really what you’re saying. “I can see so much better than that. I could work it out in such a much better way. Oh, if I were only God, what I could do.” If you were God, I’d hate to be in this universe very long.

When Job and his friends were talking about God, “Well God is this, and if I were God, that”, you know, and they were giving all their ideas about what God was, and what God was doing and so forth, which were projections of their own selves, their own concepts, putting them in the mind of God, sort of.

When God came on the scene, after these guys had all expressed their concepts of God, and how God works, et cetera, when God came on the scene, “All right, Job, gird yourself like a man, you’ve been talking about things that you really don’t know anything about. I’m gonna ask you a few questions. First of all Job, where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you think you know so much. How would you like to guide our tourists through the sky?” How would you like to guide our tourists through the sky? Our tourists is known as the runaway star. Its speed is estimated at a hundred and fifteen miles a second. How would you like the job of guiding that big old thing through the sky? Wheeling that thing around at that kind of speed?

“Tell me”, God says. “Can you bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades?” And He went on and, Job said, “Hey, that’s all right God you just keep running it. I don’t know anything about it.” Yes, we’d have a difficult time running this universe, I’ll tell ya. We have enough problems just running our own lives.

So man makes a god like himself. But then he often makes the god less than himself. As David points out, “The gods of the heathen are vain. They cut them out of the forest. Eyes they have, but they cannot see, ears they have but they cannot hear, feet they have but they cannot walk, mouths they have, but they cannot speak.” Man made a god like himself. He carved his god out of a piece of tree limb.

Sat there day after day, carving out his little gods. He carved ears on his little god. He carved eyes on his little god. He carved a nose on his little god. He carved a mouth, he carved feet. But the thing is, the eyes that he carved on his little god can’t see. The ears that he carved on his little god, can’t hear. The mouth that he carved on his little god, can’t speak.

So a man made a god, he made him like himself. Because I have ears, I put ears on my god. Because I have a mouth, I put a mouth on my god. Because I have feet, I put feet on my god. But though I made him like myself, I made him less than myself. Because the feet I’ve put on my little god can’t walk, thus he is less than I am. His eyes can’t see, thus he is less than I am.

Then David said, “They that have made them have become like the gods they have made.” In other words, a man becomes like his god, and if you make a god less than yourself, you are being degraded. You’re on the road down. You are becoming less than what you were. If your god can’t see, you soon become blind to the things of God. If you can’t-if your god can’t hear, you soon become deaf to the voice of God. You become insensate, as your god is insensate. That’s the danger of making gods. You become like them. But yet, they are less than yourself.

So God strictly prohibited trying to make any likeness or representation of Himself. Now in the light of that, why is it that in the church we have statues of Jesus Christ or even pictures which constitutes a likeness?

What is a man signifying when he makes an idol? He is signifying the loss of the consciousness of the presence of God in his life. Whenever I make an idol, a reminder, it is only indicating that I have lost something vital in my relationship with God, and I need this little relic as a reminder of God because I’ve lost the consciousness of His presence. If I’m living in the consciousness of the presence of God, I don’t need any little relic to remind me of God. But the making of the relic not only indicates the loss of the consciousness, but somehow there is a desire to regain that which I’ve lost, and somehow I would like to be conscious of God again, so I make a reminder so that I can be conscious of God. But it is always an indication of a degraded spiritual state.

Now people can make idols out of many different things. “The place in the church where I was sitting when I came into the consciousness of God, ooh.” You’d be amazed how many people come back and they sit in that same place trying to regain that which was lost at that place. “I was sitting here, right in this spot when I really became conscious of the presence of God. Oh it was so glorious I just, ooh”, you know. And so you’ll return and try to duplicate a past experience of God’s consciousness, thinking that it relates to a place. “While I was wearing those shoes” so you dig around, find the old shoes again, you know. “As I was wearing these shoes when I became aware of the presence of God”, and all.

Hey, you’ve lost something friend. Paul the apostle said, “In Him we live, we move, we have our being”( Act 17:28 ). God is here. God is with you. You’ve lost the consciousness, not that He’s not with you. You’ve just lost the consciousness of His presence with you. And thus, you’re looking for something that will somehow remind or bring back that experience of the past. But God has new experiences for you, and He doesn’t want you living in the past experiences. He wants you living in a fresh day-by-day relationship of fellowship in His love and in His grace, experiencing daily that overflowing grace of God in your life.

So the prohibiting of making first of all the likenesses. Why? Because once you’ve made them, the next thing is so often the bowing down to them. Then that leads to the serving of them. So the progression. You make a god, then you next are worshiping your god, then finally you’re serving your god. “But no man can serve two masters” ( Mat 6:24 ).

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain ( Exo 20:7 ).

What does that mean? It means much more than just using the name of God in a profane way. As you hear people in their conversations using the name of God in a profane way, it’s much more than that. “Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain.” What does it mean? It means that if you take the name of Jehovah, it means that you have placed Him as the Lord, the guide, the director of your life.

Now if you don’t give Him the chance to guide and direct your life, you’ve taken His name in vain. So many times we say, “Oh Lord, Lord.” Jesus said, “Why do you say Lord, Lord, and you don’t do the thing that I command you?” ( Luk 6:46 ). If you’re not obeying Him, you’ve taken His name in vain.

Thus the greatest blasphemy is not that which you hear on skid row, but the greatest blasphemy is that of those who make an acknowledgment of God in their words, and maybe even in their deeds by attending church and so forth, and yet God doesn’t have a place in their daily life through the week. You never give God a place. You never give God a chance. You never open up your life to God during the week; it’s just a Sunday relationship with Him. That is taking the name of the Lord your God in vain. That’s the greatest blasphemy.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work ( Exo 20:8-9 ).

Therefore if you’re on a five-day week, you’re unscriptural. If you want to really you know, be tied to the law,

The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, or maidservant, not thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it ( Exo 20:10-11 ).

Honored it. Now there are a lot of people, who today, like to make a big issue over the Sabbath day and over worshiping on Sunday. They say, “The Sabbath day is the day you should worship God.” They’ve even gone so far to say that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast. So you’ve all been guilty of taking the mark of the beast because you worship God on Sunday.

Let me say that first of all I worship God every day of the week. As far as I’m concerned, every day of the week is a great day to worship God. I do believe that for man’s sake, God established a pattern of six and one. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” ( Mar 2:27 ). That God has ordained for the body’s sake, one day of rest for the purpose of recuperation. I think that you live healthier and longer if you just spend one day in bed a week, just really flaked out and sacked out in doing nothing; just a total change of pace. I would love to do it.

But this particular law was a special law to the people of Israel as is declared in the thirty-first chapter of Exodus, verses sixteen and seventeen. “Wherefore the children of Israel will keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heaven, and the earth, the seventh day He rested.” So God here plainly declares that it’s a sign between Him and the children of Israel.

It is interesting that the one law that Jesus was constantly being accused of violating was the law of the Sabbath. That’s what really created the ire of the Pharisees against Jesus more than anything else, is that He disregarded their Sabbath day law tradition. Walking through the cornfields, He allowed His disciples-the wheat fields actually, take the corn of wheat and rub it on their hands and eat the corn on the Sabbath day. “Why do You allow Your disciples to do that which is unlawful to do on the Sabbath day?”( Luk 6:2 ).

Now they had so interpreted the Sabbath, the bearing of burdens and so forth, that they had really made the Sabbath day extremely restricting, with all of their rules and regulations that regard the Sabbath day, what constitutes a keeping and a violating of the Sabbath day law. Instead of the day being a day of rest, it was a day of bondage. Man, everything they had laid on you was so heavy. You’re so worried about violating it, that it was a bondage instead of a real rest and a day of relaxation and rest. You were so concerned about the violation of it. They made it a bondage, keeping that law.

In the early church when it was brought to the attention of the church in Jerusalem concerning the Gentile Christians that they were not walking after the law of Moses, it was determined by the early church that they would not try to put upon the church the Mosaic law. But only certain parts of it, and that which related to idolatry, and eating of meats that were sacrificed to idols, or blood, keep yourself from blood, and things strangled and so forth. But nothing was mentioned as far as the Sabbath day, and the church was concerned.

Now the law was not given to make men holy. This is our whole misconception of the law, and that is the idea “the keeping of the law will make me holy”. If righteousness could come by the law, then Christ died in vain. If you could keep these Ten Commandments, and by keeping them be righteous, then Jesus wouldn’t need to die. If God could take and impute righteousness to you because you kept every one of these commandments in your heart faithfully and completely, then there was no necessity for Jesus Christ. But righteousness could not come by the law even if you kept it. Righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now God related to these people, the covenant of God was related to their obedience. If they will obey and their obedience was the, uh to the law of God, was the condition upon which they could relate to God. But this old covenant failed, and it failed because of man’s weakness and man’s failure. Man was incapable of obeying.

Therefore God has established a new covenant that isn’t predicated upon man’s faithfulness, but the new covenant is predicated upon God’s faithfulness, the faithfulness of God to keep His word. The first covenant, man’s faithfulness to keep God’s word, first covenant failed; man wasn’t faithful. The second covenant that God has established through Jesus Christ is a covenant that God has now established which is predicated upon the faithfulness of God to keep His word. And His covenant shall always stand with us because God will keep His word, and my believing that God will keep His word. “So to him that worketh not, but believeth, God imputes that faith for righteousness” ( Rom 4:5 ).

Now does that mean then that I have no relationship to the law at all? I can live however I want? I can violate any of these commandments I want and still have fellowship with God? “God forbid. How can we who are dead to sin live any longer therein?” ( Rom 6:2 ). But it means that God now gives to me the new power of His Holy Spirit within my life whereby I am enabled to be what God wants me to be.

The fifth commandment some people put with the first table. They say that it belongs in the first table.

Honour thy father and thy mother ( Exo 20:12 ):

Because you are not to consider your father and your mother on an equal, but always on a superior basis, even as God is always thought upon in a superior basis; and thus, they say it belongs in the first five words of the law instead of the second six. So they have divided the law into two categories of five and five. I don’t argue with that, you know, foolish. What difference does it make? It’s all part of the ten.

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s ( Exo 20:12-17 ).

Now covet is to desire earnestly, have a strong desire for those things. You’re not to have it. Now Paul the apostle said this is the law that wiped him out. “I didn’t know”, he said “that coveting was sin except the law said, Thou shalt not covet”( Rom 7:7 ). Man, when he saw that, when the Spirit revealed that law to him, he said, “Man I was dead. It killed me.” It was the one that condemned Paul to death. Here he had done all he could to be righteous to the law, and he could write to the Philippians concerning his past experience as a Pharisee. He said, “And concerning the righteousness which is of the law, I was blameless”( Php 3:6 ). But then when he saw that the law was spiritual, then he said, “Man, I was wiped out. I was dead. The law destroyed me.”

Now that was the whole basis of the teaching of Christ, and that is that the law is spiritual. “Thou shalt not kill.” What does that really mean? It means you’re not to have hatred for anybody, because hatred is the seedbed of murder. Thus you can violate the law “thou shalt not kill”, and never club a fellow at all. But if you have a hatred for him, animosity against him, you’ve violated the law, “thou shalt not kill”.

Now the law was intended as a schoolmaster to drive us to Jesus Christ, to make us realize that we were spiritually bankrupt. To make me realize that there’s no way I can pay the debt, thus drives me to Jesus Christ as my source, and my resource.

Now all the people saw the thunderings, the lightnings, the noise of the trumpet, the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Hey you go, you speak with us, and we’ll listen to you: but don’t let God speak with us, or we’ll die. And Moses said to the people, Fear not ( Exo 20:18-20 ):

Now here they are frightened, terrified by the manifestation of God’s presence. The words of God’s grace, “Fear not”

for God is come not to destroy you, he’s come to prove you, [“You said you would obey Him, you’d be His people, you’d be His special people, now God has come to prove you”,] that his fear may be before your faces, [that you might really reverence God] that ye sin not ( Exo 20:20 ).

So God is just telling you what is, and what constitutes sin. This is a basic law of God, which constitutes the right relationship with God and the right relationship with your fellow man. If you don’t have the right relationship with God, there’s no sense of going any further. You’re not gonna have a right relationship with your fellow man.

That is why when the young ruler came to Jesus and said, “Good Master what must I do to be saved?” Jesus first of all tried to draw his attention to something, He said, “Why did you call me good? There’s only one good, that’s God.” What was Jesus saying to him? He was saying one of two things. He was saying to this young man, “Hey I’m no good” or he was saying to this young man, “I am God”. He’s trying to point out to the young man that he recognized in Jesus something that was true. “Why did you call me good? Think about this now young man. You’ve discovered a truth. When you came to me you called me good, why did you do that?” “Because you see you’ve recognized a truth, you called me God. Why did you call me good? There’s only one good, that’s God. That gives you a hint why you called me good.”

We misinterpret that we think that Jesus is saying to the young man, “Why did you call me good? I’m no good, there’s only one good, that’s God.” No, that’s not at all what He is saying. “Why did you call me good? I’ll give you a hint. There’s only one good, that’s God. That’s why you called me good, because I’m God.”

“What must I do to have abiding life?” “Keep the commandments.” “Which ones Lord?” What did the Lord give to him? He gave to him the first table of the law, your relationship with God. Why? Because if you don’t get past this, there’s no sense going to the second table. If you don’t pass the first four, there’s no sense going on to the second six. If you don’t have a right relationship with God, you’re not gonna have a right relationship with your fellow man.

So Jesus reiterates the first four. “Lord I’ve kept all these from my youth up, what do I lack yet?” “Oh, let’s come back and take a look at that. What is the first law? “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me. You say you’ve kept them all? All right, go out and sell every thing that you have, and take the money and give to the poor, and come and follow Me. You’ll have great treasures in heaven.” What was Jesus doing?

He was pointing out the folly of what the man had said. The first law, “thou shalt have no other gods before me”, was the law that he was breaking because he had his possessions as a god in his life. They were his god, and they were before. They were there in the presence of his worship of God. “Lord I’ve kept this law from my youth up, what do I lack yet?” “Oh wait a minute. You haven’t kept it from your youth up. You only say you have. But in reality, you have a god in your life that is possessing you, and it is even stronger and has a greater hold than I have upon you. Your desire for it is greater than your desire for Me.”

Be careful what you say to Jesus, He’s liable to put you on an examination. So much of what we say is flippant, off of the top of our heads when we come to worship God. “Oh God, everything I have is Yours.” “Oh, that’s wonderful. Now if you’ll just sell this, and this”. “Oh now Lord, I really didn’t mean that. You know it’s just a figure of speech.” Words; empty words we’re so guilty of offering to the Lord the empty words of our mouth. “Rend your hearts, not your garments unto God” ( Joe 2:13 ).

So God has laid out what sin is. He said, “This is the mark, so I’ve given you the law that you might know what sin is, that you’ll sin not.”

The people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. You shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall you make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon burnt offerings ( Exo 20:21-24 ),

Hey, notice the Lord is not wanting them to even build ornate altars, “And if you have a-make an altar of earth to make your sacrifice, just pile up dirt for your altar.”

And if you use stone, don’t bring a chisel on it: because if you put a chisel on it you’re gonna defile it ( Exo 20:25 ).

God doesn’t want anything to distract from Him, not even a glorious, fancy altar. He doesn’t want man glorying in the works of his own hands. God help us in the church today. You go into so many churches where you’ve got the fancywork of man’s hands, the ornate altars, the ornate buildings and all. God cannot be pleased with them. God said, “Hey, be simple. Build an altar out of earth; that’s good enough. If you make it out of stone, then don’t carve on the stones, don’t chisel on them. If you put a chisel on it, you’re gonna defile it. Leave it natural.”

