{"id":5063,"date":"2022-09-24T00:58:05","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:58:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-deuteronomy-51\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T00:58:05","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:58:05","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-deuteronomy-51","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-deuteronomy-51\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 5:1"},"content":{"rendered":"

And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

1<\/strong>. called unto<\/em> ] i.e. summoned together. So rightly LXX.<\/p>\n

all Israel<\/em> ] D’s characteristic phrase for the people: see Deu 4:44<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Hear, O Israel<\/em> ] The verb is the only Sg. in this Pl. passage. So in the same association in other Pl. passages: Deu 4:1<\/span>, Deu 20:3<\/span> (cp. Deu 1:8<\/span>):<\/p>\n

the statutes and the judgements<\/em> ] also characteristic of D.<\/p>\n

observe to do<\/em> ] also characteristic of D; occurring some 20 times both with Sg. and Pl.; but many of the instances are editorial.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:1-5<\/span><\/p>\n

The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The promulgation of the law<\/strong><\/p>\n

God was ever wonderful in His works, and fearful in His judgments–but He was never so terrible in the execution of His will as now in the promulgation of it. Here was nothing but a display of grandeur in the eyes, in the ears of the Israelites, as if God meant to show them by this how dreadful He could be. In the destruction of the first world there were clouds–in the destruction of Sodom there was fire; but here were fires, smoke, clouds, thunder, earthquakes, and whatsoever might work more astonishment than was ever in any vengeance inflicted. And if the law, were thus given, how shall it be required? If such were the proclamation of Gods statutes, what shall be His tribunal? The trumpet of an angel called to the one–the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God, shall summon us to the other. Of the one, Moses, who alone witnessed it, saith, God came with the multitude of His saints; in the other, thousand thousands shall minister unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand shall stand before Him. In the one, Mount Sinai only was in a flame,–all the world shall be so in the other. In the one there were thunders and fires; in the other, a fiery stream shall proceed from Him, whereby the elements shall melt with fervent heat–the heavens and earth shall be dissolved–they shall flee away, and have no place. God would have Israel see that they had not a Governor whose commands might be neglected or trifled with; and therefore, before He gives His people a law, He shows them that He can command heaven, earth, water, fire, air, by the mere signification of His will–thus teaching them that it was a fearful thing to displease such a Legislator, or violate such statutes–while they beheld the elements examples of that obedience, which man should always yield to his Maker. O royal law, and mighty Lawgiver! How could they think of having any other God, that had such evidence of the Divine power of the God of Israel? How could they think of making any resemblance of Him, whom they could not see, but whom they knew to be infinite? How could they dare to profane His name, who proclaimed Himself to them by the incommunicable name of Jehovah? How could they refuse to observe His sacred day, when they saw Him command those luminaries by which days and years are measured? How could they refuse to render honour and fear to those who derive their authority from God, when they saw Him able to assert His own and maintain that of His vicegerents upon earth? How could they think of killing, when they were so strongly affected with the fear of Him who thus manifested Himself able to save and to destroy? How could they think of the flames of impure desires, who beheld such fires of vengeance? How could they think of stealing from others, when they saw who was Lord of heaven and earth, from whom their neighbour derived all his possessions? How could they think of speaking falsely, when they heard the God of truth speak in so tremendous a voice? How could they think of coveting what was anothers, when they saw how weak and uncertain a right they had to what was their own? Lord, to us was this moral law delivered, as well as to them. The letter and ceremonial is passed away; the spirit remains, and shall remain to the end of time. There had not been such state in Thy promulgation of it, if Thou hadst not intended it for eternity. How should we, who comply with human laws to avoid some trifling forfeiture, how should we fear Thee, O God, who art able to cast both soul and body into hell! (Bp. Hall.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Who are all of us here alive this day<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

For the last day of the year<\/strong><\/p>\n


I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>This text applies to many this day to whom it was not applicable last year. Thousands have been born in the course of this year.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The text applied to many last year to whom it is not now applicable. They were then alive, but now they are inhabitants of the tomb, and their souls have entered the eternal state. Of these, many classes might be specified.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Some who were expecting it. Aged, infirm, afflicted, who were daily awaiting their dismissal.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Some who were reckoning on many years to come. Young, healthy, hearts full of life; but they perished as the flower. Their sun went down while it was yet day.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Some, we fear, died unprepared. Aliens to God; strangers to repentance, faith, and holiness.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Many, we trust, died in the Lord. Race ended; warfare accomplished; crown received; forever with the Lord.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The text is applicable to all those now assembled. We are all alive here this day.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>And it is wonderful that we are so. Amidst so many dangers, diseases, and death.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Is entirely owing to the goodness and patience of God.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>We are alive under increasing responsibilities. Many blessings have been given to us this year, for all of which we must give an account: talents, time, opportunities, Sabbaths, sermons, etc.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Being alive should fill us with hearty gratitude to God. Our lips, hearts, and lives should show forth His praise.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>As we are alive, let us now resolve to live more than ever to God, and for eternity.<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>It is highly probable that the text is now applicable to some here for the last time. (J. Burns, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER V <\/P>

God’s covenant with the people in<\/I> Horeb, 1-4.<\/P>

Moses the mediator of it<\/I>, 5.<\/P>

A repetition of the ten commandments<\/I>, 6-21;<\/P>

which God wrote on two tables of stone<\/I>, 22.<\/P>

The people are filled with dread at the terrible majesty of God<\/I>,<\/P>

23-26;<\/P>

and beseech Moses to be their mediator<\/I>, 27.<\/P>

The Lord admits of their request<\/I>, 28;<\/P>

and deplores their ungodliness<\/I>, 29.<\/P>

They are exhorted to obedience, that they may be preserved in<\/I><\/P>

the possession of the promised land<\/I>, 30-33. <\/P>

NOTES ON CHAP. V<\/P>

<\/P>

Verse 1<\/span>. And Moses called all Israel, and said – Hear, &c.<\/B><\/I>]<\/P>

1. God speaks to the people.<\/P>

2. The people are called to hear<\/I> what God speaks.<\/P>

3. To learn<\/I> what they heard, that they may be thoroughly instructed in the will of God.<\/P>

4. To keep<\/I> God’s testimonies ever in mind, and to treasure them up in a believing and upright heart.<\/P>

5. That they might do them <\/I>– obey the whole will of God, taking his word for the invariable rule of their conduct. Should not all these points be kept in view by every Christian assembly?<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Moses called all Israel, <\/B>to wit, by their elders, who were to impart it to the rest. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. Hear, O Israel, the statutes andjudgments<\/B>Whether this rehearsal of the law was made in asolemn assembly, or as some think at a general meeting of the eldersas representatives of the people, is of little moment; it wasaddressed either directly or indirectly to the Hebrew people asprinciples of their peculiar constitution as a nation; and hence, ashas been well observed, “the Jewish law has no obligation uponChristians, unless so much of it as given or commanded by JesusChrist; for whatever in this law is conformable to the laws ofnature, obliges us, not as given by Moses, but by virtue of anantecedent law common to all rational beings” [BISHOPWILSON].<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And Moses called all Israel<\/strong>,…. The heads of the various tribes, and elders of the people, as he had on occasion been used to do; unless it can be thought that at different times he repeated the following laws to separate parties and bodies of them, until they had all heard them:<\/p>\n

and said unto them, hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day<\/strong>; the laws, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, which he was about to repeat, and afresh declare unto them, being what they had all a concern in, and under obligation to regard.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:1-5<\/span> form the introduction, and point out the importance and great significance of the exposition which follows. Hence, instead of the simple sentence “ And Moses said<\/em>,” we have the more formal statement “ And Moses called all Israel, and said to them<\/em>.” The great significance of the laws and rights about to be set before them, consisted in the fact that they contained the covenant of Jehovah with Israel.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:2-3<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong> “ Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb; not with our fathers, but with ourselves, who are all of us here alive this day<\/em>.” The “ fathers” are neither those who died in the wilderness, as Augustine<\/em> supposed, nor the forefathers in Egypt, as Calvin imagined; but the patriarchs, as in Deu 4:37<\/span>. Moses refers to the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, which was essentially distinct from the covenant at Sinai, which was essentially distinct from the covenant made with Abraham ( Gen 15:18<\/span>), though the latter laid the foundation for the Sinaitic covenant. But Moses passed over this, as it was not his intention to trace the historical development of the covenant relation, but simply to impress upon the hearts of the existing generation the significance of its entrance into covenant with the Lord. The generation, it is true, with which God made the covenant at Horeb, had all died out by that time, with the exception of Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, and only lived in the children, who, though in part born in Egypt, were all under twenty years of age at the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, and therefore were not among the persons with whom the Lord concluded the covenant. But the covenant was made not with the particular individuals who were then alive, but rather with the nation as an organic whole. Hence Moses could with perfect justice identify those who constituted the nation at that time, with those who had entered into covenant with the Lord at Sinai. The separate pronoun ( we<\/em>) is added to the pronominal suffix for the sake of emphasis, just as in Gen 4:26<\/span>, etc.; and again is so connected with , as to include the relative in itself.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:4-5<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong> “ Jehovah talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire<\/em>,” i.e., He came as near to you as one person to another. is not perfectly synonymous with , which is used in Exo 33:11<\/span> with reference to God’s speaking to Moses (cf. Deu 34:10<\/span>, and Gen 32:31<\/span>), and expresses the very confidential relation in which the Lord spoke to Moses as one friend to another; whereas the former simply denotes the directness with which Jehovah spoke to the people. – Before repeating the ten words which the Lord addressed directly to the people, Moses introduces the following remark in Deu 5:5<\/span> – “ I stood between Jehovah and you at that time, to announce to you the word of Jehovah; because ye were afraid of the fire, and went not up into the mount<\/em> ” – for the purpose of showing the mediatorial position which he occupied between the Lord and the people, not so much at the proclamation of the ten words of the covenant, as in connection with the conclusion of the covenant generally, which alone in fact rendered the conclusion of the covenant possible at all, on account of the alarm of the people at the awful manifestation of the majesty of the Lord. The word of Jehovah, which Moses as mediator had to announce to the people, had reference not to the instructions which preceded the promulgation of the decalogue (Exo 19:11<\/span>.), but, as is evident from Deu 5:22-31<\/span>, primarily to the further communications which the Lord was about to address to the nation in connection with the conclusion of the covenant, besides the ten words (viz., Exo 20:18<\/span>; 22:1-23:33), to which in fact the whole of the Sinaitic legislation really belongs, as being the further development of the covenant laws. The alarm of the people at the fire is more fully described in Deu 5:25<\/span>. The word “ saying<\/em> ” at the end of Deu 5:5<\/span> is dependent upon the word “ talked<\/em> ” in Deu 5:4<\/span>; Deu 5:5<\/span> simply containing a parenthetical remark.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Decalogue Repeated.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD>

B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1451.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.   2 The LORD<\/B> our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.   3 The LORD<\/B> made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even<\/I> us, who are<\/I> all of us here alive this day.   4 The LORD<\/B> talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,   5 (I stood between the LORD<\/B> and you at that time, to show you the word of the LORD<\/B>: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying,<\/P>