Natural, that’s whereby the work of man’s hands, man’s work of his hands is not glorified when we come to worship God, only God is glorified. We don’t glorify the works of man’s hands. We don’t say, “Oh my, this lovely sanctuary built by the hands of men.” “This glorious golden altar, built by the hands of men.” So many places where you go to worship God, your attention is so drawn to the architecture, or to the ornateness, or to the lavishness of it to the works of man’s hands, that you fail to see God. You’re lost for the works of men. God was forbidding that. He said, “Hey when you make an altar, make it out of earth.” He doesn’t want man to glory in His presence, the work of man’s hands or anything else. God wants the glory when we come to worship Him. He wants all the glory.

God help that man who seeks to bring glory and attention to himself while doing the service of God. “The altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings”

and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thy oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if you will make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if you lift up your tool on it, you’ve polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by the steps to my altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon ( Exo 20:24-26 ).

In other words, don’t go up steps and high where people can look up and see your bare legs or something. God just doesn’t want attention drawn to anything but Him when we are worshiping God. He wants your heart and your mind to be centered upon Him, not to be distracted.

That is why we seek to keep distractions here to a minimum. We don’t want anything that draws attention to man. We want our attention to be drawn to the word of God, and to God Himself when we gather together to worship Him. For God forbid that any flesh should glory in His sight.

In dealing with our Maranatha musicians one of the most difficult things we have is that of keeping them from these little antics that draw attention to themselves, even a special movement as you’re playing the bass, you know. It draws attention to you, and takes the attention of the people off of what you’re saying, what you’re singing. “Oh man look at him, you know, really swings, really grooving, you know”

That subtle little way we have of drawing attention to ourselves. But the minute I draw attention to me, then the person’s attention is taken off of God, and I am robbing God of that which is His. God will hold me accountable for it. Thus serving the Lord is always a very fine balance, because I must do it in such a way, that if possible, I be hid, and Christ be seen. If that comes to pass, then my service for God is accepted, and it is blessed and it is successful. But if we’re drawing attention to other things, then the people are going out robbed of the full blessing of God, tragically so.

Next week we’ll take the next five chapters.

Father, we thank You tonight for Thy Word, a lamp unto our feet, a light unto our path. Lord, we thank You for Your law, the standards that You have given to us. Lord, we delight after Thy law. We consent to Thy law. We desire to fulfill Thy law, give us the power Lord, to be what You want us to be, and to do what we ought to do as Your children. In Jesus’ name we pray, Amen.

May the Lord be with you and watch over you through the week. May you experience God’s power working in your life, as He would transform you by the power of His Spirit into the image of Jesus Christ. That you with open face, beholding the glory of the Lord might be changed from glory to glory into that same image, by His Spirit working in you. In Jesus’ name. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Exo 20:1-3. And God spake all these words saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

God is the only God, and no other object of worship is to be tolerated for a moment.

Exo 20:4-6. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Here we are forbidden to worship God under any similitude whatever. The first command forbids the worship of another God: the second strictly forbids us to worship anything which our eyes can see, under the pretense that we are worshipping God thereby. This is another offense, and much more common than the first; and it is often pleaded Oh, we do not worship these things: we worship God whom these represent. But here it isstrictly forbidden to represent God under any form or substance whatsoever and to make that an object of worship.

Exo 20:7. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD shall not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

A reverence for the very name of God is demanded and all things that are connected with his worship are to be kept sacred.

Exo 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within the gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It is good for us that we make the Sabbath a day of rest a day of holy worship a day of drawing near unto God. Thus far, we have the first table, containing the duties towards God. The rest inscribed on the second table are our duties towards man.

Exo 20:12-14. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

These commandments take a far wider sweep than the mere words. Thou shalt not kill includes the doing of anything by which life may be shortened as well as taken away. It includes anger every evil wish and every malicious passion. And Thou shalt not commit adultery includes every form of unchastity and impurity.

Exo 20:15-17. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shaft not covet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not covet neighbours wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbours.

It was the tenth commandment that convicted the apostle Paul, for he says, I had not known sin except the law had said Thou shalt not covet. When men break the other commandments they often break this one first.

This exposition consisted of readings from Exo 20:1-17; and 2Ki 17:23-41.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Here we have the Ten Words of the moral Law. They are introduced by a proclamation of God concerning Himself: first as to His name, “I am Jehovah”; second, as to His relation to them, “thy God”; and, third, the basis of relationship, His deliverance of them from bondage.

The Ten Words fall into two sections: the first, of four commandments dealing with the relationship between God and man; the second, of six commandments conditioning human interrelationships. The Ten Words constitute a philosophy of life as well as a law. Man’s first business is with God. His every other relationship depends on that and, indeed, is created by it.

The effect produced on the people by these words was a sense of fear. They were made conscious of the holiness of God. Because they were sinners, the fear was both natural and necessary. Nevertheless Moses at once on divine authority said to them, “Fear not,” which meant that they might “fear” and “sin not.” The apparent paradox teaches that when man has the fear of God he need have no other fear.

Finally, the way of God’s approach to them was provided. It was the way of the altar and sacrifice. The instructions concerning the altar are revealing. It must be of simple and unmade things, devoid of human workmanship, in which the heart of man might make its boast.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Ten Words Spoken at Sinai

Exo 20:1-17

The Law was given by the disposition of angels, through the medium of Moses. See Joh 1:17; Act 7:53. It tells us, not what God is, for that is only shown in Jesus Christ, but what man should be. It combines in a concise form that moral code which is part of the nature of things, and is written on mans conscience. See Rom 2:5. Even the Fourth Commandment is deeply graven on our physical nature. These laws are mostly negative, but their positive side is stated in Mat 5:1-48. For practical purposes this divine code consists of two divisions or tables; the first, of our duties toward God; the second, of those to man; but these are summed up in the one great law of love. See Mar 12:29-31; Rom 13:8-10 and Gal 5:14. Our Lord Jesus stands surety for us at the bar of Sinai. By His righteousness imputed and imparted, by His obedience and death, by the gracious indwelling of His Spirit, He comes not to destroy, but to fulfill. See Mat 5:17; Rom 8:4.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Exo 20:1-2

The Ten Commandments hold a conspicuous position in that prolonged revelation of Himself, of His character, His will, and His relations to mankind, which God made to the Jewish people. They can, therefore, never become obsolete. The changing circumstances of the human race cannot destroy the significance and worth of any institutions or facts which reveal the life of God.

I. The Ten Commandments rest on the principle that God claims authority over the moral life of man. He claimed that authority in the earliest times. He claims it still.

II. There can be no doubt that God intended that these commandments should be kept. This may seem an unnecessary observation; but there are many religious people who have quite a different theory than this about the intention of Divine laws. They suppose that the commandments of God are principally intended to bring us to a sense of our guilt, and to suggest to us the sins for which we have to ask God’s forgiveness. The thought of actually obeying them, and obeying them perfectly, scarcely ever occurs to them.

III. These commandments deal chiefly with actions, not with mere thought or emotion. Man is not a pure intellect or a disembodied passion. God’s laws, which deal with man as he is, take large account of his external conduct. His actions are as truly part of his life as his thoughts and passions, his faith or unbelief, his sorrow for sin and his joy in the infinite love of God.

IV. Before God gave these commandments to the Jewish people, He wrought a magnificent series of miracles to effect their emancipation from miserable slavery and to punish their oppressors. He first made them free, and then gave them the law.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 1

References: Exo 20:1-3.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 19; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 1. Exo 20:1-17.-J. Hamilton, Works, vol. v., p. 199.

Exo 20:2-3

I. This commandment does not tell the Jew that the gods worshipped by other nations have no existence; it tells him that he must offer them no homage, and that from him they must receive no recognition of their authority and power. The Jew must serve Jehovah, and Jehovah alone. This was the truest method of securing the ultimate triumph of monotheism. A religious dogma, true or false, perishes if it is not rooted in the religious affections and sustained by religious observances. But although the First Commandment does not declare that there is one God, the whole system of Judaism rests on that sublime truth, and what the Jews had witnessed in Egypt and since their escape from slavery must have done more to destroy their reverence for the gods of their old masters than could have been effected by any dogmatic declaration that the gods of the nations were idols.

II. The First Commandment may appear to have no direct practical value for ourselves. It would be a perversion of its obvious intention to denounce covetousness, social ambition, or excessive love of children. These are not the sins which this commandment was meant to forbid. It must be admitted that there is no reason why God should say to any of us, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” If He were to speak to many of us, it would be necessary to condemn us for having no god at all. The appalling truth is, that many of us have sunk into Atheism. We all shrink from contact with God. And yet He loves us. But even His love would be unavailing if He did not inspire those who are filled with shame and sorrow by the discovery of their estrangement from Him, with a new and supernatural life.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 21.

References: Exo 20:1-11.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 137. Exo 20:1-17.-Ibid., p. 207. Exo 20:2.-Ibid., p. 222; A. M. Fairbairn, The City of God, p. 128; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, pp. 1, 14.

Exo 20:3

This was the commandment broken by Adam and Eve in Paradise; they obeyed the voice of the devil, and took him for their god instead of their heavenly Father. Since that time the devil has been called the god of this world and the prince of this world, because men have commonly obeyed him and hearkened to his voice. Even the one family and nation to whom God revealed Himself were quite as unwilling as the rest of the world to serve Him alone, and so they needed this commandment.

I. It may be asked why it is necessary to say, “Thou shalt have no other gods but Me,” because we know that there is no other god at all. If we do not worship and serve God, yet we cannot give His honour to another, for there is no other to give it to. The reason is this, that all those false gods and false religions are ways in which the devil is worshipped and served, for whenever we fall away from the worship and service of God, we fall into his power; we take him for our god.

II. What Satan requires is only, as it were, that we should once serve him. Such was his temptation to our Lord, to Adam and Eve, to Daniel, to the first Christian martyrs. On the other hand, God requires our whole service. As long as there is any single point in which we are acting contrary to the law of God, no other service we can do will be acceptable to Him. Satan would have us but once worship and serve other gods, because we thus become so polluted in our heart and conscience as to be unfit to serve God at all.

Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. i., p. 240.

References: Exo 20:3.-S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, pp. 53, 66; J. Vaughan, Children’s Sermons, 3rd series, p. 152; J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 22.

Exo 20:4-5

The First Commandment condemns the worshipping of false gods; the Second condemns the making of any image or symbol even of the true God.

I. It would have been natural for the Jews to do this. They had many traditions of Divine revelations made to their ancestors. They might have attempted to perpetuate in a visible and permanent form the impressions which His supernatural acts had made upon their imagination and their hearts. They actually did it, for the golden calf was not intended to represent any false god, any deity worshipped by heathen races, but Jehovah Himself. It was the symbol of the God who had brought them out of Egypt.

II. The fundamental principle of this commandment has authority for us still. The whole history of Christendom is a demonstration of the peril and ruin which come from any attempt to supplement by art and by stately and impressive rites the revelation which God has made of Himself in Christ.

III. The justice of the penalty which is denounced against those who transgress this commandment it is very easy to dispute. The crime is to be punished not only in the men who are personally guilty, but in their descendants. The answer is: (1) The same unity of race by which the results of the virtue and genius of one age are transmitted to the ages which succeed it renders it inevitable that the results of the folly and vice of one age should be entailed on the ages which succeed it, and (2) the commandment shows that the righteousness of men endures longer than their sin. The evil which comes from man’s wickedness endures for a time, but perishes at last; the good that comes from man’s well-doing is all but indestructible.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 40.

References: Exo 20:4-6.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 188; J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the ‘Ten Words, p. 53; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 18; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, pp. 79, 92. Exo 20:5.-C. Kingsley, National Sermons, pp. 144, 153; J. B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, p. 104. Exo 20:5, Exo 20:6.-S. Cox, Expositions, 3rd series, p. 1.

Exo 20:7

The name of God stands for Himself and for that which He has revealed of Himself, not for our thoughts about Him. It is not surprising that this great name was invested with a superstitious sanctity. Even the Jews used it rarely. There is a tradition that it was heard but once a year, when it was uttered by the high-priest on the great day of atonement. In reading the Scriptures it became customary never to pronounce it, but to replace it with another Divine name, which was regarded as less awful and august. The Third Commandment requires something very different from this ceremonial homage to His name. His name stands for Himself, and it is to Him that our reverence is due.

I. We may transgress the commandment in many ways: (1) by perjury; (2) by swearing; (3) by the practice of finding-material for jesting in Holy Scripture; (4) by the habit of scoffing at those who profess to live a religious life, and taking every opportunity of sneering at their imperfections.

II. It is not enough to avoid the sin of profanity; we are bound to cultivate and to manifest that reverence for God’s majesty and holiness which lies at the root of all religion. We have to worship Him. It is the “pure in heart” who see God, and only when we see God face to face can we worship Him in spirit and in truth.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 64.

References: Exo 20:7.-J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 163; J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 71; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 104; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 35; E. Blencowe, Plain Sermons to a Country Congregation, 1st series, p. 260. Exo 20:7-11.-A. W. Hare, Sermons to a Country Congregation, vol. ii., p. 347. Exo 20:8.-R. Newton, Bible Warnings; Addresses to Children, p. 214; Todd, Lectures to Children, p. 89; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 115; C. Wordsworth, Occasional Sermons, 6th series, p. 29; J. Percival, Some Helps for School Life, p. 186; C. Girdlestone, Twenty Parochial Sermons, p. 227.

Exo 20:8-11

The early reference to the Sabbath in the Book of Genesis is no proof of its early institution, for there can be no doubt that in the Pentateuch Moses felt himself at perfect liberty, while using ancient traditions and documents, to introduce additions, explanations, and comments of his own. Although there are many references to weeks in the Book of Genesis, there is not a solitary passage which even suggests that the patriarchs kept the seventh day or any other day as a Sabbath. Even if such a commandment had been given to Adam and recorded in Holy Scripture, it could not have any greater authority for us than the commandment given to the Jews. The Jewish revelation has become obsolete, because a nobler revelation has been made in Christ; but the Jewish revelation itself was nobler than any previous revelation, and if Moses has vanished in the Diviner glory of Christ, all that preceded Moses must have vanished too. Dismissing, therefore, all arbitrary fancies as to a primitive Sabbath, consider the characteristics of the Sabbath as given to the Jews: (1) The Jewish Sabbath was founded on a definite Divine command. (2) The particular day which was to be kept as a Sabbath was authoritatively determined. (3) The purpose of the day was expressly defined. (4) The manner in which the Sabbath was to be kept was very distinctly stated. (5) The sanction which defended the law of the Sabbath was most severe.

The only similarity between the Lord’s Day and the Jewish Sabbath is that both recur once a week, and that both are religious festivals. To the idea of the Jewish Sabbath rest was essential, worship was an accident; to the idea of the Christian Sunday worship is essential, rest an accident. The observance of Sunday as a religious institution is a question of privilege, not of duty.

R, W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 87.

I. The first word of the Fourth Commandment reminds us that the Sabbath Day was already established among the Israelites when the law was delivered on Sinai. That law created nothing. It preserved and enforced what God had already taught His people to observe by another method than that of formal decrees.

II. In this commandment work is enjoined, just as much as rest is enjoined. Man’s sin has turned work into a curse. God has redeemed and restored work into a blessing by uniting it again to the rest with which, in His Divine original order, it was associated.

III. God rests; therefore He would have man rest. God works; therefore He would have man work. Man cannot rest truly unless he remembers his relation to God, who rests.