      Here, 1. Moses summons the assembly. He called all Israel;<\/I> not only the elders, but, it is likely, as many of the people as could come within hearing, v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>. The greatest of them were not above God’s command, nor the meanest of them below his cognizance; but they were all bound to do. 2. He demands attention: “Hear, O Israel;<\/I> hear and heed, hear and remember, hear, that you may learn, and keep, and do; else your hearing is to no purpose.” When we hear the word of God we must set ourselves to learn it, that we may have it ready to us upon all occasions, and what we have learned we must put in practice, for that is the end of hearing and learning; not to fill our heads with notions, or our mouths with talk, but to rectify and direct our affections and conversations. 3. He refers them to the covenant made with them in Horeb, as that which they must govern themselves by. See the wonderful condescension of divine grace in turning the command into a covenant, that we might be the more strongly bound to obedience by our own consent and the more encouraged in it by the divine promise, both which are supposed in the covenant. The promises and threatenings annexed to some of the precepts, as to the second, third, and fifth, make them amount to a covenant. Observe, (1.) The parties to this covenant. God made it, not with our fathers,<\/I> not with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; to them God gave the covenant of circumcision<\/I> (Acts vii. 8<\/span>), but not that of the ten commandments. The light of divine revelation shone gradually, and the children were made to know more of God’s mind than their fathers had done. “The covenant was made with us, or our immediate parents that represented us, before Mount Sinai, and transacted for us.” (2.) The publication of this covenant. God himself did, as it were, read the articles to them (v.<\/I><\/span> 4<\/span>): He talked with you face to face; word to word,<\/I> so the Chaldee. Not in dark visions, as of old he spoke to the fathers (Job 4:12<\/span>; Job 4:13<\/span>), but openly and clearly, and so that all the thousands of Israel might hear and understand. He spoke to them, and then received the answer they returned to him: thus was it transacted face to face.<\/I> (3.) The mediator of the covenant: Moses stood between God and them,<\/I> at the foot of the mount (v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>), and carried messages between them both for the settling of the preliminaries (Exod. xix.<\/span>) and for the changing of the ratifications, Exod. xxiv.<\/span> Herein Moses was a type of Christ, who stands between God and man, to show us the word of the Lord,<\/I> a blessed days-man, that has laid his hand upon us both, so that we may both hear from God and speak to him without trembling.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER FIVE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Verses 1-5:<\/p>\n

The text is Moses’ reminder of the making of the Covenant of the Law at Mount Horeb, see Exo 19:16-25<\/span>. There was established at Horeb a covenant relationship between Jehovah and Israel. The entire body of the Law relates to that covenant. Here, Moses begins a recapitulation of the basic tenets of that Law.<\/p>\n

The Covenant at Horeb is separate and distinct from the Abrahamic Covenant, Gen 12:1-3<\/span>. It was made with Israel as a nation. Note some contrasts:<\/p>\n

Abrahamic CovenantMosaic Covenant<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Covenant of GraceA Covenant of Law<\/p>\n

Unconditional, based uponConditional, based upon<\/p>\n

God’s faithfulnessIsrael’s obedience<\/p>\n

Affecting all nationsAffecting Israel only<\/p>\n

Verse 3: <\/strong>All who witnessed the events at Horeb were dead at the time of this text, except Moses, Joshua, and Caleb. “All of us here alive this day” does not refer to individuals as such, but to the nation of Israel as an organic unit.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. And Moses called all Israel. Since the plan and order of exposition which I have adopted required that this same preface, as it is repeated word. for word in Deuteronomy, should here also be read together, I have thought fit also to insert the five verses, which in this place precede it. In the first verse, Moses exhorts the people to hear the judgments and statutes of God, which he sets before them. He likewise states the object of this, that they should keep (222) to do them; as much as to say, that he was not offering them mere empty speculations, which it was enough to understand with the mind, and to talk about, but that the rule for the ordering of their lives was also contained in his teaching; and, therefore, that it demands imperatively their serious meditation. <\/p>\n

(222) So in margin A.V. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1<\/span> to Deu 26:19<\/span> record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.<\/p>\n

The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. <\/strong>Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day,<\/em> to 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 (Deu 5:15<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n

This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.<\/em> The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good,<\/em> but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!<\/p>\n

The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,<\/p>\n

Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.<\/em><\/p>\n

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;<\/p>\n

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.<\/p>\n

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n

Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.<\/p>\n

We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence.<\/strong> He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24<\/em><\/span><\/em>). <\/em>He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel<\/em> (Deu 6:4<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6<\/em><\/span><\/em>),<\/em> to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.<\/p>\n

We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n

It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.<\/p>\n

What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12<\/em><\/span><\/em>)?<\/em><\/p>\n

And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.<\/p>\n

Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions.<\/strong> They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); <\/em>they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24<\/em><\/span><\/em>); <\/em>they ended (Deuteronomy 23<\/em><\/span><\/em>)<\/em> in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n

It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.<\/p>\n

In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.<\/p>\n

But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL REMARKS<\/strong>.The Deuteronomy, or second law, is now given and enforced. But Moses refers to the covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel, and recapitulates the Sinaitic code in its most important features.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:1<\/span>. Moses called marks the publicity and importance of the address.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:2<\/span>. Our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but with the nation as an organic whole, those identified with the people who entered into the covenant at Sinai.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:4<\/span> Face to face, not in visible form, but familiarly, near as one person to another.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:5<\/span>. Even as regards the Decalogue this statement has its application. Moses stood between the Lord and them whilst it was delivered, and perhaps it was (Exo. 19:19<\/span>) addressed directly to Moses, though in accents audible to the assembly beneath. Thus was the law, including even the Ten Words, in the hands of a mediator (Gal. 3:19<\/span>).Sp. Com<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:6<\/span>. An introduction to the commandments which follow, and which are given with slight verbal alteration the same as in Exodus 20<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:7-16<\/span>. First table of the Law.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:7<\/span>. Before me, lit<\/em>. beyond me (Gen. 48:22<\/span>; Psa. 16:2<\/span>), in addition to me (Gen. 31:50<\/span>; Deu. 19:9<\/span>); meaning by the side of me, or in my presence.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:8<\/span>. All symbolic representations prohibited. Heaven<\/em>, stars or birds; earth<\/em>, all kinds of animals; water<\/em>, fish and water creatures.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:9<\/span>. Jealous, who gives not to another honour due to himself (Isa. 42:8<\/span>; Isa. 48:11<\/span>), nor tolerates the worship of any idol. Visiting<\/em>, not charging<\/em> the iniquity, but permitting its consequences to flow beyond persons or nations committing it.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:10<\/span>. The third and fourth generation are punished<\/em> (visited); but mercy<\/em> is shown to the thousandth.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:11<\/span>. In vain, lit<\/em>., lift up the name of Jehovah thy God in vain. Lift up, take up a proverb (Num. 23:7<\/span>), a song (Psa. 81:3<\/span>), or a prayer (Isa. 37:3<\/span>), All employment of Gods name for vain and unworthy purposes forbidden; not merely false swearing; but profane and idle swearing in daily life. Guiltless<\/em>, left unpunished.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:12-15<\/span>. Sabbath, already in existence has to be sanctified<\/em> (a festival-keeper, Exo. 16:23<\/span>) to be observed a day of rest, belonging to the Lord and consecrated to Him. Neither man nor beast to work. The exhortation is pointed by reminding the people that they too were formerly servants themselves. The bondage in Egypt and the deliverance from it are not assigned as grounds for the institution of the Sabbath, which is of far older date (cf<\/em>. Gen. 2:3<\/span>); but rather as suggesting motives for the religions observance of that institution. The exodus was an entrance into rent from the toils of the house of bondage, and is thought actually to have occurred on the Sabbath day. Hence arose special and national obligations with respect to the Sabbath, on which it is exactly within the scope of Moses purpose in Deuteronomy to insist.Sp. Com<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:16<\/span>. Well with thee. An insertion not in Exo. 20:11<\/span>, but found in Eph. 6:3<\/span>, and amplifying the promise of long life.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:17-21<\/span>. Second table of the law. The enactments are from outward deeds (kill, adultery, steal<\/em>), to words, (false witness and lies) to inward desires (covet<\/em> and desire<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:22<\/span>. Added, lit<\/em>, He did not add, i.e.<\/em>, He spoke no more with the great voice directly to the people, but addressed all other communications to them through Moses.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:23-33<\/span>. Here we have a fuller account than that in Exo. 20:18-21<\/span>. Gods reply (Deu. 5:18-31<\/span>) to the peoples request is not given in the summary of Exodus. The people were alarmed at the awful phenomena in which God revealed His glory and uttered His will; entreated Moses to stand between as mediator, that they might not die, and then promised to hear and obey. God approved the request, because it indicated a feeling of unfitness for intercourse with Him, but added<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:28-29<\/span>. Would that they always had this feelingthis heart in them to fear me, that it might be well with them and their children.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:30-31<\/span>. The people are directed to their tents; Moses is appointed mediator, to whom God would give all law for the people.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:32-33<\/span>. Events are brought to a close by an exhortation to careful observance of the commandments, never to turn aside, right or left, from the way pointed out, that it may be well with them (cf<\/em>. cp. Deu. 4:40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

THE COVENANT IN HOREB.<\/strong>Deu. 5:1-5<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses was about to recapitulate the law. It was fitting to remind them of the circumstances in which it was given, and the special relation between God and His people.<\/p>\n

I. The method in which the covenant was given<\/strong>. Jewish and other writers have speculated on this subject, but we can only reconcile the various statements in Old and New Testaments (Exo. 20:2<\/span>; Deu. 5:4<\/span>; cf<\/em>. Act. 7:53<\/span>; Gal. 3:19<\/span>; Heb. 2:2<\/span>) by remembering the spirituality of God, and His special agency in the revelation of His will. From this narrative we learn that<\/p>\n

1. The covenant was specially made with them<\/em>. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers. It is specially with us, a covenant not of circumcision (Act. 7:8<\/span>) but ten commandments. Light gradually shines, and children know more of Gods will than their forefathers. <\/p>\n

2. The covenant was given familiarly to them<\/em>. The Lord talked with you face to face, as one friend with another. Not in dreams and dark visions as of old (Job. 4:12-13<\/span>), but directly, openly and clearly. <\/p>\n

3. The covenant was given amid divine splendour<\/em>. Out of the midst of the fire. The natural phenomena and peculiar surroundings were intended to impress their minds and beget right feelings and willing obedience. <\/p>\n

4. The covenant was given through a mediator<\/em>. I stood between the Lord and youat your request, and by Gods approval; to allay your fears and preserve your lives. We<\/em> have Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24<\/span>) to remove our guilt and intercede with God.<\/p>\n

II. The obligations under which the covenant put the people<\/strong>. Special favours beget special obligations. This covenant is with us, reminds us of our privileged condition and reciprocal duty. <\/p>\n

1. Gods commands must be performed<\/em>. Do them. Not talk and speculate about them. We must personally accept the terms and bind ourselves to constant performance. <\/p>\n

2. Gods commands must be understood<\/em> before they can be performed. That ye may learn them. Obedience must be intelligent, a reasonable service, not mechanical. Intellect is concerned as well as heart. With all thy heart; with all thy mind. <\/p>\n

3. Gods commands must be heard<\/em> before they can be understood. Hear, O Israel. They must be observed and attentively considered. The ears must be employed for God. I speak in your ears. Things heard must not slip or glide out of our treacherous hearts and memories as out of leaking vessels (Heb. 2:1<\/span>). Thus there can be no obligation without law to found it upon, and no law in religion but from God. God, therefore, must be heard, feared, and glorified. Loyal obedience is necessary, not to purchase salvation, but to please God and benefit men. That ye may live, and that it may be well with you.<\/p>\n