IV. It is not wonderful that the Jews after the Captivity, as they had been schooled by a long discipline into an understanding of the meaning of the Second Commandment, so had learnt also to appreciate in some degree the worth of the Fourth. Nehemiah speaks frequently and with great emphasis of the Sabbath as a gift of God which their fathers had lightly esteemed, and which the new generation was bound most fondly to cherish. His words and acts were abused by the Jews who lived between his age and that of our Lord’s nativity, and when Christ came, the Sabbath itself, all its human graciousness, all its Divine reasonableness, were becoming each day more obscured.

V. Jesus, as the Mediator, declared Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, and proved Himself to be so by turning what the Jews made a curse into a blessing. He asserted the true glory of the Sabbath Day in asserting the mystery of His own relation to God and to His creatures.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons on the Sabbath Day, p. 1.

References: Exo 20:8-11.-J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 177; H. F. Burder, Sermons, p. 386; R. Lee, Sermons, pp. 399, 411, 421; J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 87; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 50.

Exo 20:12

I. The relationship in which we stand to our parents, a relationship based upon the fact that we owe our existence to them, that we are made in their image, that for so long a time we depend on them for the actual maintenance of life, and that, as the necessary result of all this, we are completely under their authority during childhood-this relationship is naturally made the highest symbol of our relationship to God Himself.

II. Honouring our parents includes respect, love, and obedience as long as childhood and youth continue, and the gradual modification and transformation of these affections and duties into higher forms as manhood and womanhood draw on.

III. The promise attached to the commandment is a promise of prolonged national stability. St. Paul, slightly changing its form, makes it a promise of long life to individuals. Common experience justifies the change.

IV. There is one consideration that may induce us to obey this commandment which does not belong to the other nine: the time will come when it will be no longer possible for us to obey it.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 120.

I. Consider various ways in which a man may honour his father and mother: (1) by doing his best in the way of self-improvement; (2) by habits of care and frugality; (3) by keeping himself in soberness, temperance, and chastity.

II. Honour to parents is only the principal and most important application of a general principle. The Apostle bids us honour all men, and again, “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

III. From the conception of love due to father and mother, we rise to the conception of the love due to God. When God calls Himself our Father, the clouds which conceal Him from our sight seem to break and vanish, and we feel that we can love and honour Him. Above all, we can recognise Him as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in Him, and through His incarnation, has adopted us into the highest condition of sonship, and made us heirs with Him of eternal life.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduates’ Journal, Oct. 30th, 1884.

I. The Israelite, when he came into the land which the Lord God gave him, may have found many temptations not to honour his father and mother; and unless he believed that God knew what was good for him and for all men, and was commanding the thing that was right and true, and unless he believed that God would give him strength to obey that which He commanded, he would yield continually to his evil nature.

But the words would be fulfilled to him. His days would not be long in the land which the Lord his God gave him.

II. We too have the land for our inheritance. Our fathers and mothers belonged to it, as their fathers and mothers did, and while we reverence them, every one of us may feel that his days are indeed very long in this country. Yes, for they are not bounded by our birth, or by our death either. The country had people in it who belonged to us before we came into it; it will have those belonging to us when we have gone out of it. It is the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, who has watched over our family, and will watch over those who shall come hereafter.

III. Count this commandment which God gives thee to be thy life. So out of the earthly honour there will spring one that is eternal. The vision of the perfect Father, the joy and blessedness of being His child, will dawn upon thee more and more, and with the higher blessing there will come a greater enjoyment and appreciation of the lower.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons Preached in Country Churches, p. 88.

References: Exo 20:12.-J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 194; E. Irving, Collected Writings, vol. iii., p. 244; R. Newton, Bible Warnings, p. 309; J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 105; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 141; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 76. Exo 20:12-21.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., pp. 210, 214.

Exo 20:13

I. That this commandment was intended, as some suppose, to forbid the infliction of capital punishment, is inconceivable. The Mosaic law itself inflicted death for murder, Sabbath-breaking, and the selling of a Jew into slavery. The root of the commandment lies in the greatness of human nature; man is invested with a supernatural and Divine glory; to maintain the greatness of man it may be sometimes necessary that the murderer, who in his malice forgets the mystery and wonderfulness of his intended victim, should be put to death.

II. Does the commandment absolutely forbid war between nations? Certainly not. The nation to which it was given had a strict military organisation, organised by the very authority from which the commandment came. Moses himself prayed to God that the hosts of Israel might be victorious over their enemies. Wars of ambition, wars of revenge-these are crimes. But the moral sense of the purest and noblest of mankind has sanctioned and honoured the courage and heroism which repel by force of arms an assault on a nation’s integrity, and the great principle which underlies this commandment sanctions and honours them too.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 146.

References: Exo 20:13.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 123; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 154; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 87. Exo 20:13-16.-Parker, The City Temple, vol. i., p. 320, also The Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 122: Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 215.

Exo 20:13-14

There are very sad and fearful thoughts connected with these commandments. But there are also very blessed thoughts connected with them.

I. Is it nothing to remember that the Lord God Himself watches over the life of every one of us, poor creatures as we are, that He has declared, and does declare, how precious it is in His eyes? Our life is subject to a thousand accidents. All things seem to conspire against it. Death seems to get the mastery over it at last. But no; He has said, “Death, I will be thy plague.” As every plant and tree seems to die in winter and revive in spring, so He says to this more wonderful life in our bodies, “It shall go on, and this is the pledge and witness that it shall: the Head of you all, the Son of man, the only-begotten Son of God, died Himself and rose again. God’s conflict with death is accomplished. The grave shall not kill.”

II. And so, again, the Lord is the God over the household. He who says, “Thou shalt not kill,” bids us understand that it is well to pour out blood as if it were water rather than to become base and foul creatures, beasts instead of His servants and children. That was the reason He sent the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites. They were corrupting and defiling the earth with their abominations. It was time that the earth should be cleared of them. The God who gave these commandments is King now, and there is no respect of persons with Him.

III. Christ died to take away the sins of men. He died to unite men to the righteous and sinless God. The Lord our God, who has redeemed us out of the house of bondage, will always deliver us from sin, will give us a new, right, and clean heart.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons Preached in Country Churches, p. 98.

Exo 20:14

As there is a Divine idea to be fulfilled in the relations between parents and children which makes that relationship sacred, so there is a Divine idea to be fulfilled in marriage, in all the offices of mutual love and service which it creates, and in all the happiness which it renders possible; and therefore marriage is sacred too. In its form the commandment only forbids acts which violate the idea on which it rests, but it requires for its true and perfect fulfilment the realization of the idea itself. The institution rests on the possibility of the absolute mutual surrender to each other of man and woman, a surrender in which nothing is reserved but loyalty to God and to those supreme moral duties which no human relationship can modify or disturb. By such a life will the true idea of marriage which underlies this commandment be fulfilled, and all peril of violating this particular precept be kept far away.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 170.

References: Exo 20:14.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 139; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 167; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 216; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 100.

Exo 20:15

I. In this commandment the institution of property is recognised and sanctioned by the authority of God. The institution of property is necessary: (1) for increasing the produce of the earth; (2) for preserving the produce of the earth to maturity; (3) for the cultivation and development of the nature of man; (4) for the intellectual development of man.

II. The institution of property imposes upon all men the duty of industry in their callings; the duty of maintaining independence; the duty of avoiding any, even the least, invasion of the rights of others; the duty of self-restraint in expenditure, as well as of honesty in acquisition.

III. If property is a Divine institution, founded on a Divine idea, protected by Divine sanction, then in the use of it God should be remembered, and those whom God has entrusted to our pity and our care. There are a thousand good works which appeal to us for sympathy, and have a moral right to demand our aid. Definite provision should be made for discharging the duties of charity as well as for meeting the inexorable demands of justice.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 196.

References: Exo 20:15.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 156; J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 224; S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 179; Preacher’s Monthly. vol. ii., pp. 216, 219; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 116.

Exo 20:16

This commandment is not to be restricted to false testimony given in courts of justice. It prohibits slander, calumny, misrepresentation, at any time, in any circumstances. On the other hand, we shall miss the moral significance of the commandment if we regard it as a prohibition of lying in general. It is a specific kind of falsehood which is forbidden: “false witness against our neighbour.”

On what grounds does the commandment fasten on this particular kind of falsehood, instead of condemning falsehood in general? It may be suggested that the bearing of false witness against our neighbour is the most frequent and most injurious kind of falsehood, that the sin of bearing false witness in favour of others is not so common or so mischievous, and that lying to our own advantage is a sin which soon ceases to have any effect.

I. This commandment is a recognition of those tribunals which are necessary to the peace and to the very existence of the State.

II. In this commandment there is a Divine recognition of the importance of the moral judgments which men pronounce on each other: the judgment which individual men form of other men as the result of the testimony to which they have listened, whether it was true or false; the judgments which large classes of men or whole communities form of individuals, and which constitute what we call the opinion of society concerning them.

III. Many ways might be mentioned in which we may avoid bearing false witness against our neighbour. (1) We should try to form a true and just judgment of other people before we say anything against them. (2) We have no right to give our mere inferences from what we know about the conduct and principles of others as though they were facts. (3) We have no right to spread an injurious report merely because somebody brought it to us.

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 218.

References: Exo 20:16.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 171; J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 239, S. Leathes, The Foundations of Morality, p. 191; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 127.

Exo 20:17

I. The history of the world is stained and darkened by the crimes to which nations have been driven by the spirit of covetousness. Covetousness is forbidden not merely to prevent the miseries, and horrors, and crimes of aggressive war, but to train the spirit of nations to the recognition of God’s own idea of their relations to each other. Nations should see underlying this commandment the Divine idea of the unity of the human race; they should learn to seek greatness by ministering to each other’s peace, security, prosperity, and happiness. II. Individuals, as well as nations, may violate this law.

They may do it: (1) by ambition; (2) by discontent and envy; (3) by the desire to win from another man the love which is the pride and joy of his life. The very end for which Christ came was to redeem us from selfishness. The last of the Ten Commandments touches the characteristic precept of the new law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments, p. 241.

References: Exo 20:17.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 189; S. Leathes, Foundations of Morality, p. 205; F. D. Maurice, The Commandments, p. 137; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 220; J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 252. Exo 20:18 (with Exo 24:1-18).-W. M. Taylor, Moses the Lawgiver, p. 198. Exo 20:22.-Parker, vol. ii., p. 320. 20:22-24.-J. Monro Gibson, 7he Mosaic Era, p. 9. Exo 20:24.-Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. ii., p. 89. Exo 20:25.-H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2158; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 196. 20-G. Gilfillan, Alpha and Omega, vol. ii., p. 93. Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 117. Exo 21:17.-Parker, Fountain, Feb. 7th, 1878. 21-23.-Parker, vol. ii., pp. 161, 168, 177.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 20 The Covenant Revealed

1. The Ten Commandments (Exo 20:1-17)

2. Jehovahs gracious provision (Exo 20:18-26)

This law covenant is now stated. It was given three times. First orally here, when God spake all these words. Then in Exodus 31 Moses received the tables of stone, written with the finger of God, the same finger which later wrote on earth in the sand (John 8). The first tables were broken and Moses was commanded to hew two tables of stone upon which Jehovah again wrote the Ten Commandments (Exo 34:1). This law was given to Israel exclusively, which is seen in the opening word. The voice of God spoke these words so that the people heard Him speak. In what sense the law was given by the ministration of angels (Act 7:53; Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2) is not revealed here. Our Lord has divided the Ten Commandments into two sections. The first three go together and speak of duties towards God and the seven which follow of duties towards our fellowmen. And He who gave this law expounded the law and filled it full when He appeared on earth in humiliation. And after He lived that holy life on earth He went to the cross and the curse of the law rested upon Him (Gal 3:13). The law given in these commandments shows mans condition. Most of the commandments are negative, thou shalt not. It is a prohibition of the will and natural tendency of man. Man is a sinner, and the law was given to make a full demonstration of it. Read Rom 5:12-14; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:6-13; Gal 3:19-29. May we fully understand that this law cannot give righteousness nor life and that it is not in force as the rule for the Christian in order to receive blessing from God. We are not under that law but under grace. But grace teaches us to live righteously, soberly and godly in this present evil age. The righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us, who walk according to the Spirit.

The altar is mentioned and in the sacrifice we behold Christ. But further, God will meet the sinner at an altar without a hewn stone or a step–a place of worship which requires no human workmanship to erect, or human effort to approach. The former could only pollute, and the latter could only display human nakedness. Admirable type of the meeting place where God meets the sinner now, even the Person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ, where all the claims of law, of justice, and of conscience are perfectly answered! Man has, in every age and in every clime, been prone, in one way or another, to lift up his tool in the erection of his altar, or to approach thereto by steps of his own making; but the issue of all such attempts has been pollution and nakedness. (C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on Exodus.)

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

So Moses

The Mosaic Covenant,

(1) given to Israel

(2) in three divisions, each essential to the others, and together forming the Mosaic Covenant, viz.: the Commandments, expressing the righteous will of God Exo 20:1-26 the “judgments,” governing the social life of Israel; Exo 21:1 to Exo 24:11 and the “ordinances,” governing the religious life of Israel; Exo 24:12 to Exo 31:18. These three elements form “the law,” as that phrase is generically used in the New Testament (e.g.) Mat 5:17; Mat 5:18. The Commandments and the ordinances formed one religious system. The Commandments were a “ministry of condemnation” and of “death” 2Co 3:7-9 the ordinances gave, in the high priest, a representative of the people with Jehovah; and in the sacrifices a “cover” (see “Atonement,” (See Scofield “Lev 16:6”) for their sins in anticipation of the Cross; Heb 5:1-3; Heb 9:6-9; Rom 3:25; Rom 3:26. The Christian is not under the conditional Mosaic Covenant of works, the law, but under the unconditional New Covenant of grace.; Rom 3:21-27; Rom 6:14; Rom 6:15; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:10-14; Gal 3:16-18; Gal 3:24-26; Gal 4:21-31; Heb 10:11-17. See NEW COVENANT.

(See Scofield “Heb 8:8”)

See,for the other seven covenants:

EDENIC (See Scofield “Gen 1:28”); ADAMIC See Scofield “Gen 3:15”; NOAHIC See Scofield “Gen 9:1”; ABRAHAMIC See Scofield “Gen 15:18”; PALESTINIAN See Scofield “Deu 30:3”; DAVIDIC See Scofield “2Sa 7:16”; NEW See Scofield “Heb 8:8”.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Deu 4:33, Deu 4:36, Deu 5:4, Deu 5:22, Act 7:38, Act 7:53

Reciprocal: Deu 9:10 – all the words Deu 10:4 – which Neh 9:13 – spakest Psa 147:19 – word Joh 1:17 – the law Heb 12:19 – and the voice

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE TEN WORDS

All these words.

Exo 20:1

By way of introduction note: 1. The harmony between the solemn surroundings of Sinai, and the solemn revelations there made by God. Dean Stanley brings this out well; and it is the subject of the impressive contrast drawn in Heb 12:18-24. Gods Nature is in harmony with Gods Word. Nature is like the organ that accompanies the Divine solo. 2. The importance of moral preparations for personal or national audience with the Holy God. 3. There is a question whether an actual Divine voice was heard sounding from Sinai, or whether the people were frightened by the inarticulate sound of mighty thunderings. To decide this ch. 19 should be studied.

I. The Overwhelming Solemnity of the Proclamation of the Ten Words, as compared with the precepts of the Ceremonial Law. Those were given through Moses: these, amid accompaniments of indescribable majesty, by God Himself. They were afterwards written on tables of stone by His own finger, to be preserved for ages in the Ark of the Covenant, and immediately beneath the Mercy-seat itself.

II. The Order,God first, man second; as in the Lords Prayer. Morality rests on religion. The only sure road to thorough righteousness manward is the way of holiness. Honour God, and you cannot be a bad neighbour. Love to Him soon works out in love to others. The law begins with the state of heart towards God: it ends with the state of heart towards man,Thou shalt not covet. How important, then, to begin at the right place, to get right with God!

III. These old words judge each one of us to-day; and they search, as Jesus tells us, not the act merely, but the thought, the desire, the secret purpose. Who can abide their searching light? None. We are all verily guilty. What then? The glorious Gospel with its promise of complete salvation from the curse of the broken law, through the Atoning Lamb, and from the curse of a godless heart, by the gift both of the new spirit and of the Holy Spirit Himself to live therein as the well-spring of all righteousness, the Eternal Life.

Illustration

(1) This code of commandments is a transcript of the records of conscience in the heart of men. This is to those what the great town clock is to the watches which the citizens carry in their pockets. We cannot keep this holy law, in its letter or in its spirit, as expounded by our Lord. It is high, we cannot attain to it. Every attempt is doomed to fail, as St. Paul tells us in Romans 7, which we make in the energy of our own nature. And it is only when we are filled with the Holy Spirit that we are able to realise the Divine purpose in laying down these transcendently glorious claims. We yield obedience then, not because of pressure brought to bear on us from without, but from an inward impulse, which it is our joy to obey. We are not actuated by the fear of a slave, but by the love of a child, who is animated by the spirit of his Father.

(2) The glory of the Decalogue is that, while the tables are two, the law is one, and that it unites religion and morality at a time when they were supposed to be entirely separate. Significantly, the Commandments are mostly prohibitions. Thou shalt not is needed in a sinful world. Negative commandments are the rough rind which guards the ripening fruit. The deliverance is basis of all, so even then a redemptive act was the foundation of Gods claim on men, and grateful love was the motive of obedience.

(3) Ah, but let me have the new spirit created in me from aboveand what a change! The law is now my Fathers law, and, since all His thoughts toward me are thoughts of peace and not of evil, I am eager to please Him. It is now my Saviours law, and, since for my sake He emptied Himself and welcomed the death of the Cross, I cannot do enough in His service.

When the man is right, the Commandment is not grievous.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

The Ten Commandments

Exo 20:1-20

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

As introductory to this study we wish to answer some statements relative to the Christian and the Law.

1. Saints are not under the Law for salvation. We say with unequivocable terms, salvation by the Law is utterly impossible.

“Do and live” may have been and still may be true so far as physical life, and physical health, are concerned; but not so far as eternal life is concerned.

The Commandments were never given as a method of obtaining life, but they came that sin might abound, and that sin might be declared exceeding sinful. By the Law is the knowledge of sin, not redemption from sin. Sinners are now, and always have been, shut up to the Cross of Christ for redemption and salvation.

2. Saints are under Law as a standard of living. Saints, under grace, may not live as they list; they cannot find, in grace, any license for greed or for licentiousness.

Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Here is what happens when salvation and regeneration come into the soul: “What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” did.

The Law could not save the sinner for the simple reason that the sinner could not keep the Law, He may boast his righteousness, and claim that he does fulfill the Law, but all such boasting is vain. “There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.” Sin is the transgression of the Law, and all are transgressors.

Jesus Christ, the righteous One, and the holy One, therefore, became sin for us and suffered, the Just for the unjust. In His death He sustained the sanctity of the Law, fulfilled its every requirement, suffered for us its penalty, and made it possible for the one who believes to be saved.

Now that the believer, is saved, and now that the Holy Spirit has come to dwell within him, the believer has found that he is panoplied of God to meet and fulfill the Law’s demands.

3. Saints, then, are not UNDER the Law, but are above it. They are not slaves driven to despair by its requirements, but they are victors, through the Spirit, living above and beyond all it demands. They do not keep the Law as a slave bending under the whip of his master; they are freemen living beyond its reach; in a high and holier realm of perfect obedience.

What then? “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” To sinners God writes, “There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not”: to saints God writes: “Little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.”

Saints do not need to sin: sin shall not have dominion over them, for they are not under the Law, but under grace.

Thus, nevermore let us speak of grace as an excuse for discarding the righteous requirements of the Law, but let us use our new position as the basis for recognizing that we are dead to the Law, in the Body of Christ; and that, being also risen with Him, sin shall not reign in our mortal body.

I. THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT PREVAILED AT THE GIVING OF THE LAW (Exo 19:18-19)

1. The physical condition displayed. “There were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount.” That is the word of Exo 19:16.

“And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.” That is the statement in Exo 19:18.

It was amid such surroundings as these that the Law came, and that God spake to His people.

Think of it-if so much as a beast touched that mount he was immediately slain; and no mortal man could touch it and live.

2. The consummate folly of basking under the Law. How strange it is that sinful man forever boasts his own goodness, and even dares to seek approach to God on the basis of his good deeds!

The ungodly seek to bask under the Law as a place of safety and security from the wrath to come.

Can a sinner rest under the words, “The wages of sin is death,” or “The soul that sinneth, it shall die”?

The Law worketh wrath, not peace; it is a message of condemnation, not of conciliation; it is the specter of death, not the giver of life.

The Law cannot save, but it drives us to the Saviour; the Law cannot justify us, but it casts us prostrate at the feet of the Lord Jesus, as we cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The Law is at the same time holy, and righteous, and good; while it is the forerunner of judgment, and of death, and hell.

II. THE FIRST AND THE SECOND COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:3-6)

1. The supremacy of God. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” The Bible opens with the words, “In the beginning God.” He was before all things and shall be after all things. In all things He is preeminent. “All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vainty.”

What then? He only is God. Hear God Himself speaking: “I am the First, and I am the Last; and beside Me there is no God.”

Again the Lord says, “Is there a God beside Me? yea, there is no God.” Again, “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”

Again we read, “Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it * *: I am the Lord; and there is none else.”

Once more we read, “Look unto Me, and be ye saved * *: for I am God, and there is none else.”

2. The folly of images. When men, without excuse, refused to know God and glorified Him not as God, their foolish hearts were darkened, and they made unto themselves images like to corruptible men, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things; wherefore God gave them up. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, wherefore God gave them up to reprobate minds.

God is a jealous God, and He will, as suggested above in quotations from the first chapter of Romans, visit the iniquity of parents upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him.

God, however, does show mercy unto thousands of them who love Him, and keep His Commandments.

III. THE THIRD AND FOURTH COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:7-11)

1. Taking the Name of the Lord in vain. Thus it is written, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain.”

We think at once of blasphemy and of cursing and swearing. All that is a clear breaking of the Third Commandment. Such language shows that many individuals have no fear of God in their eyes, and no sense of love and appreciation of His glory and power.

There is, however, another and deeper way in which men break this Commandment. Here is an example taken from Malachi: * * O priests, that despise My Name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised Thy Name? * * In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.” These priests were not blaspheming with their lips, but with their acts. They were offering the blind, the lame, and the sick for sacrifice. Was this not evil? The blood of the sacrificial lamb had no depth of meaning to them. They even “snuffed” at His table, and said, “What a weariness it is.”

Believers take His Name in vain when they belittle His glory and His praise by their evil ways.

2. Remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. This day was given to Israel in memory of their rest from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Yet they refused to keep that day as a day of rest, and they were cursed with a curse.

The seventh day was given to Israel, thus, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”

IV. THE FIFTH AND SIXTH COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:12-13)

1. The Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

There is a verse which reads, “A son honoureth his father.” Then God says, “If then I be a Father, where is Mine honour?”

The word “honor” carries a depth of meaning. The New Testament reads: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord * *: which is the first Commandment with promise.” Thus “honor” means to obey. He honors his father who reveres him, seeks to please him in all things, and bears his father’s name without shaming it by his evil deeds. To such a one God does give promise: “That thy days may be long.”

2. The Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” It was of this Commandment which Christ said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” Then Christ stopped to give a deeper insight to the old Commandment by saying, “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Oftentimes there is murder in the heart, when the actual deed is not enacted for fear of the judgment.

Christians are told to love their brothers. “By this shall all men know that we are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.” Not to hate, therefore, is not enough-we must love.

V. THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:14-15)

1. The Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Impurity is one of the curses of the age in which we live. Morals are at a low ebb. The movies with their display of the sensual cannot be too deeply condemned; the novel with its poison of false loves, plays also a large part in the downgrade of morals: also other evils.

The best we can do for the young people is to remind them of the words of King Lemuel: “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her.” “Her children arise up, and call her blessed.”

We may also remind the young people that “he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.”

2. The Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” We should think of more than the common thief who robs another of his gold. A man may rob his God also. Have you not read, “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed Me * * in tithes and offerings.”

There is another method of stealing. Shakespeare wrote something like this: “Who steals my purse, steals trash; but he who filches from me my good name, robs me of that which not enriches him, and leaves me poor indeed.” Yes, we may steal by our tongues as well as by our hands.

Let us determine that we will go beyond the letter of Law, and into the deeper meanings thereof. Neither by tricks of trade, or by any legal but unrighteous act, may we ever seek to enrich ourselves by impoverishing our fellow man. Let us deal honestly with all men.

VI. THE NINTH AND TENTH COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:16-17)

1. The Ninth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Here is a Commandment that is frequently broken. Insinuations hurtful to the honor and the character of others are given; words of uncertain yet of hurtful effect are stated. Others are discounted, and sometimes even maligned upon some mere breeze of guilt, where there is no proof of sin.

It is easy to tear down another’s honor; it is not so easy to reconstruct it.

If we will practice the teaching of our Lord we will not be found bearing false witness. He said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

“Don’t look for the faults, as you go through life,

And even if you find them,

It is better by far, to look at a star,

Than the spots in the sun abiding.”

2. The Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet.” We are not to covet our neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is our neighbor’s.

How about coveting his power, and his influence, and his fame, and his fine auto, etc.? Instead of coveting the things which belong to our neighbor, we should seek in every way to help and increase his rightful possessions. We should pray for him that he prosper, and be in health even as his soul prospereth. We should share his burdens, and help him to carry his cares. We should never, for one instance, seek to build ourselves up on his downfall, or to enrich ourselves at the expense of making him poor.

Our attitude toward our neighbor should be at all times the abetting of everything that concerns his welfare. We should love him as we love ourselves.

VII. THE PURPORT OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Exo 20:18-20)

1. The people were filled with fear. When the people saw the lightnings, and the noise, of the trumpets, and the mountain on smoke, they removed and stood afar off. Then they said to Moses, “Let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

What else can God’s Law do to us than to fill us with dread and fear? If the Law worketh wrath, where can we find peace? If the Law is a word of condemnation because of our own sins, where can we find peace and rest and quiet to our sin-conscious spirits?

There is but one answer-the Law is a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ. Under the thunderings of the Law we hear judgment and death and hell, for there is not a just man on the earth that doeth good and sinneth not.

To Christ, then, let us go.

“Beneath the Cross cf Jesus,

I fain would take my stand,

The shadow of a mighty Rock,

Within a weary land.”

2. The purport of the Ten Commandments. When the people were afraid, Moses said, “Fear not: for God is come to prove you.” These words give the real purport of the Ten Commandments. Moses did not say, “God is come to save you.” Certainly not. The Commandments cannot save. They could not be a giver of life, if man could from babyhood to death keep them in all their wonderful fullness.

The Commandments, however, were weak through the flesh, because the flesh is filled with sin and no flesh is holy in His sight.

The Commandment could and did prove the people. They are like the plumb line that is dropped down, not to straighten the wall, but to show whether it is straight.

“By the Law is the knowledge of sin.” Paul went so far as to say, “I had not known sin but by the Law.” Then he added, “That sin by the Commandment might become exceeding sinful.” When the Law entered he died, that is, he saw himself dead in sin.

The Law entered that sin might abound. Let us from henceforth seek salvation through faith in the Blood of Christ.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Keeping God’s every command and doing His perfect will, should be our chief quest.

What abuse there is in our religion. One thinks it consists only in a multiplication of prayers, another in a great number of outward works done for the glory of God and help of our fellow men. Some place it in their continual desire for perfection, again others in great austerities. All these things are good and to a certain extent are necessary, but he is deceived who places them as the essential and foundation of true piety. The piety that sanctifies us and devotes us entirely to God, consists to do His will, and accomplishing it precisely at the time, and in the place, and in the circumstances, where He places us: this is His desire for us. Have all the activity you desire, do all such brilliant works as you are pleased to do; you will receive no reward but for having done the will of the sovereign Master. Your servant might work wonderfully well in your house; but if he did not follow out your wishes, his work would be as nothing to you, and you would have the right to complain that he served you badly,-Fenelon.

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW

We have reached the most remarkable event in the history of Israel until this time, and one of the most remarkable in the history of the world. While it primarily refers to Israel, still it affects the whole race for time and eternity, since the moral law is the expression of Gods will, the reflection of His nature, and the immutable standard of right for His accountable creatures everywhere, always. (These remarks apply to the ten commandments. The special enactments which follow them pertain for the most part only to Israel.)

THE DIVISION OF THE COMMANDMENTS

The commandments have generally been divided into two tables: the first including the first four commandments embracing our duty to God, and the second the last six embracing our duty to man (Mat 22:37-40). The Roman Catholic Church has a different arrangement from the Protestant, making but one commandment of the first two, and in order to maintain the number ten dividing the last into two. The result is that some of their devotional books omit altogether the last half of the first commandment, or what we call the second, which forbids idolatry. Their motive for doing this, to any who are familiar with the worship of that Church, is easily discerned.

THE PREFACE (Exo 20:1-2)

What is meant by God spake? Compare Deu 5:12-13; Deu 5:32-33, and the conclusion seems irresistible that, as was stated in a preceding lesson, they refer to an articulate voice.

Notice the authority by which He speaks: I am the Lord (Jehovah), the self-existent, independent, eternal fountain of all being, who has the right to give law to all the creatures He has made. Notice the restriction to the Israelites: thy God, not only by creation but by covenant relationship and by the great redemption He has wrought in their behalf: Which have brought thee out, etc.

How inexcusable their disobedience under these new circumstances! And ours also, who as Christians have been redeemed by Christ from a bondage infinitely worse, and at a cost unspeakable!

FIRST COMMANDMENT (Exo 20:3)

None other gods before Me means as adversaries in My eyes, as casting a shade over My eternal being and incommunicable glory in the eye of the worshipper. The primary reference is to the idols the heathen worshipped, not that they really worshipped the idols, but the gods supposedly represented by them. Nor yet are we to imagine these were real gods, for there is none other God save One, but rather demons (Lev 17:7; Deu 32:17; Psa 106:37; 1Co 10:19-20).

How awful to think that even now, professing Christians worship demons through Spiritism, clairvoyance, palmistry and related occultisms (Deu 18:9-22)! Moreover, in the application of this and all the commandments, we should remember that they lay their prohibitions not on the outer conduct merely but the inner actings of the spirit. See Christs

Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:20-48) and Paul (Rom 7:7-11). Hence there may be idolatry without idols in the vulgar sense and also without worshipping demons in any form: Whosoever seeks happiness in the creature instead of the Creator, violates this commandment.

SECOND COMMANDMENT (Exo 20:4-6)

A graven image is made of wood, stone or metal; a likeness is a picture of any kind as distinguished therefrom. The water under the earth means lower in level than the earth.