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT: GODS SUPREMACY OVER OUR AFFECTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:6-7<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The decalogue, or ten words, have been appropriately divided into two parts, called tables of the law. It is a natural division founded on the distinct character of the precepts themselves, and sanctioned by our Saviour in Mat. 22:37-40<\/span>. In one sense the law was a republication of the law of nature. But sin had corrupted the original impress on the human heart, hence it was necessary to make it the basis of the national constitution with Israel, and to preserve it as the rule of life for all mankind. Man is instructed, and God is exalted in this moral law.<\/p>\n

I. God must be the sole object of our affection<\/strong>. Thou shalt have none other Gods before me. Our duties arise from our relations. Our relation to God is the earliest, most essential, and most lasting; regard to Him therefore as our God is our first and highest duty. There are systems of morality which omit, or, slightly notice, the high claims of God upon our hearts, which exhalt domestic and social duties, and which sustain and adorn the relation of friendship and the claims of politics and philanthropy. These systems are from men, but the first commandment from God is thou shalt have no other gods but me<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. No other god instead of Jehovah<\/em>. Nothing must usurp the place of God in our hearts and affections. Riches, learning, and power are gifts fromand must not be worshipped instead ofGod. There is a tendency in man to imagine and make other gods. The Jews were prone to fall into the gross enormities of polytheism; classic nations of antiquity, amid all superstitions and devotions, were without God. In this ageclear with indications of Gods existence and unity, with tender and most constraining motives to cleave to Himthere is still a tendency in our hearts to depart from God and make idols of the creatures; still a necessity to urge the claims of Jehovah, and maintain virtue and piety in the world. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. <\/p>\n

2. No other god along with Jehovah<\/em>. There cannot be two gods. It is impossible to serve two<\/em> masters. If we hate one we shall cleave to the other, or hold to the one and despise the other (Mat. 6:24<\/span>). Yet many try to serve God and the worldmake a compromise, and, like Israel, join a false god with the true. They feared the Lord and served their own gods. <\/p>\n

3. Jehovah, and Jehovah only<\/em>, must be our God. He must be the object of our choice and affection. We are forbidden to deny God; to give the glory due to Him to another; and to forget our relation to Him as our God. We must know and acknowledge, worship and serve God as one God, as the only true God, and as our God.<\/p>\n

II. The grounds on which God claims to be the sole object of our affection<\/strong>. The law begins with a declaration of God concerning Himself, which serves as a ground and motive for obedience. I am Jehovah thy God. These words are often repeated, because the tendencies of our nature to forget or slight Gods manifestations are deep and dangerous. <\/p>\n

1. Gods supreme authority<\/em>. I am Jehovah<\/em>. Self-existent, infinite, and eternal, the source of life, authority and happiness. Our maker, and has right to dispose of us according to his pleasure. <\/p>\n

2. Gods covenant mercy<\/em>. Thy God. The name Jehovah might terrify, but thy God is the charter in Christ of all blessings, allures and draws us to him. Happy are the people whose God is the Lord. <\/p>\n

3. Gods wonderful deliverance<\/em>. Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, etc. This was an act of power, wisdom and goodness, specially fitted to incite them to obedience, and kindle their hearts into warmest love. God delivers that he may be served. When he has made and redeemed us surely no other god should hide him from view. Therefore will we serve the Lord, for he is our God.<\/p>\n

THE SECOND COMMANDMENT: GODS SUPREMACY OVER OUR WORSHIP<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:8-10<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The first commandment regards the object<\/em> of worshipthe living and true God, and requires that we worship Him and no other The second respects the means<\/em> of worship, and requires that we worship the true God in such a way only, and by such ordinances as He hath appointed in His word. The first may be discovered by the light of nature, but the second can be discovered only by revelation. (Patterson<\/em>). In one command God declares that He will be worshipped by His intelligent creatures, and in the other He prescribes the method of solemnizing His worship.<\/p>\n

I. The spirituality of the Divine nature requires spirituality<\/strong> of Divine worship<\/strong>. God in contrast to all false deities, is a spiritmust be worshipped in spirit and in truthcannot be, and must not be represented in visible shape. There is no resemblance to Him in anything He has made. Whatever men plead in favour of sense aiding faith, God says thou shalt not. <\/p>\n

1. We are not to make<\/em> nor fancy any material image of God in heaven above or on earth beneath, or in the waters beneath the earth. <\/p>\n

2. We are not to worship<\/em> any picture or painting of God. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them. We long to set the object of our affection before our eyesfeel it difficult to fix our mind upon an unseen God; but we must trust to no image. The Holy Spirit can help our infirmities, and give spirituality of mind and fervour of devotion. Religious worship is an act of thought, principles, and affectionsnot attitude, genuflections, and outward rites. It must be in spirit and in truthnot in crucifix, bodily form, and graven image. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?<\/p>\n

II. Spirituality of Divine Worship is enforced by special sanctions<\/strong>. To enforce this second (and the first) commandment, certain penalties are threatened and certain mercies promised. <\/p>\n

1. Gods righteous displeasure forbids any other worship<\/em>. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. He is zealous for His honour (Isa. 42:8<\/span>; Isa. 48:11<\/span>) cannot brook a rival, nor receive a partial or divided homage. <\/p>\n

2. Gods wonderful providence will punish any other worship<\/em>. One great error of idolatrous systemsand congenial to every sinneris to suppose that because God is invisible, He does not notice human conduct. But these words show that His government is universal, extending to individual agents and particular actions. The inspection or administration of God is presented in two aspects<\/p>\n

(1) A threatening aspect<\/em> to those that hate Him. Sin and its punishment are transmitted. Idolatry and its evil consequences descend from father to son, and God punishes the sins of the parents in the children to the third and fourth generation. This truth appeals to the strongest instincts of our nature, guards the purity of religion, by enlisting the affection of a parent for his offspring and grafting on that affection salutary fear of Divine visitations. <\/p>\n

(2) A merciful aspect<\/em> to those that love Him. The world is not governed by blind fate. There is no irresistible necessity in the continuous results of evil. A merciful God restrains the sinner, checks the evil, and forgives all who are brought back to Him in penitence, prayer, and love, The same principle of involving the children with the fathers is followed; but, mark the difference in the extent of its application! The visitation of anger was to reach the third or<\/em> the fourth generation: the display of mercy was to continue throughout thousands<\/em> of generations! Thou showest loving kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them (Jer. 32:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

A Deity believed, will nought avail;
Rewards and punishments make God adored;
And hopes and fears give conscience all her power.Young<\/em>.<\/p>\n

DIVINE VISITATIONS.<\/strong>Deu. 5:9-10<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

It was needful for the sake of the Jews themselves, and for the honour of the true God, that His presence and providence with His people and with other nations should be sensibly realised and enforced by rewards and punishmentsthat these rewards and punishments should be so<\/em> distributed as to evince His special interference. We are often more educated by the eye than by the ear. Since we are incapable of lofty abstractions, and insensible to remote consequences of deeds, God seeks by special manifestations to impress our minds and aid us in our duty. Hence the declaration of His government, and the principles on which it is conducted.<\/p>\n

I. The government of God is active. He is visiting<\/em>. He is neither dead nor asleep as heathen gods. Nor has He left the world to the government of chance or abstract law. God may seem to be inactive and uninterested in our concerns, but He is ever watchful. Mr. Loyd Garrison, addressing a meeting on one occasion on behalf of negro emancipation, was almost despairing, and cast a gloom upon the audience. Up jumped an old negress, and in a voice of thunder shouted, Mr. Garrison, is God dead? will he not visit His people? This was like an electric shock, imparting new life and new hopes. From that day the cause assumed a brighter aspect.<\/p>\n

II. The government of God is just. Visiting the sins<\/em>. Men may wink at sin, but God does not. Sentence against evil is not executed speedily; men may be too confident and resolved, their hearts may be fully set<\/em> (the whole energy directed) upon evil (Ecc. 8:11<\/span>), but Gods patience is not forgetfulness. He is just, and punishment will come. It comes with feet of wool, but it will strike with hands of lead, says Bp. Reynolds.<\/p>\n

III. The government of God is merciful. Shewing mercy<\/em> unto thousands. Merciful and benevolent in its general nature and in its results. Punishment is needful, always just and rightly administered in Gods moral government. The threatening<\/em> is merciful, intended to prevent sin. Anger is shown to a few, but mercy to thousands. The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, etc. (Exo. 34:6-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV. The government of God is universal. It extends to all placesto all individuals. Them that hate me and them that love me; to all generations, not only to the third and fourth but to the end of the world. The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:1<\/span>. Hear, O Israel<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. God speaks<\/em> to the people. <\/p>\n

2. The people are commanded to hear<\/em> what God utters. <\/p>\n

3. To learn<\/em> what they hear. <\/p>\n

4. To keep<\/em> when they know the laws. The difference between Divinity and other sciences, is, that it is not enough to learn, but we must keep and do it; as lessons of music must be practised, and a copy not read only, but acted.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:5<\/span>. I stood between<\/em>. Moses Mediator. <\/p>\n

1. Desired by the people who felt their guilt and distance from God. <\/p>\n

2. Provided by God (Exo. 19:2<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Typical of Christ.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:6<\/span>. God set forth<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. In essential greatness, I am the Lord, i.e.<\/em> Jehovah. <\/p>\n

2. In covenant mercy. Thy God.
3. In wonderful providence. Brought from Egypt, the house of bondage. Gods right to give laws to the Hebrew nation is not founded upon His being the one only God, but upon his having, by miraculous interpositions and works of power, laid the foundations of their statenot upon His character and claims as the Creator of heaven and earth, but upon His peculiar relation to them as their national founder and protector; and hence by the unparalleled services which he had rendered to the Israelites, He had acquired all the title to their willing and grateful obedience that a benefactor could have.Jamieson, Dr<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Lord thy God. <\/em><\/p>\n

1. Gods sovereignty over us<\/em>. He is our Lordwe are His property and subjects. He has absolute right to prescribe, and absolute power to dispose. <\/p>\n

2. Gods propriety in us<\/em>. Thy God in redemption and covenant mercy chiefly, for all have forfeited His favour and love.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:6-7<\/span>. This may well lead the van and be set in the front of all the commandments, because it is the foundation of all true religion. The sum of this commandment is that we should sanctify God in our hearts, and give Him precedence above all created beings. There are two branches<\/p>\n

1. That we must have one God.
2. That we must have but one; or thus
1. That we must have God for our God.
2. That we must have no other.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:8-10<\/span> Image worship<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Impossible<\/em>. God cannot be represented. He is spiritual and invisible. <\/p>\n

2. Irrational<\/em>. For the workmen is better than the work. Absurd to bow to the work of mens hands. <\/p>\n

3. Unscriptural<\/em>. Against the command of God (Lev. 26:1<\/span>; Deu. 16:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:9-10<\/span>. Family religion<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Parents should consider well before they act; lest they
(1) expose themselves, and
(2) ruin their children by their wickedness.
2. Children are not excused through bad examples of parentsshould imitate their parents in right only, and be thankful if they have been trained up to love and obey God. How careful should we be to set good examples, to maintain the worship of God in the family, and to live that we may rightly influence future generations.<\/p>\n

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT: GODS SUPREMACY OVER OUR LIPS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:11<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

God is absolute and cannot be seen in His Divine essence, yet He reveals His glory in His name. Since he cannot be known by similitudes, He manifests Himself in His works and wordin the government of the world and the life and death of His Son. God connects His name, therefore, with the solemnities and transactions of Divine truth. This name must not be abused, but its majesty must impress our minds and guard our lips.<\/p>\n

I. It is our duty to revere the Divine Name<\/strong>. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Our tongues must not be claimed as our own (Psa. 12:3<\/span>), but devoted to the glory of God. <\/p>\n