Was any manifestation of God seen at Sinai (Deu 4:12; Deu 4:15)? The Israelites were not to make these things. What command was laid upon them when others made them?

What warning is contained in this commandment? Is God jealous in the sense of passion, or in the feeling of a holy Being against evil (Deu 32:21)?

How does this commandment show the responsibility of parents? Do you suppose this responsibility is limited to this sin? Did not Israel at this time have a striking illustration of it in Egypt? Had not their persecution by that people begun just four generations before, and was not the nation now reaping what had been then sown?

Unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate Me. Here two thoughts suggest themselves: there is no difference between forsaking God and hating Him, and it is only them that hate Him, i.e., follow in the footsteps of their fathers, who will be visited with the punishment (Eze 18:20). Perhaps also a third thought is pertinent, viz: that this warning only applies to the temporal effects of sin and not its eternal consequences, hence a son who turns to God, although he may through the working of divinely ordained laws of nature suffer physical consequences here, will be spared eternal consequences hereafter.

Mercy unto thousands of generations, the Revised Version reads. See also Deu 7:9. Of this also Israel had an illustration before their eyes, as they were now gathering the mercy destined for them in the faithfulness of their father Abraham who lived a thousand years before.

Of them that love Me and keep My commandments. Behold what is meant by loving God, viz: keeping His commandments; a declaration which gives a new character to the whole decalogue, which thus becomes not a mere negative law of righteousness, but a positive law of love!

Let us not conclude these reflections without remarking how far the Greek, Roman, and even some Protestant churches have fallen in this regard.

From the use of crosses and relics as aiding their bodily senses and quickening devotion, it has been easy to advance to altars, images and pictures not only of the Holy Ghost and Christ but of the Virgin, and the saints and martyrs without number, until at last these objects have themselves become, at least to the ignorant, actual objects of worship. And what superstition, profanation and mockery have grown out of it all! And shall not a jealous God visit for these things?

THIRD COMMANDMENT (Exo 20:7)

The name of God is that by which He makes Himself known, the expression of His Godhead; hence to take that name in vain is to violate His essence.

The word for vain signifies what is false as well as vain, so that all false swearing or perjury which would make God a witness to a lie, as well as all light or frivolous uses of His name or attributes in conversation, are prohibited. This does not mean judicial oaths, however, which, as we see by Christ and His apostles, may be acts of worship in which we solemnly call God to witness to the truth (Jer 4:2).

But what of blasphemy and profanity by which some interlard their speech, using such expressions as God, Lord, Christ, the Lord knows, O heavens! …. My goodness! and the like (Mat 5:33-37)?

God will not hold him guiltless who does these things. Look at Psa 139:20, and see who they are that take His name in vain. Then read Mal 3:5.

The third commandment is of the same gravity as the two preceding, guarding the deity of God as those do His unity and spirituality.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT (Exo 20:8-11)

How does the first word here indicate an earlier origin than Sinai for the institution of the Sabbath? How early was that origin? How does this show that the Sabbath is an obligation for all men, Christians as well as Jews?

But remember points not simply to an act of memory by a commemoration of the event. Lev 23:3 and Num 28:9-10 confirm this.

But it is the Sabbath day and not necessarily the seventh day that is to be remembered. This means one day of rest after every six, but not according to any particular method of computing the septenary cycle. The Jewish Sabbath was kept on Saturday, but Christians are in accord with the spirit of the commandment in keeping Sunday enriching the original idea of the day of rest by including that of the new creation when our Redeemer rose from the dead.

How does God provide for our hallowing of this day, and what is His definition of such hallowing? When He says, Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, is it an injunction, or may it be considered as a permission? Some think there is a difference between labor and work, the latter term being the more inclusive as involving the management of affairs and correspondence to the word business.

How is the equality of husband and wife recognized in the wording of this commandment (Exo 20:10)? The responsibility of parents and employers? The rights and privileges of employees? The proper treatment of the lower animals? To what further extent did the obligation of the Israelite extend? Has this any bearing on the present obligation of our nation to compel an observance of the Sabbath on the part of our alien population?

Is anything more than secular or servile work intended in this prohibition? Did not Jesus both by precept and example give liberty for works of love, piety and necessity? (Mar 2:23-28; Joh 5:16-17).

What historical reason is assigned for this commandment (Exo 20:11)? And what additional in Deu 5:15? We thus see that Gods authority over and His loving care for us combine to press upon us the obligation of the Sabbath day to say nothing of its advantage to us along physical and other material lines. And thus its observance becomes the characteristic of those who believe in a historical revelation, and worship God as Creator and Redeemer.

QUESTIONS

1.Can you recite Mat 22:37-40?

2.To what demonolatry are some professing Christians addicted?

3.Can you recite Eze 18:20?

4.How do we show love to God?

5.Are you breaking the third commandment in ordinary conversation?

6.What two meanings should be attached to Remember in the fourth commandment?

7.Are the Sabbath and the seventh days necessarily identical?

8.To what do we bear testimony in observing the Sabbath?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Exo 20:1. God spake all these words The law of the ten commandments is a law of Gods making, and a law of his own speaking. God has many ways of speaking to the children of men: he speaks by his Spirit, his providences, and our own consciences, his voice in all which we ought carefully to attend to: but he never spake at any time, or upon any occasion, as he spake the ten commandments, which therefore we ought to hear with the more earnest heed. This law God had given to man before; it was written in his heart by nature; but sin had so defaced that writing, that it was necessary to revive the knowledge of it.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Exo 20:1. God spake all these words. In compassion to man, and the increasing weakness of human traditions, it has pleased the infinitely wise and Holy One to renew the evidences of revelation at fit and proper periods: and he has promised to do this again at the commencement of the glory of the latter day. Isa 65:17. Ezekiel 43. Zec 14:4. Act 3:21. David, celebrating this glorious scene, Psa 18:13, regards God as the speaker. The Highest gave his voice. The chariots of angels were in attendance, which induced the Jews to say, that the law was given by the disposition of angels. They understood that an angel sounded the trumpet.The law delivered on mount Sinai is much the same as the seven precepts delivered to Noah. The rules to understand it are, first, according to St. Paul, to consider the law as spiritual, holy, just and good; free from ceremony. Secondly, that every capital crime prohibited, comprises all the minor faults which are included under it. So our Saviour has expounded the law. Matthew 5. Thirdly, that when any vice is forbidden, the opposite virtue is always enjoined. Fourthly, love being the end of the commandment, these laws are to be written on our hearts.

Exo 20:3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Being JEHOVAH thy Elohim, thou shalt not accept of angel, spirit, or idol, as thy advocate or god.

Exo 20:4. Thou shalt not make any graven image. Lev 26:1. This precept is illustrated into a prohibition of making any figure or likeness, as an object of worship; the brazen serpent, and the twelve oxen that supported the molten sea, were not objects of worship. The papist writers being here pressed, evade the precept by saying, that we must not make the image of another god! Therefore we may worship titular deities. Shameful defence!

Exo 20:5. Visiting the iniquity. In a temporal view, however innocent the children may be, providence often afflicts their bodies with their fathers diseases; but when the children persist in the hatred of GOD, by the worship of idols, or by a course of crimes, the punishment of their fathers shall be visited upon them. Sometimes a whole tribe or nation has been cut off for one sin, as that of the Benjamites for the sin against the Levites concubine; the sin of David also, and the sin of Amalek. In a spiritual view however, the son shall not answer for the sins of the father. Ezekiel 18. With regard to the visitation of iniquity, there have of late years been some very striking instances. In 1685 the clergy of France, says Jurieu, procured an edict which totally deprived the protestants of their religious liberties; and at that time their number was about two millions. The ministers were compelled to leave France in fifteen days, or be hanged: and many of them were arrested in their flight, and afterwards executed. The people were enjoined immediately to embrace the Roman Catholic religion, or leave their shops and lands, and become labourers. The dragoons were quartered on their houses till all they had was consumed; and so circumstanced, language cannot describe the insults their families received. Those who attempted to worship God in the woods and forests, were shot, hanged, burnt, and tortured without mercy. Now reader, mark the hand of retributive justice. At the breaking out of the French Revolution in 1789, it was the third and fourth generation; and the nobility and clergy either perished in France, or lost their lands, and were driven to beg their bread in the very countries to which their ancestors banished the protestants! Many ancient testimonies of like nature might be here adduced, as the sin of David visited on his children, and the blood of Christ visited on the Jews, and on their children in the most awful manner.

Exo 20:8. Remember the sabbath-day. See Ezekiel 20.

Exo 20:24. Where I record my name. God reserved to himself the choice of the place, where he would record his name, or cause the glory of his presence to rest.

Exo 20:25. Make me an altar. The Lords altar was to be of rough stones, or of earth where no stones were at hand: it was to be destitute of carvings, in opposition to the decorated altars of the heathen, that the mind might not be attracted by exterior pomp. The Druidical altars are generally cairnes of rough stones, on the tops of craggy hills.

REFLECTIONS.

The substance of this law was given to Noah in the seven precepts preserved by the Jews, and its principal characters are still written on the heart of man, and enforced by the power of conscience. But since the fall, self-love biases the judgment, and inclines a man to interpret the law in his own favour; hence it became requisite to write it on stones, and support it by the divine sanction. The awful and terrific characters which God assumed on giving the law were wisely calculated to produce sanctity and obedience among the people. Who would dare to make an idol, when he saw no figure or likeness on the mount? Who would dare to swear by another, while the Lord pronounced himself the only God? Who would dare to profane the sabbath by common labour or sinful pleasures, while God hallowed it by his blessing, by resting from his works, and sending no manna on that day? Who would dare to he irreverent to parents, while the heavenly Father, so jealous of idols, requires homage to be paid to our parents? Who would dare to kill, while God extended his arm as the guardian of life; or violate marriage, while God proclaims it the first of covenants? Who, we may ask, in short, would dare to steal, to commit perjury, to seduce a woman, to steal a servant or a beast, while He who is a consuming fire, proclaims himself the avenger of the oppressed, and pronounces the guilty worthy of death?

But the grand question is, whether this law be binding on Christians, seeing they are not under the law, but under grace? It is replied, that on sincere repentance, and believing in Christ with the heart unto righteousness, they are no longer under the curse of the law, for Christ was made a curse for us; nor are they at all under the ceremonial law, for he is the end of that law to every one that believeth. But if a man renounce righteousness, and become an apostate, God holds his perfect and unchangeable law in his hands, to enforce it in full penalty against him, for all his former sins. We should therefore devoutly pray in those sound words, Lord have mercy upon us, and write all these thy laws on our hearts, we beseech thee.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Exodus 20

It is of the utmost importance to understand the true character and object of the moral law, as set forth in this chapter. There is a tendency in the mind to confound the principles of law and grace, so that neither the one nor the other can be rightly understood. Law is shorn of its stern and unbending majesty; and grace is robbed of all its divine attractions. God’s holy claims remain unanswered, and the sinner’s deep and manifold necessities remain unreached by the anomalous system framed by those who attempt to mingle law and grace. In point of fact, they can never be made to coalesce, for they are as distinct as any two things can be. Law sets forth what man ought to be; grace exhibits what God is. How can these ever be wrought up into one system ? How can the sinner ever be saved by a system made up of half law, half grace? Impossible. It must be either the one or the other.

The law has sometimes been termed “the transcript of the mind of God.” This definition is entirely defective. Were we to term it a transcript of the mind of God as to what man ought to be, we should be nearer the truth. If I am to regard the ten commandments as the transcript of the mind of God, then, I ask, is there nothing in the mind of God save “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not?” Is there no grace? No mercy? No loving kindness? Is God not to manifest what He is? Is He not to tell out the deep secrets of that love which dwells in His bosom? Is there nought in the divine character but stern requirement and prohibition? Were this so, we should have to say, “God is law ” instead of “God is love.” But, blessed be His name, there is more in His heart than could ever be wrapped up in the ” ten words” uttered on the fiery mount. If I want to see what God is, I must look at Christ; “for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily.” (Col. 2: 9) “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1: 17) Assuredly there was a measure of truth in the law. It contained the truth as to what man ought to be. Like everything else emanating from God, it was perfect so far as it went – perfect for the object for which it was administered; but that object was not, by any means, to unfold, in the view of guilty sinners, the nature and character of God. There was no grace – no mercy. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy.” (Heb. 10.28.) “The man that doeth these things shall live by them.” (Lev. 18: 5; Rom. 10: 5) “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Deut. 27: 26; Gal 3: 10) This was not grace. Indeed, mount Sinai was not the place to look for any such thing. There Jehovah revealed Himself in awful majesty, amid blackness, darkness, tempest, thunderings, and lightnings. These were not the attendant circumstances of an economy of grace and mercy; but they were well suited to one of truth and righteousness; and the law was that and nothing else.

In the law God sets forth what a man ought to be, and pronounces a curse upon him if he is not that. But then a man finds, when he looks at himself in the light of the law, that he actually is the very thing which the law condemns. How then is he to get life by it? It proposes life and righteousness as the ends to be attained, by keeping it ; but it proves, at the very outset, that we are in a state of death and unrighteousness. We want the very things at the beginning which the law proposes to be gained at the end. How, therefore, are we to gain them? In order to do what the law requires, I must have life; and in order to be what the law requires, I must have righteousness; and if I have not both the one and the other, I am “cursed.” But the fact is, I have neither. What am I to do? This is the question. Let those who “desire to be teachers of the law” furnish an answer. Let them furnish a satisfactory reply to an upright conscience, bowed down under the double sense of the spirituality and inflexibility of the law and its own hopeless carnality.

The truth is, as the apostle teaches us, “the law entered that the offence might abound.” (Rom. 5: 20) This shows us, very distinctly, the real object of the law. It came in by the way in order to set forth the exceeding sinfulness of sin. (1 Cor. 7: 13) It was, in a certain sense, like a perfect mirror let down from heaven to reveal to man his moral derangement. If I present myself, with deranged hair, before a mirror, it shows me the derangement, but does not set it right. If I measure a crooked wall, with a perfect plumb-line, it reveals the crookedness, but does not remove it. If I take out a lamp on a dark night, it reveals to me all the hindrances and disagreeables in the way, but it does not remove them. Moreover, the mirror, the plumb-line, and the lamp, do not create the evils which they severally point out; they neither create nor remove, but simply reveal. Thus is it with the law; it does not create the evil in man’s heart, neither does it remove it; but, with unerring accuracy, it reveals it.

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Yea, I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7: 7) He does not say that he would not have had “lust.” No; but merely that “he had not known it.” The “lust” was there; but he was in the dark about it until the law, as “the candle of the Almighty,” shone in upon the dark chambers of his heart and revealed the evil that was there. Like a man in a dark room, who may be surrounded with dust and confusion, but he cannot see ought thereof by reason of the darkness. Let the beams of the sun dart in upon him, and he quickly perceives all. Do the sunbeams create the dust? Surely not. The dust is there, and they only detect and reveal it. This is a simple illustration of the effect of the law. It judges man’s character and condition. It proves him to be a sinner and shuts him up under the curse. It comes to judge what he is, and curses him if he is not what it tells him he ought to be.

It is, therefore, a manifest impossibility that any one can get life and righteousness by that which can only curse him; and unless the condition of the sinner, and the character of the law are totally changed, it can do nought else but curse him. It makes no allowance for infirmities, and knows nothing of sincere, though imperfect, obedience. Were it to do so, it would not be what it is, “holy, just, and good.” It is just because the law is what it is, that the sinner cannot get life by it. If he could get life by it, it would not be perfect, or else he would not be a sinner. It is impossible that a sinner can get life by a perfect law, for inasmuch as it is perfect, it must needs condemn him. Its absolute perfectness makes manifest and seals man’s absolute ruin and condemnation. ” Therefore by deeds of law shall no flesh living be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom. 3: 20) He does not say, “by the law is sin,” but only “the knowledge of sin. “For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Rom. 5: 13) Sin was there, and it only needed law to develop it in the form of “transgression.” It is as if I say to my child, “you must not touch that knife.” My very prohibition reveals the tendency in his heart to do his own will. It does not create the tendency, but only reveals it.