1. In religious worship<\/em>. In prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, the heart, and not the lips merely, must be engaged. Our vows must not be made in times of sickness and peril, and forgotten in health and deliverance. Our worship must not be hypocritical, superficial, and insincere; nor our service formal and cold. Our profession must not be in words, but in deeds. If we swear to the Lord of Hosts, we must serve Him with reverence and godly fear. <\/p>\n

2. In ordinary conversation<\/em>. We profane the Holy Name by its use in light, flippant conversationin jesting and idle talk. In private intercourse, in the market place, and in courts of law, we must give no force to falsehood. All language garnished with oaths and irreverent use of the Divine name is a violation of this commandmentHallowed be thy name.<\/p>\n

II. The irreverent use of the Divine name will be punished<\/strong>. The Lord will not hold him guiltless. Many excuse themselves from habit and custom; others justify themselves in profaning Gods name when they are crossed, disappointed, and carried along by passion. Such are not innocent, but guilty; and though they may escape public rebuke from friends, and punishment from human laws, yet the Lord Himself will execute the law. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.<\/p>\n

THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT: GODS CLAIM UPON OUR TIME<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:12-15<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

There is a close connection between the commandments of this first table. The first<\/em> commandment is intended to regulate our views and feelings, in relation to the object<\/em> of our supreme homage; the second<\/em> has respect to the medium<\/em> through which that homage is expressed; the third<\/em> regards the spirit<\/em> which is to accompany us in all the solemnities of truth and of religion; and the fourth<\/em>, the appropriation of a portion of our time<\/em> to His servicethus to indicate our subjection to His government, and our willingness to be entirely consecrated to His glory (Stowel<\/em>). In these words we have an acquaintance with the Sabbath presupposed. It must have been known, and perhaps observed in some respect. Hence the injunctionremember. The Sabbath was then instituted, and its obligations made known before the giving of the Law at Sinai. Now the command is given to keep and sanctify it. Notice the observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest.<\/p>\n

I. All classes are under obligation to keep the Sabbath<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

1. Individuals<\/em> must observe the day. Thou shalt<\/em>. It is binding upon every one as subjects of Gods government. Religionfor the permanent interests of which the Sabbath was madeis a matter of personal conviction, experience, responsibility, and practice. <\/p>\n

2. Heads of families<\/em> must observe the day. Nor thy son, nor thy daughter. Parents must habitually regard its sanctity and encourage the performance of its duties in the arrangements and discipline of the family. Thus only can the order and welfare of domestic religion be maintained. <\/p>\n

3. Masters<\/em> must observe the day. Nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant. Rest was to extend to domestics who specially required it, in performing the heavy duties of the household. God also careth for cattle. Dumb animals as well as human beings were embraced in that mercy which is over all His works.<\/p>\n

II. The method of keeping the Sabbath<\/strong>. Two ways are pointed out. <\/p>\n

1. It must be kept as a day of rest<\/em>. Work was laid aside for man and beast. All kinds of business in the field and in the market must cease. Thou shalt not do any work. Physically and morally we require rest. If God saw fit to rest, how much greater need have we to cease from labour. Abolish the Sabbath and human life would be shortened by weary, wasting toil. In 1793 France invented decades<\/em>, and made every tenth day a sabbath, but found out her mistake and returned to the appointed day. We must cease from worldly employments and servile work. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. <\/p>\n

2. It must be kept as a day of worship<\/em>. As God blessed the day and hallowed it, filling it with peace and good to all; so we must keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it<\/em>. Work must be laid aside for worship. The time is set apart for public and private worship. We must neither forget nor carelessly perform the duties required; nor must we profane the day by idleness, unlawful works, or unnecessary recreation. God dignifies human labour, condemns avarice and excessive toil, and teaches us to look upon work not as aimless, incessant, unprofitable, but as pointing to a rest, a fruition which is typical of that eternal Sabbath which remaineth for the people of God Heb. 4:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

III. The Inducements to keep the Sabbath<\/strong>. Many reasons are given for its observance. <\/p>\n

1. It is reasonable<\/em> to keep it. God has given us six days for work, and only claims one for Himself. It might have been the reverse. Is it not, therefore, unreasonableungrateful to grudge a seventh part of our time to the worship and service of God! <\/p>\n

2. It is right<\/em> to keep it. God has special claims and propriety in this part of our time. God is in covenant relation, condescends to hold communion with us on that day. Hence it is a great privilege to observe, and an awful robbery to desecrate that day. The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God. <\/p>\n

3. God commands<\/em> us to keep it. God hath commanded thee. As the law of God, it is authoritative and ultimatenot mere counsel and advice, not a naked rule, a bare prescription of what is right. It demands<\/em> obedience, and its demands are accompanied with just and awful sanctions. <\/p>\n

4. Gods goodness<\/em> urges to keep it. Israel were reminded of their servitude in Egypt, of deliverance from it, and of introduction into rest. Therefore their hearts should be warmed to gratitude, and they should be prompted to observe that day which reminds them of the goodness of God (Deu. 5:15<\/span>). Special displays of Divine mercy, relief from oppression and despair, should lead us on every return of the day of rest to remember our escape and praise our Redeemer.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:11<\/span>. <\/p>\n

1. What required<\/em> in this commandment: a reverent use of Gods attributes and titles, ordinances, and word. <\/p>\n

2. What forbidden<\/em>: all profaning or abuse of everything by which God makes Himself known to us. <\/p>\n

3. What reason<\/em> annexed to enforce observance. The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. The caution that a breach of this commandment incurs guilt in the eyes of Jehovah is especially appropriate, in consequence of the ease with which the temptation to take Gods name in vain besets men in their common intercourse with each other (Speak. Com<\/em>.). Learn<\/p>\n

1. The necessity of having becoming views of God.
2. The obligation always to fear Him, and to guard against offending Him by perjury, profanity and blasphemy.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:12-14<\/span>. How God esteemeth the strict observance of the Sabbath may appear by the exact delivery of it. For He hath fenced it about like Mount Sinai, with marks and bounds, that profaneness might not approach it. <\/p>\n

(1) By His watchword, Remember.
(2) By His bounty, Six days, etc.
(3) By His sovereignty, It is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.
(4) By His latitude. Thou, nor thy son, etc.
(5) By His own example, And He rested the seventh day.
(6) By His benediction, He blessed it, and ordained it to be a means of much blessing to those that observe it (Trapp<\/em>). The sabbath adapted to the necessities of man<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. By affording rest from toil; hence promoting health and enjoyment.
2. By giving opportunity for family intercourse and instruction. <\/p>\n

3. By securing due observance of public worship. Hence in His individual, social, and religious condition the Sabbath promotes the welfare of man. Chief Justice Hale observed that according to his care in observing the Lords day, he commonly prospered in his undertakings the week followingBlessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it (Isa. 56:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:15<\/span>. Remember Egypt<\/em>. We are prone to remember the palaces and pleasures of Egypt; God admonishes us to remember its slavery<\/em>. The memory of our former state should beI. An antidote to discontent. Though the labours and trials of the wilderness were many, yet in Egypt we had more. If we labour, it is not to make bricks without strawnot for another, but for our own profit. II. A stimulant to zeal. Remembering Egypt, let us press on toward Canaan; give no advantage to our enemies. III. A reason for obedience. He who graciously delivered us has right to our service. If we made bricks for Pharaoh, what shall we render unto the Lord? If fear<\/em> produced activity, how much more should love<\/em>! IV. Wings for faith and hope. Remember that that<\/em> God who could deliver from Egypt can bring to Canaan. He who has begun the work will complete it. V. A call to humility. I was but a servant, a slave<\/em>: I owe all to my Deliverer. Without Him I were a slave again. By grace I am what I am.(From Bib. Museum<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT: HONOUR TO PARENTS, OR THE RELIGION OF HOME<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:16<\/span><\/p>\n

The present division of the commandments may trench upon symmetrical arrangement, but practically that in which the fifth commandment begins, the second table is convenient and important. The four we have considered comprise our duties towards God, the six which remain, our duties towards man in natural order of relationship. If God is to be acknowledged, worshipped in spirit and held in reverence; if the sabbath is to be devoutly kept; it is needful to imbue the mind, and regulate the conduct with remembrance of these truths. This is the highest of parental duties. Children should be taught from earliest days not merely to love, fear and obey, but to honour<\/em> their parents.<\/p>\n

I. Honour is due to parents from children<\/strong>. Honour thy father and thy mother. Customs of society distinguish the separate claims of father and mother, but here they are represented as sustaining towards their children one undivided, honourable claim. <\/p>\n

1. Honour is due to Parents on account of relationship to their children<\/em>. Next to relation to God is that of parents to children. There is a beautiful resemblance of one to the other. In the care and interest, the tenderness and authority of a father, we have a faint image of the superintendence, compassion, and government of God. Children should honour their parents because they are related to them. (a<\/em>) As authors of their being, (b<\/em>) As their support and comfort, (c<\/em>) As their educators and protectors. <\/p>\n

2. Honour is due to Parents on account of affection for their children<\/em>. Parents often love their children as themselves, hence terms of endearment concerning them, olive branches, sunbeams, jewels, and all that is delightful and beautiful. They impoverish themselves to enrich them. They are not like the raven, or ostrich which are cruel to their young. (Job. 39:14<\/span>). What a debt of gratitude and honour do children owe to parents! Yet how few try to pay it. Philip the son of Charles V., Emperor of Germany, became master of a new world and of the richest and most extensive dominions in Europe by his fathers voluntary resignation, but was so ungrateful that he kept his generous parent waiting a long time for the payment of a small pension. Milton was dependent on his family on account of infirmities; yet his two elder daughters seem to have been destitute of affection and pity. Hooker often prayed that he might never give sorrow to his mother, and used to say that he loved her so dearly, that he would try to be good as much for her sake, as for his own.<\/p>\n

II. The inducements which children have to honour their parents<\/strong>. This is said to be the first commandment with promise<\/em> (Eph. 6:2<\/span>). The promise may be applied to the Jews, and to all who keep the commandment, and thus we trace the confirmation of the word, in the providence of God? <\/p>\n

1. It is pleasing to God<\/em>. (Col. 3:20<\/span>). It is joyful to parents themselves, and acceptable to God. This is right<\/em>, a duty grounded on the simple, natural and unchanging principles of equity. <\/p>\n

2. It has<\/em> a tendency to lengthen human<\/em> life<\/em>. That thy days may be prolonged. Long life was considered a blessing (Psa. 91:16<\/span>; Psa. 128:6<\/span>), but many children find a grave in the cradle, or die in the flower of their age. The observers of this commandment have a promise<\/em> of long life and prosperity; whereas those who neglect the duties of it, have no promise of these things at all. To the former, long life comes in virtue of a promise which is infallible, so far as it shall serve Gods glory and their good; but to the latter it does not come in virtue of any promise at all, for such have no interest in the promise; on the contrary they are under the curse of God; for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Paterson<\/em>). <\/p>\n

3. It guarantees the well being of life<\/em>. That it may go well with thee. Long life without the blessings and comforts of life is not desirable. Life is only a blessing, when we retain health and reason, and grow in grace and usefulness, as we grow in age. Observe and bear all these words that it may go well with thee and thy children after thee for ever. <\/p>\n

4. It pledges national existence<\/em>. Life and its enjoyments, possession of Canaan, and national permanence depended upon filial respect. Jewish, Roman and other histories, bear witness to this truth. The words set forth a universal principle of national life and existence. Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts therefore saith the Lord of Hosts, Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever. (Jer. 35:18-19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT: OR THE RELIGION OF TEMPER.<\/strong>Deu. 5:17<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The next three commandments determine our duties towards our neighbour, and secure life, marriage and property. In Lev. 19:18<\/span> they are summed up in one word, Love thy neighbour as thyself. Not only is murder condemned, but all our passions from which murder originates. Hence we may term this command the religion of temper.<\/p>\n

I. What this commandment forbids<\/strong>. Mere killing is not prohibited, for that was lawful sometimes, but every act of violence which inflicts personal injury and endangers human life. The omission of the object, still remains to be noticed, as showing that the prohibition includes not only the killing of a fellow-man, but the destruction of ones own life or suicide. (Keil<\/em>). <\/p>\n

1. Violent deeds are forbidden. Suicide<\/em>, or taking away our own life. Ancient systems, taught as a lofty sentiment of morality, that a man might withdraw from life when he found it expedient. Modern verdicts and modern customs of assigning insanity as the cause of this crime lead us to regard it with pity and not detestation. We must look at the act in its real nature, in the law which prohibits it, and the dreadful consequences by which it is enforced. Do thyself no harm. Duelling<\/em> is a vestige of feudal barbarism. It constitutes the person who thinks himself injured the judge, witness, and avenger of his own wrongs. The grounds of its defence, are irrational, and subversive of all law, justice, and humanity. The duellist makes a law for himself, exalts it above the institutions of his country, and the laws of God. He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty: And he that ruleth his spirit, than he that taketh a city. Murder<\/em> is forbidden. Every man is our brother. We are bound to love him, and promote his welfare. To murder is to hate him, to inflict the greatest misery on him for ever. In the gospel a sacred dignity is attached to man. He is made in the image of God, and associated with the nature of God. Hence, infinite majesty is insulted, infinite goodness abused, and divine authority trampled on. For in the image of God, made he man. (Gen. 9:6<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Violent passions are forbidden<\/em>. As explained and fulfilled by Jesus Christ, this commandment embraces a class of most powerful human affections and desires. It is enforced by all the facts and principles of the gospel. Anger<\/em> is a species of murder, and when roused to excess, will produce outrages most shameful. In their anger they slew a man. Causeless anger, scornful contempt, and passionate reviling are three breaches of this command. (Mat. 5:21-22<\/span>). Hatred<\/em> often leads to excess in language and actions. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. (Joh. 3:15<\/span>). A scornful spirit<\/em> must not be indulged. To scorn is to despise, vilify and revile. Revenge<\/em> must not be cherished. He who is proud of his own importance, careless of the rights of justice, and sacrifices the peace, character and life of the offender to the indulgence of passion breaks this law. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. Thou shalt not avenge<\/em>, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people. (Lev. 19:17-18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

What will not ambition and revenge descend to.Milton<\/em>.<\/p>\n

II. What this commandment enjoins<\/strong>. It teaches the very opposite feelings of envy, hatred, and revenge. <\/p>\n

1. It enjoins feelings of humanity<\/em>. We must not envy nor grieve at the prosperity of anothernot quarrel, nor rail, nor plot against another. We must exercise mercy, not cruelty. We must be kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving towards our fellow creatures, and put away all bitterness and wrath. <\/p>\n

2. It enjoins the use of all lawful efforts to preserve life<\/em>. Whatever tends to destroy our natural life is expressly forbidden. We must avoid all intemperance, gluttony, and drunkenness. We must not be indifferent to our own wants, nor neglect the wants of others. Every effort must be made to feed, clothe, and preserve the body, to avoid immoderate labour and indulgence, and to keep the life of another. Destroy not your own souls by false confidence, pernicious sentiments, and neglect of the great salvation. Destroy not the souls of others by neglect in preventing them from sin, in abandoning the religious interests of family, society, and neighbourhood, and by withholding your effort and influence to save men. Oh, avoid the guilt of spiritual murder!<\/p>\n

Murder forbidden<\/em>. Observe, this commandment isI. Universal in application; to each person is said, Thou<\/em> shalt not kill. There is no exception to this rule. II. Emphatic in its wording; shalt not. Note the brevity of the whole commandment by which additional force is given to it. Brevity is not only the source of wit, but of wisdom also. III. Concerning the greatest of crimes. The awful nature of murder is sufficiently shown by<\/p>\n

1. The abhorence in which it is held, both by God and man.
2. The terrible reproaches of conscience with which the murderer is tormented.J. S. Clarke<\/em>.<\/p>\n

O horror! horror! horror! Tongue, nor heart
Cannot conceive nor name thee.Shakespeare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:16<\/span>. Reverence due to parents<\/em>. Honour your parents, i.e.<\/em>, <\/p>\n

1. Obey them;
2. Respect them;
3. Treat their opinions with regard;
4. Treat their habits with respect. They may be different from ours; may be antiquated, and to us strange, odd, whimsical; but they are the habits of a parent<\/em>, and are not to be ridiculed. <\/p>\n

5. provide for them when sick, weary, old, and infirm.Barnes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Prolonged<\/em>. A good child lengtheneth his fathers days; therefore God promiseth to lengthen his. Ill children, as they bring their parents gray hairs with sorrow to the grave, so they are many times cut off in the midst of their days, as Abimelech was: God rendering upon him the evil that he did to his father (Jdg. 9:56<\/span>). Besides the punishment they have in their posterity, to whom they have been peremptores potis qum parentes.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We have a command<\/em>Honour thy father and thy mother. The political fathers or magistrates (Job. 29:16<\/span>); seniors, venerable with age (Lev. 19:32<\/span>); spiritual fathers (1Co. 4:15<\/span>); domestic fathers, fathers of households (2Ki. 5:13<\/span>); natural fathers, fathers of the flesh (Heb. 12:9<\/span>). How children are to obey this command<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. By a reverential esteem of their persons. (a<\/em>) Inwardly<\/em>, by fear mixed with love (Lev. 19:3<\/span>). (b<\/em>) Outwardly<\/em>, in word and gesture. <\/p>\n

2. By careful obedience. (a<\/em>) In hearkening to their council (Pro. 1:8<\/span>). (b<\/em>) In complying with their commands (Jer. 35:6<\/span>; Col. 3:20<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. By relieving their wants (Gen. 47:12<\/span>). The reasons why children should honour their parents<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. It is the solemn command of God. <\/p>\n

2. It is well pleasing to the Lord (Col. 3:20<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Parents deserve honour on account of their great love and affection for their children.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:17<\/span>. <\/p>\n

1. The value of human life. Philosophy, science, and superstition dignify not human nature. Only where the Gospel is known is life appreciated preserved, and consecrated to right ends. <\/p>\n

2. The guilt of taking away human life. It may be taken away by violence, excess, or neglect. If a beast killed a man, it was stoned; what punishment, then, shall fall upon the murderer when God comes to make inquisition for blood (Psa. 9:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE.<\/strong>Deu. 5:18<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nature, says Grindon, is a system of nuptials. Human love is the highest form of love. When true lovers meet, God hath joined them together. Marriage is a symbol of the union between Christ and His Church; intended to be an honourable and abiding institution, and must not be violated by unfaithfulness and adultery. Let not man put asunder.<\/p>\n

I. The sanctity of marriage must be duly regarded<\/strong>. Adultery<\/em> was prevalent in Eastern countries, where heat and idleness seem to nourish sinful lusts almost beyond control. It is the most awful perversion of Gods institution, and the strongest language ever used in Scripture depicts its accursed nature. In the light of the New Testament we read this law in broader spirit than mere letter indicates, and that domestic bonds may be destroyed and the household invaded in different ways. The desertion of a husband or of a wife; the neglect of conjugal duties, so minutely specified and so persuasively urged in various parts of the New Testament; divorce for any reason but the ascertained perpetration of the crime denounced in this prohibition; the degradation of the marriage contract, by subordinating it to schemes of avarice, ambition, or sensualityeach of these is a gross violation of the seventh commandment, says Stowel. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication; that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.<\/p>\n

II. To secure due regard for marriage sanctity, personal chastity must be cultivated<\/strong>. This sin and the whole class of passions and gratifications of which it is a part, are offences against puritythe purity of God, of ourselves, and of those affected by our example. Cultivate<\/p>\n

1. Chastity in thought<\/em>. Thoughts are dangerous and only require opportunity to break forth into open wickedness. Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her alread in his heart (Mat. 5:28<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Chastity in conversation<\/em>. Words as well as acts may violate the spirit of this commandment (Mat. 12:37<\/span>). Let no corrupt, worthless through putridity, communication proceed out of your mouth (Eph. 4:29<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Chastity in actions<\/em>. Fornication, polygamy, and all unnatural pollutionsimmodest behaviour and unchaste looks and dress must be abandoned. Fornication and uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints (Eph. 5:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.<\/strong>Deu. 5:19<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Man is endowed with a principle which impels him to the acquisition of wealth. The proper exercise of this principle leads to gradations of social rank, and lays the foundation for the institutions and laws by which property is preserved and transmitted. But since man is sinful and selfish, it is necessary to embody this law in the legislation of the community.<\/p>\n

I. How this commandment may be violated<\/strong>. The highwayman who steals his neighbours purse; the domestic who takes his masters cash, and the apprentice who steals his drugs; the tradesman who makes the ephah small (Amo. 8:5<\/span>), and weighs with the balances of deceit (Hos. 12:7<\/span>), who seeks to overreach or defraud; the dishonest partner; the fraudulent bankrupt; the traducer of character; the borrower and receiver of stolen goodsall violate this law. Spiritually, a man robs God by taking away the Sabbath, withholding what is due from him to support and propagate the gospel, by neglecting his own soul, and foolishly wasting life, with its calls and opportunities. Will a man rob God?<\/p>\n

II. How to guard against the violation of this commandment<\/strong>. To obey the law and preserve the healthy exercise of a principle which becomes sinful by excessive indulgence we should <\/p>\n

1. Be diligent in a lawful calling<\/em>. In the avocations of life we have the happiness of individuals combined with the interests of societya sphere in which our powers have no need to be lavished on trifles nor perverted by sinful pursuits. Employment for our own support and that of our family is needful. We are urged not to be idle, careless, and slothfulnot to engage in gambling, nor to cherish a covetous, grasping disposition, but to be diligent in business and abide in our calling. Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may give to him that needeth (Eph. 4:28<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Be content with your lot in life<\/em>. It is the arrangement of God and not the work of chance. With all our shifting and tricks, our avarice and plots, we cannot alter things. Both riches and honour come of Thee, and Thou reignest over all: and in Thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Our individual histories and efforts subserve to the plans of God as much as the fall of states and the motion of stars. Rich and poor are exhorted to trust in God and acquiesce in His providence. Be content with such things as ye have (Heb. 13:5<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Moderate your views, expectations, and desires<\/em>. A sober estimate of our wants and means of gratification is required. Vigorous restraint must be put upon the tendency to over estimate our own claims, and the indulgence of romantic hopes which are often facinating and ruinous. Fret not nor vex yourselves for the wealth and property of another. Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food covenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.<\/p>\n

THE NINTH COMMANDMENT: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TONGUE.<\/strong>Deu. 5:20<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

We have been considering the law of the family, the law of social right, the law of social purity, and the law of honesty; now we notice the law of truth. We are to regard our neighbours reputation, and not injure his character. Our great poet says<\/p>\n

Who steals my purse steals trash;
But he who filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
Yet leaves me poor indeed!<\/p>\n