The apostle John says that “sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3: 4) The word “transgression” does not. develop the true idea of the Spirit in this passage. In order to have “transgression” I must have a definite rule or line laid down. Transgression means a passing across a prohibited line; such a line I have in the law. I take any one of its prohibitions, such as, “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” “thou shalt not steal.” Here, I have a rule or line set before me; but I find I have within me the very principles against which these prohibitions are expressly directed. Yea, the very fact of my being told not to commit murder, shows that I have murder in my nature. There would be no necessity to tell me not to do a thing which I had no tendency to do; but the exhibition of God’s will, as to what I ought to be, makes manifest the tendency of my will to be what I ought not. This is plain enough, and is in full keeping with the whole of the apostolic reasoning on the point.

Many, however, will admit that we cannot get life by the law; but they maintain, at the same time, that the law is our rule of life. Now, the apostle declares that “as many as are of works of law are under the curse.” (Gal 3: 10) It matters not who they are, if they occupy the ground of law, they are, of necessity, under the curse. A man may say, “I am regenerate, and, therefore, not exposed to the curse.” This will not do. If regeneration does not take one off the ground of law, it cannot take him beyond the range of the curse of the law. If the Christian be under the former, he is, of necessity, exposed to the latter. But what has the law to do with regeneration? Where do we find anything about it in Exodus 20: 8 The law has but one question to put to a man – a brief, solemn, pointed question, namely, “Are you what you ought to be?” If he answer in the negative, it can but hurl its terrible anathema at him and slay him. And who will so readily and emphatically admit that, in himself, he is anything but what he ought to be, as the really regenerate man? Wherefore, if he is under the law, he must, inevitably, be under the curse. The law cannot possibly lower its standard: nor yet amalgamate with grace. Men do constantly seek to lower its standard; they feel that they cannot get up to it, and they, therefore, seek to bring it down to them; but the effort is in vain: it stands forth in all its purity, majesty, and stern inflexibility, and will not accept a single hair’s breadth short of perfect obedience; and where is the man, regenerate or unregenerate, that can undertake to produce that? It will be said, “We have perfection in Christ.” True; but that is not by the law, but by grace; and we cannot possibly confound the two economies. Scripture largely and distinctly teaches that we are not justified by the law; nor is the law our rule of life. That which can only curse can never justify ; and that which can only kill can never be a rule of life. As well might a man attempt to make a fortune by a deed of bankruptcy filed against him.

If my reader will turn to Acts 15, he will see how the attempt to put Gentile believers under the law, as a rule of life, was met by the Holy Ghost. “There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This was nothing else than the hiss of the old serpent, making itself heard in the dark and depressing suggestion of those early legalists. But let us see how it was met by the mighty energy of the Holy Ghost, and the unanimous voice of the twelve apostles and the whole Church. “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear,” – what? Was it the requirements and the curses of the law of Moses? No: blessed be God, these are not what He would have falling on the ears of helpless sinners. Hear what then? “SHOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL, AND BELIEVE.” This was what suited the nature and character of God. He never would have troubled men with the dismal accents of requirement and prohibition. These Pharisees were not His messengers; far from it. They were not the bearers of glad tidings, nor the publishers of peace, and therefore, their “feet” were ought but “beautiful” in the eyes of One who only delights in mercy.

“Now, therefore,” continues the apostle, “why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” This was strong, earnest language. God did not want “to put a yoke upon the neck” of those whose hearts had been set free by the gospel of peace. He would rather exhort them to stand fast in the liberty of Christ, and not be “entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” He would not send those whom He had received to His bosom of love, to be terrified by the “blackness, and darkness, and tempest,” of “the mount that might be touched.” How could we ever admit the thought that those whom God had received in grace He would rule by law? Impossible. “We believe,” says Peter, “that through the GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST we shall be saved even as they.” Both the Jews, who had received the law, and the Gentiles, who never had, were now to be “saved through grace.” And not only were they to be “saved” by grace, but they were to “stand” in grace, (Rom 5: 2) and to “grow in grace.” (2 Peter 3: 18.) To teach anything else was to “tempt God.” Those Pharisees were subverting the very foundations of the Christian faith; and so are all those who seek to put believers under the law. There is no evil or error more abominable in the sight of the Lord than legalism. Hearken to the strong language – the accents of righteous indignation – which fell from the Holy Ghost, in reference to those teachers of the law: “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” (Gal, 5: 12)

And, let me ask, are the thoughts of the Holy Ghost changed, in reference to this question? Has it ceased to be a tempting of God to place the yoke of legality upon a sinner’s neck? Is it now in accordance with His gracious will that the law should be read out in the ears of sinners? Let my reader reply to these enquiries in the light of the fifteenth of Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians. These scriptures, were there no other, are amply sufficient to prove that God never intended that the “Gentiles should hear the word” of the law. Had He so intended, He would, assuredly, have “made choice” of some one to proclaim it in their ears. But no; when He sent forth His “fiery law,” He spoke only in one tongue; but when He proclaimed the glad tidings of salvation, through the blood of the Lamb, He spoke in the language “of every nation under heaven.” He spoke in such a way as that “every man in his own tongue wherein he was Born,” might hear the sweet story of grace. (Acts 2: 1-11)

Further, when He was giving forth, from mount Sinai, the stern requirements of the covenant of works, He addressed Himself exclusively to one people. His voice was only heard within the narrow enclosures of the Jewish nation; but when, on the plains of Bethlehem, “the angel of the Lord” declared “good tidings of great joy,” he added those characteristic words, “which shall be to all people.” And, again, when the risen Christ was sending forth His heralds of salvation, His commission ran thus, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16: 15; Luke 2: 10) The mighty tide of grace which had its source in the bosom of God, and its channel in the blood of the Lamb, was designed to rise, in the resistless energy of the Holy Ghost, far above the narrow enclosures of Israel, and roll through the length and breadth of a sin-stained world. “Every creature” must hear, “in his own tongue,” the message of peace, the word of the gospel, the record of salvation, through the blood of the cross.

Finally, that nothing might be lacking to prove to our poor legal hearts that mount Sinai was not, by any means, the spot where the deep secrets of the bosom of God were told out, the Holy Ghost has said, both by the mouth of a prophet and an apostle, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Isa. 3: 7; Rom. 10: 15) But of those who sought to be teachers of the law the same Holy Ghost has said, “I would they were even cut off that trouble you.”

Thus, then, it is obvious that the law is neither the ground of life to the sinner nor the rule of life to the Christian. Christ is both the one and the other. He is our life and He is our rule of life. The law can only curse and slay. Christ is our life and righteousness. He became a curse for us by hanging on a tree. He went down into the place where the sinner lay – into the place of death and judgement – and having, by His death, entirely discharged all that was or could be against us, He became, in resurrection, the source of life and the ground of righteousness to all who believe in His name. Having thus life and righteousness in Him, we are called to walk, not merely as the law directs, but to “walk even as he walked.” It will hardly be deemed needful to assert that it is directly contrary to Christian ethics to kill, commit adultery, or steal. But were a Christian to shape his way according to these commands, or according to the entire decalogue, would he yield the rare and delicate fruits which the Epistle to the Ephesians sets forth? Would the ten commandment ever cause a thief to give up, stealing, and go to work that he might have to give? Would they ever transform a thief into a laborious and liberal man? Assuredly not. The law says, “thou shalt not steal;” but does it say, “go and give to him that needeth” – go feed, clothe, and bless your enemy” – “go gladden by your benevolent feelings and your beneficent acts the heart of him who only and always seeks your hurt?” By no means; and yet, were I under the law, as a rule, it could only curse me and slay me. How is this, when the standard in the New Testament is so much higher? Because am weak, and the law gives me no strength and shows me no mercy. The law demands strength from one that has none, and curses him if he cannot display it. The gospel gives strength to one that has none, and blesses him in the exhibition of it. The law proposes life as the end of obedience. The gospel gives life as the only proper ground of obedience.

But that I may not weary the reader with arguments, let me ask if the law be, indeed, the rule of a believer’s life, where are we to find it so presented in the New Testament? The inspired apostle evidently had no thought of its being the rule when he penned the following words: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6: 15, 16) What “rule?” The law? No, but the “new creation.” Where shall we find this in Exodus 20? It speaks not a word about “new creation.” On the contrary, it addresses itself to man as he is, in his natural or old-creation state, and puts him to the test as to what he is really able to do. Now if the law were the rule by which believers are to walk, why does the apostle pronounce his benediction on those who walk by another rule altogether? Why does he not say, “as many as walk according to the rule of the ten commandments?” Is it not evident, from this one passage, that the Church of God has a higher rule by which to walk? Unquestionably. The ten commandments, though forming, as all true Christians admit, a part of the canon of inspiration, could never be the rule of life to one who has, through infinite grace, been introduced into the new creation – one who has received new life, in Christ.

But some may ask, “Is not the law perfect? And, if perfect, what more would you have?” The law is divinely perfect. Yea, it is the very perfection of the law which causes it to curse and slay those who are not perfect -if they attempt to stand before it. “The law is spiritual, but I am carnal.’ It is utterly impossible to form an adequate idea of the infinite perfectness and spirituality of the law. But then this perfect law coming in contact with fallen humanity – this spiritual law coming In contact with “the carnal mind,” could only “work wrath” and ” enmity.” (Rom. 4: 15; Rom. 8: 7) Why? Is it because the law is not perfect? No, but because it is, and man is a sinner. If man were perfect, he would carry out the law in all its spiritual perfectness; and even in the case of true believers, though they still carry about with them an evil nature, the apostle teaches us “that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom. 8: 4) “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law” – “love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom, 13: 8-10) If I love a man, I shall not steal his property – nay, I shall seek to do him all the good I can. All this is plain and easily understood by the spiritual mind; but is leaves entirely untouched the question of the law, whether as the ground of life to a sinner or the rule of life to the believer.

If we look at the law, in its two grand divisions, it tells a man to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind; and to love his neighbour as himself. This is the sum of the law. This, and not a tittle less, is what the law demands. But where has this demand ever been responded to by any member of Adam’s fallen posterity? Where is the man who could say he loves God after such a fashion? “The carnal mind (i.e., the mind which we have by nature) is enmity against God.” Man hates God and His ways. God came, in the Person of Christ, and showed Himself to man – showed Himself, not in the overwhelming brightness of His majesty, but in all the charm and sweetness of perfect grace and condescension. What was the result? Man hated God. “Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15: 24.) But, it must be said, ” Man ought to love God.” No doubt, and he deserves death and eternal perdition if he does not. But can the law produce this love in man’s heart? Was that its design? By no means, “for the law worketh wrath.” The law finds man in a state of enmity against God; and without ever altering that state – for that was not its province – it commands him to love God with all his heart, and curses him if he does not. It was not the province of the law to alter or improve man’s nature; nor yet could is impart any power to carry out its righteous demands. It said “This do, and thou shalt live.” It commanded man to love God. It did not reveal what God was to man, even in his guilt and ruin; but it told man what he ought to be toward God. This was dismal work. It was not the unfolding of the powerful attractions of the divine character, producing in man true repentance toward God, melting his icy heart, and elevating his soul in genuine affection and worship. No: it was an inflexible command to love God; and, instead of producing love, it “worked wrath;” not because God ought not to be loved, but because man was a sinner.

Again, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Can “the natural man” do this? Does he love his neighbour as himself? Is this the principle which obtains in the chambers of commerce, the exchanges, the banks, the marts, the fairs, and the markets of this world? Alas! no. Man does not love his neighbour as he loves himself. No doubt he ought: and if he were right, he would. But, then, he is all wrong – totally wrong – and unless he is “born again” of the word and the Spirit of God, he cannot “see nor enter the kingdom of God.” The law cannot produce this new birth. It kills “the old man,” but does not, and cannot, create “the new.” As an actual fact we know that the Lord Jesus Christ embodied, in His glorious Person, both God and our neighbour, inasmuch as He was, according to the foundation-truth of the Christian religion, “God manifest in the flesh.” How did man treat Him? Did he love Him with all his heart, or as himself? The very reverse. He crucified Him between two thieves, having previously preferred a murderer and a robber to that blessed One who had gone about doing good – who had come forth from the eternal dwelling-place of light and love – Himself the very living personification of that light and love – whose bosom had ever heaved with purest sympathy with human need – whose hand had ever been ready to dry the sinner’s tears and alleviate his sorrows. Thus we stand and gaze upon the cross of Christ, and behold in it an unanswerable demonstration of the fact that it is not within the range of man’s nature or capacity to keep the law.*

{*For further exposition of the law, and also of the doctrine of the Sabbath, the reader is referred to a tract, entitled “A Scriptural Inquiry into the True Nature of the Sabbath, the Law, and the Christian Ministry.}

It is peculiarly interesting to the spiritual mind, after all that has passed before us, to observe the relative position of God and the sinner at the close of this memorable chapter. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel . . . an altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name, I WILL COME UNTO THEE, and I WILL BLESS THEE. And if thou wilt make an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. ” (Ver. 22, 26)

Here we find man not in the position of a doer, but of a worshipper; and this, too, at the close of Exodus 20. How plainly this teaches us that the atmosphere of Mount Sinai is not that which God would have the sinner breathing; that it is not the proper meeting place between God and man. “In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” How unlike the terrors of the fiery mount is that spot where Jehovah records His name, whither He “comes” to “bless” His worshipping people!

But, further, God will meet the sinner at an altar without a hewn stone or a step – a place of worship which requires no human workmanship to erect, or human effort to approach. The former could only pollute, and the latter could only display human “nakedness.” Admirable type of the meeting-place where God meets the sinner now, even the Person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ, where all the claims of law, of justice, and of conscience, are perfectly answered! Man has, in every age, and in every clime, been prone, in one way or another, to “lift up his tool in the erection of his altar, or to approach thereto by steps of his own making. But the issue of all such attempts has been “pollution” and “nakedness.” “We all do fade as a leaf, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags?” Who will presume to approach God clad in a garment of “filthy rags?” or who will stand to worship with a revealed “nakedness?” What can be more preposterous than to think of approaching God in a way which necessarily involves either pollution or nakedness? And yet thus it is in every case in which human effort is put forth to open the sinner’s way to God. Not only is there no need of such effort, but defilement and nakedness are stamped upon it. God has come down so very near to the sinner, even in the very depths of his ruin, that there is no need for his lifting up the tool of legality, or ascending the steps of self-righteousness yea, to do so, is but to expose his uncleanness and his nakedness.

Such are the principles with which the Holy Ghost closes this most remarkable section of inspiration. May they be indelibly written upon our hearts, that so we may more clearly and fully understand the essential difference between LAW and GRACE.