I. What is forbidden in this commandment<\/strong>. False witness may be given in various ways; but in everything we must put away lying and speak truth with our neighbour (Eph. 4:25<\/span>). <\/p>\n

1. In courts of law<\/em> false witness was especially condemned. The prosecutor<\/em> is forbidden to make unjust demand, to lay false charges, and to suborn false witnesses; the defender<\/em> to deny a just charge, and to make artful evasions; the witnesses<\/em> must not deny or keep back any part of truth; the advocate<\/em>, must not defend what is wrong, nor the judge<\/em> pervert justice and condemn the innocent. We must freely, sincerely speak the truth, and nothing but the truth. A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness will utter lies (Pro. 14:5<\/span>). (cf<\/em>. Deu. 19:18-19<\/span>; Jer. 4:2<\/span>; Zec. 8:17<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. In daily life<\/em> false witness is forbidden. Backbiting, evil construing, and malicious accusation must not be indulged. Nor must we be guilty of idle gossip, tale-bearing, and raising, receiving, and spreading scandal or false report. To credit common report is in itself a species of calumny, says one. A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth an ear to a naughty tongue (Pro. 17:4<\/span>). Give no currency to scandal, nor join those mischievously employed, crying out Report, and we will report (Jer. 20:10<\/span>). How many thousand souls are hurt every day by the words of others, says Baxter. Thou shalt not raise<\/em> (credit, take up, bear) a false<\/em> (empty, untruthful) report; put not thine hand with the wicked (render him no help) to be an unrighteous witness (Exo. 23:1<\/span>). (cf<\/em>. Lev. 19:16<\/span>; Exo. 23:7<\/span>; Psa. 101:5<\/span>; Pro. 19:9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Whoever keeps an open ear
For tattlers, will be sure to hear<\/p>\n

The trumpet of contention:<\/p>\n

Aspersion is the babblers trade;
To listen is to lend him aid,<\/p>\n

And rush into dissension.Cowper<\/em>.<\/p>\n

II. What is enjoined in this commandment<\/strong>. It enjoins truth and simplicity in our intercourse one with another, an agreement between the heart and the lips. <\/p>\n

1. Truthfulness in speech<\/em>. Lying is offensive to God and unfits for society. How can you converse or bargain with a man when you cannot trust his word? Therefore put away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour; for we are members one of another. (Eph. 4:25<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Regard for our neighbours good name<\/em>. Invest him with the character of a friend, charitably cover his infirmities, betray not his secrets, readily acknowledge his gifts, and receive good report concerning him. Defend his reputation when unjustly attacked, envy not his success nor take pleasure in his disgrace. Speak evil of no man. (Tit. 3:2<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3. Love to others as to ourselves<\/em>. We should be pleased with the good of another, as well as with our own good. Never keep an account of the misdeeds of another, with a view to sum up and charge against him when occasion serves. Abound in that charity which doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh<\/em>, (imputeth) no evil. (1Co. 13:5<\/span>). Our neighbour lives near us, comes under our notice, and lies more or less at our mercy. His claims are therefore enhanced by nearness<\/em>, by intimate acquaintance with him, and by all local and relative obligations that bind us together. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.<\/p>\n

Who that dares<\/p>\n

His brothers name, his brothers cause malign,
The very law maligns, spurns its restraints,
And umpire sits, where he himself should bow.<\/p>\n

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT: UNLAWFUL DESIRE.<\/strong>Deu. 5:21<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

As the sixth, seventh, and eighth Commandments forbid us to injure our neighbour 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. But it is the root of all sins against our neighbour in word or in deed. (Jas. 1:14-15<\/span>). The man who is acceptable before God, walking uprightly, not backbiting with his tongue, nor doing evil to his neighbour, is he who speaketh the truth in his heart<\/em>. (Psa. 15:2-3<\/span>).Sp. Com<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. The way in which this commandment is violated<\/strong>. By that discontentedness with our lot in life which leads us to fret, repine and rebel against Gods providence. Neither murmur ye as some of them murmured. (1Co. 10:10<\/span>). By envying or grieving at our neighbours good. Grudge not one against another (Jas. 5:9<\/span>). By indulging unlawful desires for things which belong to our neighbour. Excessive longing after anothers wealth and possessions is branded by this Commandment as sin. Take heed, and beware of covetousness.<\/p>\n

II. The spirit which leads to the violation of this commandment<\/strong>. Thou shalt not covet. The words indicate the intense spirituality and holiness of the law. St. James (Deu. 1:15<\/span>) looks upon sin as an outward act. St. Paul looks upon it in its source and earliest stages. The province of human law is the deed, that of divine law the heart, the thoughts from which spring the actions. The thought and desire may lead to execution of evil. Evil concupiscence is the root of all sin, especially of offences which men commit against their fellowmen (Mat. 15:19<\/span>; Mar. 7:21<\/span>). Eve and Achan saw, coveted, and took. Covetousness instigated Judas to betray the Saviour, and induced Ananias and Sapphira to tempt the Holy Ghost. I had not known sin (clearly and fully as an indwelling and virulent principle), but by the law; for I had not known lust (irregular and ungoverned desire), except the (Mosaic) law had said, Thou shalt not covet (Rom. 7:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III. The method of correcting this spirit<\/strong>. Hippocrates advised a consultation of all the physicians in the world for the cure of covetousness. What they could not discover the Bible prescribes. <\/p>\n

1. Form a right estimate of worldly good<\/em>. We covet what never satisfies. Solomon had put all the creatures in a retort, says quaint Watson, and distilled out their essence, and behold all was vanity (Ecc. 2:11<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Be satisfied with present possessions<\/em>. Why ungrateful because we have not more and others less. The more we have the greater will be our account at the last day. Let us believe that condition best which God has given to us. Contentment, says Socrates, is the wealth of nature. I have enough, cried Jacob (Gen. 33:11<\/span>). I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content<\/em> (i.e.<\/em>, sufficient in ones self, self-contained, opposed to outward blessings). (Php. 4:11-13<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

3. Pray for Divine grace to help<\/em>. This alone can subdue lust. Cherish faith in God who feeds the birds and clothes the lilies. Faith is the remedy for care and covetousness. It overcomes the world, purifies the heart, and makes God our portion (Psa. 16:5<\/span>). Ask the Holy Spirit to make you heavenly minded, and fix your thoughts on Christ and things above. Covet earnestly the best gifts.<\/p>\n

The closing commandment is of great importance in two distinct points of view, first<\/em>, as exhibiting the spirit of all the previous commandments, and secondly<\/em>, as laying the foundation for just and consistent views of all the doctrines of the Gospel. It exhibits the spirit of the divine law<\/em>, as extending to the desires<\/em> of the heart; the subtlest movings of the mind, as well as the visible actions of the life. In other commandments, a man may lose sight of the real character of the government under which he is placed, and may imagine that if he secures the confidence of his fellow creatures he is safe. This is the prevailing state of mind of men of every rank. It is thought if we infringe not on the rights of othersseize not their propertynor malignantly traduce their charactersnor wantonly endanger their lives, we are moral. But this commandment brings us under the eye of an omniscient ruler, under the authority of a spiritual government. It teaches us that our thoughts and wishes are minutely inspected. It pursues us to our secrecypierces the veil of external appearances, and lays open the foldings of self-delusion. It scrutinizes our very souls, and makes us feel the omnipresence of Deity. It brings the sanctions of His<\/em> law to bear directly on our present consciousness; links the moments of our existence to the last judgment, and pours into the inmost chambers of the spirit the light of a future world. I had not known sin, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet. Secondly<\/em>. The importance of this commandment will be felt when we consider it as laying the foundation for just and consistent views of the doctrines of the gospel<\/em>. The sublime truths of the one are from the same God who spake the words of the other. It is only by invalidating the authority, or by subduing the lofty tone, of the commandments, that a man can either resist the evidence or pervert the meaning of the gospel. How can a man for instance, consistently deny the total depravity of the human race, without first destroying the uncompromising strictness of the divine law, thundering forth its curses on even an irregular desire? How can a man persuade himself that it is not his duty<\/em> to believe on the name of Jesus Christ for salvation, without first persuading himself that it is not his duty to love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself, in a word, that nothing is due<\/em> from him to God, and consequently that he is not a subject of moral government of God? The great promise of the gospel to our first parents, was delivered in circumstances illustrative of this sentiment; for the views they had of the sentence passed upon them, made them feel the necessity and value of this promise. How often in the public discourses of Jesus, and in more private dialogues, with various classes surrounding him, do we see his anxiety to produce an impression<\/em> of the sanctity and strictness of the commandments,evidently for the purpose of silencing the objector and preparing him to receive the Kingdom of God? In the same spirit the apostles preached and wrote. A consciousness of guilt will lead you to rely on the perfect obedience of Christ. Here we have not simply, an exhibition of mercy, but of mercy and truth meeting togethernot merely the triumph of grace, but of grace reigning through righteousness<\/em>, into eternal life. God hath set him forth, not only as a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the remission of sins; but also, to declare his righteousness, that he might be just<\/em>, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.From Dr. Stowel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:18<\/span>. The sum of this commandment is the preservation of bodily purity<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Something tacitly implied; which is that the ordinance of marriage should be observed. (1Co. 7:2<\/span>; Heb. 13:4<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2. Something expressly forbidden; which is infecting ourselves with bodily pollutions.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:19<\/span>. Dishonesty forbidden<\/em>. Observe the simple comprehensiveness of this commandment. <\/p>\n

1. Nothing is said about the value<\/em> of the thing stolen. The law is broken whether the thing taken, be a kingdom or a pin. <\/p>\n

2. Nothing is said about the nature<\/em> of the thing stolen; it may be property, time, reputation, etc. <\/p>\n

3. Nothing is said about the method<\/em> of stealing; whether it be secretly appropriated, or violently wrested from its owner.Biblical Museum<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:20<\/span>. In this commandment, three kinds of interests are combinedthe interests of truthof characterand of neighbourhood.Stowel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Learn<\/p>\n

1. The value of a good name.
2. The sacredness of truth.
3. The necessity of guarding our tongue. <\/p>\n

4. The danger of false witness. (Deu. 19:18-19<\/span>; Pro. 19:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Give thoughts no tongue.Shakespeare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:21<\/span>. The injunction is repeated to call attention and impress the mind. The form here differs from that in (Exo. 20:17<\/span>). The order of the words house<\/em> and wife<\/em> is reversed, two different words desire<\/em> and covet<\/em> are used here, and the word field<\/em> is added. The first two variations are explained by the general character of the passage, and it seems natural to mention the field, when Moses was speaking with the partition of Canaan in view. Learn<\/p>\n

1. The nature of<\/em> covetousness. It denotes a state of mind from which the Supreme good has been lost, labouring to replace Hin by some subordinate form of enjoyment. <\/p>\n

2. The origin<\/em> of covetousness from within. Desires, lusts etc. <\/p>\n

3. The forms of<\/em> covetousness. Worldliness, rapacity, avarice, prodigality, etc. <\/p>\n

4. The guilt and evils of covetousness.
5. The doom of the covetous. The covetousness whom the Lord abhoreth.<\/p>\n

THE MAJESTY OF GODS LAW.<\/strong>Deu. 5:22-25<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The delivery of the commandments was accompanied with every display of grandeur, and amid circumstances of terror. Everything was ordered to impress the mind with the glory of God, the rigour of law, and the dread of penalty. This imposing manner and appalling phenomena indicate the majesty of Gods law. This majesty is seen in different ways.<\/p>\n

I. In the divinity of its origin<\/strong>. These words the Lord spake. The voice of God was distinctly heard articulating, and that voice was louder than the loudest peals of thunder. Many ask, from whence do we get the moral law? The answer is given here. It came from Godthe grandest and highest origin to which anything can aspire! It is elevated above the code of Egypt, Persia and Greecea standard of life infinitely beyond the invention of man, and to which the holiest have never reached. A distinguished lawyer rather sceptically inclined on this subject undertook to read the Old Testament to satisfy himself concerning the validity of its claims. When he read the Decalogue, lost in admiration he exclaimed, where did Moses get that law? Further study removed every sceptical doubt, and produced conviction of its divine origin (cf<\/em>. Pulpit Com. p. 106). We know that God spake unto Moses.<\/p>\n

II. In the terrible phenomena which accompanied its delivery<\/strong>. Such phenomena were varied, most terrific and designed to produce the conviction of the authority and holiness of law. <\/p>\n

1. There was natural agency<\/em>. The deepest impressions are made upon the mind through the senses, God who knew what was in man signalized his descent on Sinai, with thunder and lightning, smoke and fire, the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words. What must be the aim and dignity of a law thus given? What should be the regard and obedience we pay to the great Lawgiver Himself? That thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2. There was supernatural agency<\/em>. The word was spoken by angels. (Heb. 2:2<\/span>). The law was received by the disposition (ministration) of angels (Act. 7:53<\/span>); ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Gal. 3:19<\/span>). The presence of angels is often referred to in the giving of the law, to indicate its solemnity and claims. He shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints, (myriads of holy ones, i.e.<\/em> angels); from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Deu. 33:2<\/span> (cf<\/em>. Psa. 88:17<\/span>; Heb. 3:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III. In the design for which it was given<\/strong>. There was mercy mixed with majesty and the appalling phenomena produced the desired effect. <\/p>\n

1. To test their obedience<\/em>. Israel had been surrounded by idolatry, and the ideas of Gods majesty and reverence for law had been lost, by deifying objects of sense. The manifestations of Sinai were directly adapted to inspire the soul with reverence for the infinite majesty and eternal power of that Being with whom they had to doto put their obedience to a fresh proof and give them a more signal opportunity of showing devotedness to His will. For God is come to prove you. <\/p>\n

2. To keep them from sin<\/em>. They learned the guilt of offending a God so terrible in strictness and holiness. They felt that they were weak, frail, and sinful creatures, and were struck with consternation at such awful displays. Mores himself was overpowered with fear (Heb. 12:21<\/span>). This was a dispensation of terror, designed to prepare for the gospel. Therefore knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men. <\/p>\n

3. To show the need of a mediator<\/em>. Conscious of guilt, they were greatly alarmed. This great fire will consume us. They wondered that they remained alive after witnessing such appearances. For who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? They expected to hear more, but could not forbear it, and requested Moses to hear and speak for them, Go thou near, etc. (Deu. 5:27<\/span>). Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant.<\/p>\n

IV. In the method in which it is handed down to us<\/strong>. We may judge of the value and importance of communications by the forms in which they are written. <\/p>\n

1. This law is complete<\/em>, and he added no more (Deu. 5:22<\/span>). The great voice spoke no more directly to the people. The scene was not repeated, and the law was complete in itself and distinct from other revelations given through Moses. The law of the Lord is perfect. <\/p>\n

2. This law is permanent<\/em>. He wrote them in two tables of stone, to preserve them from corruption, and transmit them pure and entire to posterity. Let us thank God for a written<\/em> revelation, which is a natural and human method of conveyance, more complete, uniform, and permanen than any other form. Vox audita perit, littera scripta manet<\/em>, a word heard perishes, but a written letter remains. Tradition passes away like the morning clouds; the Bible will continue as long as sun and moon endure. The word of the Lord endureth for ever.<\/p>\n

THE USE OF NATURE IN DIVINE INSTRUCTION.<\/strong>Deu. 5:23-26<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nature and the Bible have the same author, and both are written for the instruction of man. Thus there are two books from whence I collect my divinity, says Sir Thomas Brown, besides that written one by God, another of His servant, Naturethat universal and public manuscript that lies expanded unto the eyes of all; those that never saw Him in the one have discovered Him in the other. God, in the revelation of His will, has often created the scenes and used the elements of nature. This is specially seen in the giving of the Law on Sinai. Hence learn the use of natural phenomena in Divine instruction.<\/p>\n

I. Man is constituted to learn from nature<\/strong>. His senses are adapted to the external world. Ye have heard<\/em> His voicewe have seen<\/em> this day. For every organ of sense there seems to be an object in nature. But mans moral nature is affected through the medium of sense. Many talk of the sensuous minds of the Jewish people, but we are children in this respect. We are frightened at the lightning and the thunderterror-stricken at floods, fires, and earthquakes. We are roused to a sense of our danger and our guilt by the manifestation of God in His works; and, like Massillons audiences in the French Court, dread His terrible judgments. Let not God speak with us lest we die.<\/p>\n

II. Nature is constituted to teach man<\/strong>. Nature is Gods mind expressed in matter: a product of His power and wisdoma mirror in which His attributes are reflecteda volume in which, by legible characters or expressive signs, He maketh Himself known (Dr. Jas. Buchanan<\/em>). Natural theology is only the true insight and real exposition of Gods revelation in Nature; for in His temple doth everyone speak of (marg., every whit of it uttereth) His glory (Psa. 29:9<\/span>). But Nature, as well as the Bible, allows special Divine interpositions. Matter is not eternal, nor is abstract law endowed with attributes of deity. We have often direct interpositions which seembut only seem, perhapsabove natural law. God speaks to us by the elements, forces, and scenes of Nature. He often extorts confession, vows, and prayers by its awful displays, and speaks in tones which lead us to cry for mercy and a mediator. Let not God speak with us, but do thou speak with us, and we will hear it and do it.<\/p>\n

MOSES CHOSEN MEDIATOR.<\/strong>Deu. 5:27-28<\/span><\/em><\/strong>; <\/em><\/strong>Deu. 5:30-31<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

As all the people stood before the mount, terrified by the vivid flames and the trembling earth, they feared death. The voice of God overpowered them more than anything else, and the heads of the people and elders requested Moses to intercede.<\/p>\n

I. The reason of this mediation<\/strong>. In this awful display Israel realised their moral condition as unfit for communion with Jehovah. Guilty man has always felt his distance from God, and at every indication of the supernatural cried out with fear. Convinced of sin we feel the necessity of a mediator.<\/p>\n

II. The nature of this mediation<\/strong>. When the people stood afar off, conscious of guilt and afraid of Gods wrath, Moses drew near unto the thick darkness, or was made to draw near (Exo. 20:21<\/span>), for he durst not venture himself. The Rabbis think that God sent an angel to take him by the hand and lead him up. <\/p>\n

1. He spoke to God for the people<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2. He spoke to the people for God<\/em>. Speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee. Moses typified Christ by whom we draw nigh to God without fear and reluctance. By him we have boldness, courageous outspokeness (Act. 4:13<\/span>), and access with confidence. Eph. 3:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

III. The Divine approval of this mediation<\/strong>. Perhaps they did not know the full import of what they did, but the nomination was well pleasing to God. They have well said all that they have spoken. Moses is duly appointed, and God speaks to them through his mouth, and they promise to hear and obey. Thus was the covenant made between God and Israel. Moses was honoured as the giver of the law, but Jesus is more highly exalted. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.<\/p>\n

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORDS AND DEEDS.<\/strong>Deu. 5:28<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

He expressly mentions having heard<\/em> what they had said<\/em> to Moses. God always hears what we say, not as an unconcerned auditor, but as witness and judge. Solemn thought! The words here were words of religious avowal. We will hear and do it<\/em>. God has heard our religious resolutions and engagements. First<\/em> our private onesthat we would watch against such a temper; pray for grace to resist such a temptation; to redeem the time and honour the Lord with our substance. Secondly<\/em>, our more public and solemn ones; when we joined ourselves to His people; went to His table; and over the memorials of His dying love said, Henceforth by thee only will I make mention of Thy name. I have heard<\/em>, says He, the voice of the words, etc.; and adds with approbation, containing in it complaint, They have well said<\/em> all they have spoken<\/em>. But talking and doing are two things. Even amongst ourselves, one goes a little way without the other. Actions speak louder than words. What is lip service in religion! Judas gave our Lord the lipkissed and betrayed Him. Ezekiels hearers extolled his preaching; brought others to admire him; but their hearts went after their covetousness. Here they spoke well in expressing their readiness to hear and do. But God, who knew them better than they knew themselves, exclaimed, O that there was such a heart in them.<\/p>\n

Speech is one of the most uncertain criterions to judge of character, as to reality or degree of religion. From education, reading, and hearing, persons may learn to talk wellmay surpass others far better than themselves: as an empty vessel sounds louder than a full one, and a shallow brook is more noisy than a deep river. Some speak little, concerning themselves especially, for fear of deception, or lest they should appear to be what they are not. Baxter says, in his life of Judge Hale, I feared he was wanting in experimental religion, as he seldom spoke of his own spiritual views and feelings. But upon better acquaintance I found out my mistake. He had heard from many so much hypocrisy and fanaticism that he was urged towards the extreme of silence. It would be better for some to talk less of high confidence and wonderful ecstacies before those weak in faith and comfort, and in danger of being depressed by comparison. To how many individuals will these words apply! The champion of truth<\/em>, has defended its purity and importancecontended earnestly and as far as argument and evidence goes, wisely for the faith. He has well said<\/em> all that he has spoken<\/em>. But where is the spirit of truth? the meekness of wisdom? the mind of Christ? Another<\/em> in the sanctuary has acknowledged in language equally beautiful and true, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, etc. He has well said<\/em> all that he has spoken<\/em>. But where is the broken heart, the contrite spirit? How often after these confessions is the sermon founded upon them disliked and the preacher condemned! A third<\/em> has gone to his brethren in distress and justified the ways of God to man, but does he justify Gods dealings with himself in trouble? He has well said<\/em> all that he has spoken<\/em>; but reminds us of Jobs language, Behold thou hast instructed many and thou hast strengthened the weak hands. Thy words have upholden him that was falling and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees. But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest: it toucheth thee and thou art troubled. Men mistake themselves though often sincere as they are earnest. They do not distinguish between impulse and disposition, outward excitement and inward principle. Hazael, at the prediction of his cruelties, ignorant of the change that power would produce in him, really execrated the character he became. Peter presuming, but not false, said though all should be offended, yet will not I. The disciples supposed themselves established in faith, beyond the danger of temptation to forsake Him, when they said Now we believe. But Jesus answered them, O that there was such a heart in you!From Jay<\/em>.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:23-26<\/span>. A Triple Prodigy<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. They heard the voice of God speaking with them in distinct language.
2. They saw the fire, the symbol of His presence, the appearance of which demonstrated it to be supernatural.
3. Though God appeared so terrible, yet no person was destroyed, for He came not to destroy, but to save.Wilson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Why should they fear to die?<\/em> Since they had seen that day that God doth talk with man, and He liveth? It is answered that they looked upon their present safety as a wonder, but feared what would follow upon such an interview, if continued. It is still the work of the law to serve man, and to drive them to seek for a mediator. If God speaks to us from heaven His stillest rhetoric would be too loud for us.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Terror of law<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Its design.
2. Its results. <\/p>\n