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch

Exodus 20-24, 34. The Codes in Exodus.Recent study has by many converging lines of argument, based on subject matter, choice of words, relation to the context, idiomatic phrasing, comparison with the historical and prophetical literature, etc., and from an immense accumulation of Biblical facts, proved the extraordinary complexity of the laws in the Pentateuch. Only results can be given here. i. Perhaps the oldest collection is the little code in Exo 34:17-26* J, all short religious laws, and called in the present text the Ten Words of the Covenant. ii. Closely parallel with this, both in form and substance, is a somewhat larger collection called The Words of Yahweh (Exo 24:3) or The Book of the Covenant (Exo 24:7), now dislocated by the insertion of iii. It seems to have consisted of Exo 20:23-26, Exo 22:18-31, Exo 23:1-19, and perhaps Exo 21:12-17 E, religious and moral laws, distinguished by form and substance from their context. iii. Into this a code of laws (Numbers 21 f.), mainly about property, and embodying judicial decisions, has been thrust, The Judgments (Exo 21:1 E). The best explanation of its position is Kuenens, that D, when it was united with JE, took the place of this code, many of whose provisions it embodied, and which may, like D, have been assigned to the plains of Moab. On its insertion the clause and all the judgments was presumably added in Exo 24:3. iv. Last of all, or at any rate later than ii., the Decalogue, called The Ten Words (Deu 4:13; Deu 10:4), took its place as spoken by the mouth of God from the top of the mount (Exo 20:1-17). In its present position it contradicts Exo 20:19, and breaks the connexion between Exo 19:17 and its obvious sequel Exo 20:18. As will be seen, it betrays large Deuteronomic expansion, and may have been inserted here as a last step towards the position, only found in Dt., that the Covenant at Horeb was on the basis of the Decalogue. With these four early codes we have to place v., the repetition of iv., in Deuteronomy 5; vi., the collection (the first and twelfth being additions) of ten curses upon moral, especially sexual, offences, in Deu 27:16-25; vii., the D code, religious, moral, civil, and criminal (Deuteronomy 12-26), called Statutes and Judgments (Exo 12:1); and viii., the Holiness (religious-moral) code, Leviticus 17-26 (esp. Leviticus 19), called H. Lev 19:3 f. (cf. Exo 26:1 f.), Exo 20:11 f., may be the remains of a concise religious-moral decalogue.

These are all the laws that can fairly be compared with one another. The great mass of priestly laws, to which Exodus 25-31, 35-40 belong, fall readily apart from these, but turn out when examined to have also a complicated structure (see Exo 25:1*). Now i. and ii., which involve agricultural observances, are not likely to be Mosaic. In their oral form, of which the frequent groups of 5 and 10 are a reminder, the earliest likely date would be the reign of David or Solomon, when more settled ways came in. But it is hard to reach assurance as to dates. These laws have even been ascribed to the period in N. Israel when, after the exile of the bulk of the Hebrew inhabitants, the new colonists demanded and obtained a priest to teach them the manner of the God of the land, i.e. Yahweh (2Ki 17:24-28*). But the whole complex of legal material, regarded as reflecting a long historical process, reveals to us Hebrew law as no cast-iron cage, cramping the growing soul of Israel, but as an adjustable fence, that could be drawn in here, and pushed out there, as the Spirit of Yahweh, the Living God, might prompt, to fit changing conditions of life or quickened conscience of duty.

Exo 20:1-17 E (expanded). The Decalogue.Here the reader treads on holy ground. But it is firm ground, trodden by the feet of many generations of pilgrims. Let him therefore fearlessly examine the material of which this road of righteousness is composed, and the process by which it took its present form. Though it were not let down out of heaven, it will serve if it lead mens steps towards heaven. Welcome or unwelcome, the views that scholars hold to-day all differ from the Bible story taken literally. It will be least confusing to take by itself the view that on the whole commends itself most. i. If the Ten Words were old they are likely to have been short; and on examination all the longer ones betray marks of expansion by editors of later schools, P being recalled by the reference to the Divine Sabbath after creation (Exo 20:11), but D furnishing parallels to the others, see RV references. ii. It is likely that not eight only but all the Words were prohibitions. The sins forbidden will then be:

I. the worship of other godsThou shalt have none other gods before me (cf. Exo 20:23 a, Exo 34:14, Hos 13:4; Hos 12:9);

II. idolatryThou shalt not make to thyself any graven image (cf. Exo 20:23 b, Exo 34:17, Hos 4:17; Hos 8:4 b Hos 8:6; Hos 13:2);

III. perjuryThou shalt not take the name of Yahweh in vain (cf. Exo 23:1 a, Hos 4:2; Hos 10:4);

IV. Sabbath-breakingThou shalt not do any business on the sabbath day (cf. Exo 23:12, Exo 34:21, Hos 2:11);

V. disrespectThou shalt not set light by thy father or thy mother (cf. Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17);

VI. murder (cf. Exo 21:12, Hos 4:2);

VII. adultery (Exo 22:6 f., Hos 4:2);

VIII. stealing (cf. Exo 21:16, Exo 22:1-4, Hos 4:2);

IX. false witness (cf. Exo 23:16, Amo 5:10-12);

X. greedThou shalt not covet thy neighbours house (cf. Amo 2:6; Amo 8:4-7). iii. It is clear from the references that E furnishes parallels for all the Words except the last, while all but the 5th (obviously a non-significant omission) can be matched from Hosea or Amos. As clearly, moreover, these prophets are not preaching moral novelties, but recalling old principles. iv. Only three commands can be plausibly described as unlikely to belong in substance to the Mosaic age. Coveting is the only purely inward sin condemned, and its place is justified by MNeile as practically including oppression and bribery; but the use of the term house instead of tent implies the passage from the nomadic and pastoral to the settled and agricultural life. The Sabbath, too, was impracticable for nomads in charge mainly of live stock. Moreover, the history of religion in Israel seems to prove that there was no clear conscience against all images till a much later time (see pp. 83f.). The first steps in this direction may be seen in Exo 20:23, Exo 34:17. Hence Kautzsch (HDB, Extra Vol., p. 634b), following Eerdmans, accepts the remaining seven only as Mosaic. For a recent, competent defence of the Mosaic Origin of the Decalogue see Exp. for 1916 (Prof. MFadyen). v. It must always be remembered that negatives imply a positive, and that those of the Decalogue rest upon a principle, the foundation both of religion and morality, that mans true life involves fellowship: Thou shalt live in fellowship both with thy God and with thy family, tribe, nation, and (eventually) fellow-men. Ancient religion as a universal social bond profoundly affected morality; but it might consecrate immorality or condone it by offering non-moral ways of pardon. It is the distinction of Hebrew religion that it neither ordered evil nor made light of it, but called the worshippers of a righteous God to be like Him. And even those who doubt whether moral duties had been gathered so early into a code must admit both that the sense of moral obligation must have been present, and that it must have been connected with fidelity to Yahweh from Mosaic times, or otherwise Israel would never have preserved itself as distinct as it did from the Canaanites, whose civilisation, as being more advanced, left a deep impress upon Hebrew life. vi. The numbering here adopted is that of Philo, Josephus, the Ancient Church, Calvin, the later Greek Church, and Anglo-Saxon Christians, and is undoubtedly the best. But the Roman Catholic Church (with Augustine and Luther) followed the MT in uniting the 1st and 2nd Words and dividing the 10th. The Jews take the preface as the 1st Word, and combine our 1st and 2nd as the 2nd. vii. Also the order has varied in regard to the three Words after the 5th. In MT, LXX (AFM, etc.), Mar 10:19 RV, Mat 5:21; Mat 5:27; Mat 19:18, it is 678; in LXX (B) and the Nash papyrus (c. 2nd century A.D.) it is 786; and in Luk 18:20, R. Exo 13:9, Jas 2:11, Mar 10:19 AV, Philo, and some Fathers it is 768. viii. Finally, it remains to comment briefly on the words as they now stand. When first they became part of the Horeb story of E, they must have followed Exo 19:19, which relates Gods answering Moses by a voice, and which may have originally gone with Exo 20:18, the alarm of the people. Exo 20:1 a, God spake all these words, has behind it not only the editor who wrote it, but the later Hebrew and Christian centuries which have endorsed it. However spoken, these words have found their way to mans heart as the voice of God. The preface lb is a vital part of the whole; the peculiar loyalty demanded in the OT can be paid only to a Divine Lawgiver, who is first of all Redeemer. Hos 12:9; Hos 13:4 are vouchers that Exo 20:1 b is earlier than D, though probably expanded (cf. Exo 13:3*). The 1st Word (3) was probably not at first taken as denying the existence of other gods, but as forbidding Israel to affront Yahweh by recognising them in worship in front of Him. Later, it was seen that, if the practice was forbidden, the misbelief was condemned. The age-long struggle against other gods may be traced in the concordance. The 2nd Word (4) forbids even the making of a graven image: no doubt the purpose of worship was implied. Images were of carved wood, of wood cased with metal, of stone or solid metal. The pesel or graven image, as the commonest. included all. Images of Yahweh were not only tolerated among His worshippers, but widely used . . . till the times of the prophets (Driver, CB). In its present form the 2nd Word reflects a definite stage of later religious progress. The editor (Exo 20:4 b) in general terms excludes images of beasts, birds, and heavenly bodies, and fishes, all represented as objects of worship in lands surrounding Israel. See also Idolatry (Semitic) in ERE. Observe that the flat earth is regarded as floating on the waters under the earth (cf. Gen 16:8*; Gen 49:25). Yahweh is a jealous God (Exo 20:5; cf. Exo 34:14); the Divine Husband is keenly sensitive to the sacredness of the bond that links Him with His Bride Israel (Hosea 1-3, etc.), flaming forth against her when disloyal or on her behalf when unjustly oppressed. But evil has less lasting effects than good, for, whereas disloyalty only injures posterity to the third and fourth generation, thousands belonging to loyal lovers of Yahweh, as descending from or influenced by them, shall share in His mercy. Observe that love to God is part of what we may call the gospel of D (Deu 6:5, etc.), which seems to be itself dependent upon the revelation of Divine love in Hosea. The 3rd Word forbids misuse of the sacred Name, either by perjury, blasphemy, or irreverence, or in connexion with magic or divination (Exo 20:7). Names in antiquity were thought to carry with them the power of the person named (Gen 32:29*). The modern application is that the names of God actually impart spiritual power to those who pronounce them with due sense of the wealth and the weight of meaning in them, but the careless or formal use of them throws them out of gear for this high function. The 4th Word is the only one which refers to a positive religious institution, the Sabbath (pp. 101f.). With profound religious insight it is seen that unless some time is regularly offered to God, no time is likely to be consciously spent in His service. So at sunset on the sixth day the Cease work sounds out (sabbath, a word perhaps of Bab. origin, means this) for the Lords day (Exo 20:8, cf. Isa 58:13). Israel is to remember (Deu 5:12 less forcibly observe) to mark each week with its seal of sacred rest and joyous observance. It is business, i.e. week-day work for gain, that is forbidden. The humanitarian side, exempting dependants, children, slaves, cattle, and naturalised aliens from toil (Exo 20:10), is further emphasised in Deu 5:5. For the priestly supplement (Exo 20:11), see Genesis 23*, where it will be observed that the editor of Gen. considers that Exo 20:11 is not dependent on Gen 2:3 (see Introd. to Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4 a). On this he accepts the argument of Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, pp. 493-495. For the weekly rest-day there is a Bab. parallel, but the social and religious character of the Hebrew Sabbath is its own. The priestly laws elaborate ana refine the 4th Word. The 5th Word (Exo 20:12) impresses a duty widely recognised by ancient sages (e.g. Plato and Confucius), respect for parents (cf. Sir 3:1-6, Mar 7:10-13). The promise (Eph 6:2) offers length of days to Israel and not to the Israelites: the foundations of national greatness are in the home (King George V.). Respect for parents may be taken as the last duty of piety, they being in Gods place, or as the first duty of morals; and so may close the first table (as originally), or begin the new (as in the Catechism). The 6th Word (Exo 20:13) secures the sanctity of human life, the word used referring to violent and unauthorised killing. The absence of any penalty is specially noticeable here, and favours the view that the whole is a summary of prophetic teaching, not a judicial code. For Christs teaching, see Mat 5:21-26. The 7th Word (Exo 20:14) affirms the sanctity of the marriage tie, and the 8th (Exo 20:15) the sacredness of private property; while the 9th (Exo 20:16) lays down the law of libel, untruthfulness being a besetting sin among the Hebrews from Jacob onwards. The 10th is understood by Paul (Rom 7:7) as forbidding the unseen spring of wrong action, unlawful desire; but MNeile observes that it becomes in Mar 10:19, Defraud not. [Those who take it as dealing with the inward desire are often inclined to regard it as exhibiting a much more advanced stage of ethical reflection than the other commandments. Eerdmans has elaborately defended the other alternative noted above, that it is directed not simply against a desire, but against a desire associated with an act. He refers to Exo 34:24 in support.A. S. P.] The clauses after house were probably added. See also Deu 5:21

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

(vs.1-17)

Before God gives the ten commandments, He makes is abundantly clear that Israel’s obedience to law had nothing to do with God’s previous grace toward them in delivering them from the bondage of Egypt, just as today obedience to law has no part in the salvation of souls out from the bondage of sin. Yet Israel must not regard these laws as merely abstract principles, but laws of “the Lord thy God,” indicating another relationship to God on the basis of their obedience. Solemn consideration!

The language of these laws is absolute and peremptory. “You shall” or “you shall not.” No allowance is made for any deviation. First, no other god could be allowed to take God’s place. Nothing must in any way be used even to represent God, no image, no likeness of anything in creation must have any place of spiritual honor in people’s minds. This is idolatry. Even pictures of this kind were forbidden (Num 33:52).

Secondly, such things, wherever they existed, were not to be bowed down to or served, for the Lord God is rightly a jealous God (the only One who has a right to be jealous). this is so serious that people’s iniquity would inflict suffering on their children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate God, those who despise His commandments. On the other hand, His character is such as to show mercy to those who love Him and keep His commandments. Thus, though God is perfectly holy and righteous, yet He is not harsh and cruel, but compassionate.

The third commandment forbids the taking of God’s name in vain. An oath invoking God’s name is a most serious matter. Elijah made such an oath to Obadiah, “As the Lord of hosts lives, before whom I stand” (1Ki 18:15), and that oath was kept. But men would dare to use God’s name often when not even intending to keep their word, thus totally in vain, which is gross evil. We know that people today swear by God with no concern about what they are doing. In fact, the Lord Jesus goes further than the law, by telling us “do not swear at all” (Mat 5:33-37). For man had been proven by the time the Lord Jesus came, to be so untrustworthy that his promises concerning what he would do in the future were of no value. It would be different to swear to the truth of something that has already taken place, when one knows the facts.

The fourth commandment was to remember the sabbath day (v.8), the last day of the week (Saturday) to keep it holy, that is, sanctified from all other days for the purpose of being devoted to God. Israel had six days to labor, but the seventh was a day of rest.

The sabbath was a day of rest: work was strictly forbidden on that day, that is, work of any servile character (Lev 23:7-8). The Pharisees extended this sternly to include the grace of the Lord Jesus in healing, but He showed up their folly by reminding them that they themselves watered their livestock on the sabbath day (Luk 13:14-15). God certainly did not forbid this care for the need of His creatures. But when the nobles of Judah were allowing the sale of all kinds of merchandise on the Sabbath day, when people were treading winepresses, bringing in sheaves, loading donkeys with merchandise to sell. Nehemiah rightly took stern action against this (Neh 13:15-19).

Any head of a household was responsible to see that none of his household, including servants, would work on the Sabbath (v.10). This was based on the Lord’s working for six days to make the heavens and the earth (from what He had first created), and His resting the seventh day (v.11).