3. Its inefficiency to save. The law was delivered in this terrible manner, partly to procure reverence for the doctrine of it, and partly to set forth the nature and office of it; which is to terrify and thunder-strike offenders. This fire wherein the law was given is still in it, and will never be out of it. (Deu. 33:2<\/span>).Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:25<\/span> to Deu. 27:1<\/span>. The condition of the people, in the state of their mind, and in the locality of their camp, afar off in both senses. <\/p>\n

2. The necessity of intercourse between God and the people. <\/p>\n

3. The medium of intercourse. A mediator, Moses was not of redemption as Christ that mediator of the new covenant, and surety of a better testament (Heb. 7:22<\/span>; Heb. 9:15<\/span>), but of receiving the law, and delivering it to the people, for which end he went up.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n

TRUE RELIGION DESCRIBED.<\/strong>Deu. 5:29<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

These words express Gods wish for His people, and describe the obedience which He requires from them. The law had produced a penitent feeling, and Israel had made good resolutions under the influence of that feeling. But true religion does not consist in good feelings and good resolves. God wishes for a true heart and constant obedience. A heart in them to fear Me always. True religion is described<\/p>\n

I. In its nature<\/strong>. The fear of God. <\/p>\n

1. Not emotion<\/em>. Many are capable of impression and feel deeply sensible of their wants. But frames and feelings change; emotions die away and leave the heart cold and indifferent. Men may be sensitive in their nature, penetrated with the beauty, power and interests of religion, but at the call of dutythe demand for resolute obedience, they are offended. <\/p>\n

2. Not resolution<\/em>. Israel resolved, and God commended their resolutions, but where was their constancy, their sincerity and heart? Men promise what they forget to perform, and their hearts do not chime in with their lips. <\/p>\n

3. But the fear of God<\/em>. Not the spirit of a slave, but of a son. The love which drives out fear and brings us near to God. We must know God not as our Creator and governor, but as our Father. The sense of His presence, authority and love must penetrate the mind, elevate the soul, and temper sacred awe, with filial confidence.<\/p>\n

II. In its centre<\/strong>. A heart in them. The tone, colouring, and direction of the outer life depend upon the condition of the heartthe inner feelings. Our hearts must be renewed and made susceptible of sympathy and love. A new heart, a heart of flesh, a clean heart must be given and fixed on God. Such<\/em> a heart. Words and profession, mere knowledge and religious excitement are superficial. The seat of life and conduct is within a man. For as he thinketh in his heart so is he.<\/p>\n

III. In its manifestation<\/strong>. Keeping the commandments. If religion exists it will be seen in its fruits. As light shines forth in beauty, so love in the heart will manifest itself, not in impulse but obedience. If ye love Me keep<\/em> My commandments. This keeping must be<\/p>\n

1. Universal<\/em>. All<\/em> my commandments. We are not to select some, like the Pharisees, rigidly to observe as compensation for the breach of others. All must be kept. This only is acceptable to God. <\/p>\n

2. Constant<\/em>. Keep all my commandments always<\/em>. In words, actions, and heart. Pledges are made under terror, but God requires expression of steadfast principle, and seeks patient continuance in well-doing.<\/p>\n

IV. In its rewards<\/strong>. There is no merit in our obedience. It is defective and unworthy. In fact we never can perfectly obey even one commandment in ten. But where true conduct springs from a right heart, there will be happiness or well-being. Thus the way of holiness is the way to happiness and Gods favour. <\/p>\n

1. Personal happiness<\/em>. That it might be well with them<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2. Happiness upon posterity<\/em>. And with their children<\/em>. <\/p>\n

3. Happiness perpetual<\/em>. For ever!<\/em> A perpetuity of bliss alone is bliss. All this from a right heart! Have we got such a heart in us? We are taught how it may be gained. I will put My fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me (Jer. 32:40<\/span>).<\/p>\n

DIVINE SOLICITUDE<\/strong><\/p>\n

How lovely does God appear in the concern He here expresses! It is the language of complaint<\/em>. As much as to say, But I do not find it so. Is He then disappointed? Not as to factfor He knows all thingsbut as to right. Surely, He may expect from us attention to His voice and improvement of advantages with which we are favoured. When He meets with nothing of this, He has reason to complain. This is the meaning when He says, What more could have been done for My vineyard, and I have not done it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? These three years I came seeking fruit, and finding none. It is the expression of desire<\/em>. When Scripture ascribes human attributes and feelings to God, they must be understood according to the perfection of His nature. They do not precisely mean the same in Him as in us. Yet there is always a truth<\/em>, which is the basis of such metaphorical representations. Slavish adherence to systematic divinity has injured some of the finest passages of Revelation; and which were intended to be felt rather than criticised. Do not object, therefore, that God is in the heavens, He hath done whatsoever he pleaseth; and ask who hath resisted His will? for this is His own language, O that there was such a heart in them! How often would I have gathered thee as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Yes, these are expressions of a God that cannot lie. This affords me encouragement. Unworthy as I am, He does not abandon me. He is willing to save, and waiting to be gracious to me. What is the inability of man to harmonize such declarations with some other parts of their creed, to the oath of the living God. As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth. It is the dictate of parental solicitude<\/em>. The voice, not of a severe legislator or judge, but of a Father. A Father who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us allwho does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of menwho says of the refractory child, How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? who says of the relenting child, Is Ephraim My dear Son? How often does He assume this relation to deprive His greatness of terror, and render it our encouragement and confidence. He pities as a father pitieth his children, and takes the heart of a mother for the image of tenderness. As one whom his mother comforteth. Can a woman forget her child? She may. Ah! ye mothers, your affection is ice; your heart is iron compared with His!Yet will I not forget thee. Surely he that loveth not, knoweth not Godfor God is love. Can<\/em> this encourage us to sin? Can<\/em> we grieve His spirit? Can<\/em> we bear Him<\/em> saying in vain, O do not that abominable thing which I hate? Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, etc.From Jay<\/em>.<\/p>\n

CAREFUL WALKING.<\/strong>Deu. 5:30-33<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

After Moses was chosen mediator he directed the people to return to their tents, urged them to observe carefully all the commandments which they had received, and not to turn aside to the right hand or to the left, that it might be well with them. This signifieth an exact care to walk in Gods Law, as in the highway from which men may not turn aside, as in Deu. 2:27<\/span>.Ainsworth<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. Human life is under Gods direction<\/strong>. To Israel the message wasGet you into your tents again; but to Moses, Stand thou here by me. Thus some are appointed to one place, and others to another. Gods law is given for guidance, laid down (for law<\/em> means that which is laid down<\/em> or fixed<\/em>) to show us the way. O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!<\/p>\n

II. This direction is given by chosen agency<\/strong>. Men often choose their own guides and miss their way. Intellect, education, and human laws are not sufficient. The Scriptures and the Christian ministry are the appointed means for instruction. <\/p>\n

1. The ministry of man<\/em>. Moses was chosen teacher and mediator between God and His people. Men must know God in the holy life and teaching of their fellow men, Speak thou to us. <\/p>\n

2. The revelation of God<\/em>. Moses had not to speak his own, but the words which God had spoken to him. If we speak not according to the law we have no lightno truth in us. I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them.<\/p>\n

III. This direction, given by chosen agency, is easily understood<\/strong>. Do, therefore, as the Lord your God hath commanded you. So plainly is the path opened up that the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. <\/p>\n

1. There must be no halting<\/em>. Observe<\/em> to do. The eye and heart must be fixed. Hesitate and linger not. Never fear, but humbly walk before God. <\/p>\n

2. There must be no turning aside<\/em>. Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Let thine eyes look right on (Pro. 4:25-27<\/span>), not behind, nor all around, but straight before thee. Straightforward progress will ensure reward. Pray for perseverance and guidance. And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it. <\/p>\n

3. There must be no partiality<\/em>. Ye shall walk in all<\/em> the ways. The obedience must be full, unreserved, and unwearied. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments (Psa. 119:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV. When the direction thus given is obeyed, the rewards will be great<\/strong>. That ye may live, and that it may be well with you. Verily there is a reward for the righteous, not of debt, but of sovereign grace. A present<\/em> reward in temporal benefits and spiritual enjoyments. A future<\/em> reward of eternal bliss (Isa. 48:18<\/span>; Jer. 7:23<\/span>). In keeping His commandments there is great<\/em> reward.<\/p>\n

HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:29<\/span>. Gods wish for Israel<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. A true heart.
2. Sincere obedience.
3. Perpetual happiness. Such a heart<\/em>. That heart that will enable us to fear the Legislator, and in thought, word, and deed keep all His commandments. But such a heart, so inclined, is an evidence of previous acceptance; and such conduct resulting from such a heart is the evidence of that character which belongs to a christian, and indicates one whose state has been changed in Christ, and whose character has been elevated by sanctification of the Holy Spirit.Cumming<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Perfect obedience<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Its sourcethe heart.
2. Its extent. All commandments and always.
3. Its ruling principlethe fear of God.
4. Its blessed resultswell with individuals and their children for ever.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:30<\/span> to Deu. 33:1<\/span>. The honour conferred upon Moses. Near God. <\/p>\n

2. The duty of Mosesstand in attentive, willing attitude, as mediator and teacher. I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount.<\/p>\n

Gods manifestations in their effect upon men<\/em>. Repelling some and attracting others. This effect depends upon our state of mind and moral condition. Teach them<\/em><\/p>\n

1. The position<\/em> of a true teacher. Here by me. <\/p>\n

2. The matter<\/em> of a true teacher. All the commandments and the statutes and the judgments. <\/p>\n

3. The design<\/em> of a true teacher to produce obedience.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:33<\/span>. Walk in the ways<\/em>. <\/p>\n

1. Specific direction. <\/p>\n

2. Activity and progress in that direction. We must not simply know, but practice the commandments. We are ignorant, and require Divine instruction; weak, and need strength and support. Our hearts must be right, and we must be steadfast in His covenant (Psa. 78:37<\/span>.) Like travellers in the way, we must look carefully to the end and be careful lest we miss the way.<\/p>\n

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 5<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu. 5:1-5<\/span>. Law<\/em>. These words comprise the whole duty of man; and as interpreted by Christ, they are so comprehensive that there is no conceivable condition in which the human race can exist where these precepts are not applicable as a rule. The language of each is so brief, and so precise, as to be capable of furnishing a perfect guide for the moral government of man. It is so immeasurably superior in its character to that of all other nations that there is no way of accounting for its existence, except by ascribing it to Divine revelation. Infidels themselves are constrained to admit its high origin. For how came the Jews to possess so pure and admirable a law? How were they distinguished for such a sublime code of morality, while all other people, some of them far superior in civilisation and the arts to the Hebrews, fell far short of them in this respect? It was God who spake all these words. (Dr. Jamieson<\/em>.) The moral law is a copy of Gods will, our spiritual directory; it shows us what sins to avoid, what duties to pursue. It has truth and goodness in it (Neh. 9:13<\/span>). Truth, for God spake it; and goodness, for there is nothing the commandment enjoins but it is for our good.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:6-7<\/span>. First<\/em>. This may well lead the van, and be set in front of all the commandments, because it is the foundation of all true religion. None will have cause to repent of cleaving to God and His service. Cardinal Wolsey said, Oh, if I had served my God as I have my king, He would never have left me thus.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:8-10<\/span>. Second<\/em>. People pray to the images of the gods, implore them on bended knees, sit or stand long days before them, throw them money, and sacrifice beasts to them with deep respect.Seneca<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:11<\/span>. Third<\/em>. Remember the commination and threatening in the text. Here is a meiosisless is said and more intended. He will not hold him guiltless; that is, He will be severely avenged on such a one. Here the Lord speaks