In Exo 31:13-17 God emphasizes that the Sabbath was a sign between Him and Israel, and that the children of Israel were to keep the Sabbath. This was not given to Gentiles, and it is not given to the church in the present age (Compare Col 2:16-17). The Lord Jesus was in the grave on the Sabbath day, and was raised “the first day of the week.” From that time scripture emphasizes the first day of the week, mentioning for instance that on that day the disciples came together to break bread (Act 20:1-38; Act 7:1-60). Yet no law is made at all of this matter, for we are not under law, but under grace. We should regard the first day of the week as “the Lord’s Day,” and therefore be glad for the privilege of using it solely for the Lord’s pleasure, without attaching any legal bondage to it.

The first four commandments clearly refer to Israel’s responsibility toward God. The following six (vs.12-17) are toward people. The fifth, therefore (v.12), requires honor toward parents. This respect for proper authority would result in (normally speaking) prolonging one’s life on earth, for it would involve respect for God’s authority too. One of the sad marks of the last days, even in professing Christendom, is “disobedience to parents” (2Ti 3:1-2). Actually, no-one should need a law to lead them to respect their parents, and certainly Christians need no such law, for such things are written in their hearts. On the other hand, unbelievers in Israel constantly disregarded such laws (Mat 15:3-6).

The sixth law, “You shall not kill” finds an echo in everyone’s conscience, for he knows this is wrong without being told. Cain, though he had no law, knew he was doing evil in killing his brother, for he lied about it afterward (Gen 4:8-9).

The same is true of the seventh, eighth and ninth laws. For in spite of men’s knowing these things (adultery, stealing and lying) to be evil, God knew that Israel needed specific prohibitions in order to face them with the fact of their wrong-doing when they disobeyed. Of course the law did not keep them from doing wrong, but it made them, not only sinners, but transgressors. At least, now they could not say, “there is no law against it.” When they disobeyed, they were breaking over a plainly declared prohibition.

The tenth law strikes, not only at outward actions, but at the motives of the heart. Who can stand before a prohibition like this, “You shall not covet”? One who honestly tries to keep this law will find himself in a conflict such as Rom 7:1-25 describes, beginning with verse 7 of that chapter, — a struggle with his own determined sinful nature. Just the very desire to have what someone else has is here shown to be sin. How clearly therefore does the law teach people that they are desperately in need of One who can deliver them from this bondage of sin! But Israel has been slow to learn such a lesson.

MOSES NEAR: THE PEOPLE FAR OFF

(vs.18-21)

No wonder that the giving of such a law was accompanied by “the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of a trumpet, and the mountain smoking” (v.18). The trembling fear of the people moved them to keep some distance away. They agree to listen to Moses, but ask that God Himself may not speak to them for fear they may die. It is true that if God speaks in absolute law, no one can live. However, Moses was a mediator, therefore typical of Christ as the one Mediator between God and men (1Ti 2:5).

Moses quiets the people’s fears, telling them that God has come in order to test them and to impress on them a true fear of His great glory (v.20), so that the fear of God might keep them from sinning. If any outward thing could do this, surely this great manifestation of God’s holiness was that thing. But we know that the effects of this in Israel wore off very soon, and they fell into sin quickly. From the very time it was evident that Israel was in dire need of a Savior to deliver them, not merely from Egypt, but from the bondage of their sins.

ALTARS: EARTH AND STONE

(vs.21-26)

While the people stood afar off, Moses was privileged to draw near to God (v.21). This is because he was the mediator, typical of the Lord Jesus, who alone, on the basis of law, can stand before God. However, God desires others also to draw near to Him. He tells Moses that He has spoken to him from heaven, a place of great distance, and reminds him of the commandment that forbids the making of any image, yet now He tells Moses they are to make an altar of earth on which to sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings (v.24).

Little is said of this altar afterwards, though no doubt this is what is involved in Naaman’s asking Elisha that he might take two mule’s loads of earth from Israel because he wanted to sacrifice to the Lord in the land of Syria (2Ki 5:17). The altar speaks of the person of Christ, as Heb 13:10 implies, and He Himself shows in Mat 23:19-20 that the altar is greater than the gift placed on it. In other words, the person of Christ is greater than His wonderful work of redemption. But this altar of earth reminds us of the lowliness of the Manhood of the Lord Jesus in His earthly path of sorrow. It was imperative that Israel should have this altar of earth. For to be acceptable to God, the sacrifice must be that of a sinless, perfect Man. The perfection of His person gives its influence of perfection to His work.

On the other hand, Israel could voluntarily build an altar of stone. This speaks of Christ as the eternal Son of God, as stone is solid and unyielding in contrast to the crumbling, yielding character of earth. This stone indicated a stronger, more mature faith on the part of the offerer. But it must be built with whole stones, not hewn, for this would be man’s work, which would pollute the altar. Whole stones indicate God’s work, therefore a true perception of the eternal Godhead of the Lord Jesus.

In going up to the altar, no steps were to be allowed. Two principles are involved in this. First, there was to be no gradual ascent into God’s presence by human effort. Secondly, we cannot ascend to a higher level of worship than the level on which we live daily. This would be hypocrisy, and God would expose the nakedness of our deceit.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

20:1 And God {a} spake all these words, saying,

(a) When Moses and Aaron were gone up, or had passed the bounds of the people, God spoke thus out of the mount Horeb, that all the people heard.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17

"We now reach the climax of the entire Book, the central and most exalted theme, all that came before being, as it were, a preparation for it, and all that follows, a result of, and supplement to it." [Note: Cassuto, p. 235.]

There are two types of law in the Old Testament, and these existed commonly in the ancient Near East. Apodictic laws are commands with the force of categorical imperatives. They are positive or negative. The Ten Commandments are an example of this type of law, which occurs almost exclusively in the Old Testament and rarely in other ancient Near Eastern law codes. "Thou shalt . . ." and "Thou shalt not . . ." identify this type of law. Casuistic laws are commands that depend on qualifying circumstances. They are also positive or negative, and there are many examples in the Mosaic Law (e.g., Exo 21:2-11, et al.) as well as in other ancient Near Eastern law codes. This type of law is identifiable by the "If . . . then . . ." construction.

Compared with other ancient Near Eastern codes (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi) the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is positive and concise. God allowed the Israelites much freedom. There were comparatively few restrictions on their personal behavior (cf. Gen 1:29-30; Gen 2:16-17).

"The Ten Commandments were unique in Old Testament times because they possessed prohibitions in the second person singular and because they stressed both man’s exclusive worship of one God and man’s honoring the other person’s body, rights, and possessions. Breaking these commandments would result in spiritual confusion and in human exploitation." [Note: G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in its Cultural Environment, p. 158.]

The Ten Commandments use verbs, not nouns. Nouns leave room for debate, but verbs do not. God gave His people ten commandments, not ten suggestions.

Though Moses did not mention it here, angels played some part in mediating the law from God to the Israelites through him (cf. Deu 33:2; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Preface 20:1-2

These verses form a preamble and historical background to the Decalogue that follows. The Israelites were to obey God on the double basis of who He is and what He had done for them.

Most scholars have divided the Ten Commandments (cf. Deu 5:6-18) into two groups but in two different ways. The older Jewish method, called Philonic after the Jewish scholar Philo, was to divide them in two groups of five commandments each. The Jews believed that this is how God divided them on the two tablets of stone. The newer Christian method, called Augustinian after the church father Augustine, divided them into the first three and the last seven commandments. The basis for this division is subject matter. The first three commands deal with man’s relationship with God and the last seven with his relationship with other people (cf. Mat 22:36-40). Some scholars believe that each tablet contained all ten commandments in keeping with the ancient Near Eastern custom of making duplicate copies of covenant documents. [Note: Kline, Treaty of . . ., ch. 2: "The Two Tables of the Covenant," pp. 13-26; idem, "Deuteronomy," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 161; and Jack S. Deere, "Deuteronomy," in The Bible Knowledge Commentery: Old Testament, p. 270.] This explanation makes the most sense to me.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XX.

THE LAW.

Exo 20:1-17.

We have now reached that great event, one of the most momentous in all history, the giving of the Ten Commandments. And it is necessary to consider what was the meaning of this event, what part were they designed to play in the religious development of mankind.

1. St. Paul tells us plainly what they did not effect. By the works of the law could no flesh be justified: to the father of the Hebrew race faith was reckoned instead of righteousness; the first of their royal line coveted the blessedness not of the obedient but of the pardoned; and Habakkuk declared that the just should live by his faith, while the law is not of faith, and offers life only to the man that doeth these things (Rom 4:3, Rom 4:6; Gal 3:12). In the doctrinal scheme of St. Paul there was no room for a compromise between salvation by faith and reliance upon our own performance of any works, even those simple and obvious duties which are of world-wide obligation.

2. But he never meant to teach that a Christian is free from the obligation of the moral law. If it is not true that we can keep it and so earn heaven, it is equally false that we may break it without penalty or remorse. What he insisted upon was this: that obligation is one thing, and energy is another; the law is good, but it has not the gift of pardon or of inspiration; by itself it will only reveal the feebleness of him who endeavours to perform it, only force into direst contrast the spiritual beauty of the pure ideal and the wretchedness of the sinner, carnal, sold under sin. In this respect, indeed, the law was its own witness. For if, among all the millions of its children, one had lived by obedience, how could he have shared in its elaborate sacrificial apparatus, in the hallowing of the altar from pollution by the national uncleanness, in the sprinkling of the blood of the offering for sin? Take the case of the highest official. A sinless high priest under the law would have been paralysed by his virtue, for his duty on the greatest day of all the year was to make atonement first for his own sins.

3. The law being an authorised statement of what innocence means, and therefore of the only terms upon which a man might hope to live by works, is an organic whole, and we either keep it as a whole or break it. Such is the meaning of the words, he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all; because He who gave the seventh commandment gave also the sixth–so that if one commit no adultery, yet kill, he has become a transgressor of the law in its integrity (Jam 2:11). The challenge of God to human self-righteousness is not one which can be half met. If we have not thoroughly kept it, we have thoroughly failed.

4. But this failure of man does not involve any failure, in the law, to accomplish its intended work. It is, as has been said, a challenge. The sense of our inability to meet it is the best introduction to Him Who came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, and thus the law became a tutor to bring men to Christ. It awoke the conscience, brought home the sense of guilt, and entered, that sin might abound in us, whose ignorance had not known sin without it. It was strictly that which Moses most frequently calls it–the Testimony.

5. Finally, however, the teaching of Scripture is not that Christians are condemned to live always in a condition of baffled striving, hopeless longing, conscious transgression of a code which testifies against them. The old and carnal nature gravitates downward, to selfishness and sin, as surely as by a law of the physical universe. But the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus emancipates us from that law of sin and death–the higher nature doing, by the very quality of its life, what the lower nature cannot be driven to do, by dread of hell or by desire of heaven. The creature of earth becomes a creature of air, and is at home in a new sphere, poised on its wings upon the breeze. Love is the fulfilling of the law. And the Christian is free from its dictation, as affectionate men are free from any control of the laws which command the maintenance of wife and child, not because they may defy the statutes, but because their volition and the statutes coincide. Liberty is not lawlessness–it is the reciprocal harmony of law and the will.

And thus the grand paradox of Luther is entirely true: “Unless faith be without any, even the smallest works, it does not justify, nay, it is not faith. And yet it is impossible for faith to be without works–earnest, many and great.” We are justified by faith without the works of the law, and yet we do not make void the law by faith–nay, we establish the law.

All this agrees exactly with the contrast, so often urged, between the giving of the Law and the utterance of the Sermon on the Mount. The former echoes across wild heights, and through savage ravines; the latter is heard on the grassy slopes of the hillside which overlooks the smiling Lake of Galilee. The one is spoken in thunder and graven upon stone: the other comes from the lips, into which grace is poured, of Him Who was fairer than the children of men. The former repeats again and again the stern warning, “Thou shalt not!” The latter crowns a sevenfold description of a blessedness, which is deeper than joy, though pensive and even weeping, by adding to these abstract descriptions an eighth, which applies them, and assumes them to be realised in His hearers–“Blessed are ye.” If so much as a beast touched the mountain it should be stoned. But Simeon took the Divine Infant in his arms.

And this is not because God has become gentler, or man worthier: it is because God the Lawgiver upon His throne has come down to be God the Helper. But the beatitudes could never have been spoken, if the law had not been imposed: the blessedness of a hunger and thirst for righteousness was created by the majestic and spiritual beauty of the unattained commandment.

Yes, it had a spiritual beauty. For, however formal, external, and even shallow, the commandments may appear to flippant modern babblers, St. Paul bewailed the contrast between the law, which was spiritual, and his own carnal heart. And he, who had kept all the letter from his youth, was only the more vexed and haunted by the fleeting consciousness of a higher “good thing” unattained. Did not one table say “Thou shalt not covet,” and the other promise mercy to thousands of those that love?

This leads us to consider the structure and arrangement of the Decalogue. Scripture itself tells us that there were “ten words” or precepts, written upon both sides of two tables. But various answers have been given at different times, to the question, How shall we divide the ten?

The Jews of a later period made a first commandment of the words, “I am the Lord thy God,” which is not a commandment at all. And they restored the proper number, thus exceeded, by uniting in one the prohibition of other gods and of idolatry; although the worship of the golden calf, almost immediately after the law was given, suffices to establish the distinction. For then, as well as under Gideon, Micah and Jeroboam, the sin of idolatry fell short of apostasy to a wholly different god (Jdg 8:23, Jdg 8:27, Jdg 17:3, Jdg 17:5; 1Ki 12:28). The worship of images dishonours God, even if it be His semblance that they claim. In this arrangement, the tables were allotted five commandments each.

Another curious arrangement was devised, apparently by St. Augustine; and the weight of his authority imposed it upon Western Christianity until the Reformation, and upon the Latin and Lutheran churches unto this day. Like the former, it adds the second commandment to the first, but it divides the tenth. And it gives to the first table three commandments, “since the number of commandments which concern God seem to hint at the Trinity to careful students,” while the seven commandments of the second table suggest the Sabbath. Such mystical references are no longer weighty arguments. And the proposed division of the tenth commandment seems quite precluded by the fact that in Exodus we read, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house nor his wife,” while in Deuteronomy the order is reversed; so that its advocates are divided among themselves as to whether the coveting of a house or a wife is to attain the dignity of separate mention.

The ordinary English arrangement assigns to the tables four commandments and six respectively. And the noble catechism of the Church of England appears to sanction this arrangement by including among “my duties to my neighbour” that of loving, honouring and succouring my father and mother. There are several objections to this arrangement. It is unsymmetrical. There seems to be something more sacred and divine about my relationship with my father and mother than those which connect me with my neighbour. The first table begins with the gravest offence, and steadily declines to the lowest; sin against the unique personality of God being followed by sin against His spirituality of nature, His name, and His holy day. If now the sin against His earthly representative, the very fountain and sanction of all law to childhood, be added to the first table, the same order will pervade those of the second–namely, sin against my neighbour’s life, his family, his property, his reputation, and lastly, his interest in my inner self, in the wishes that are unspoken, the thoughts and feelings which

“I wad nae tell to nae man.”

We thus obtain both the simplest division and the clearest arrangement. In Rom 13:9 the fifth commandment is not enumerated when rehearsing the actions which transgress the second table. In the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy all the later commandments are joined with the sixth by the copulative (represented along with the negative fairly enough in our English by “Neither”), which seems to indicate that these five were united together in the author’s mind. But the fifth stands alone, like all those of the first table. Now, it is clear that such an arrangement gives great sanction and weight to the sacred institution of the family.

Finally, the comprehensiveness and spirituality of the law may be observed in this; that the first table forbids sin against God in thought, word and deed; and the second table forbids sin against man in deed, word and thought.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary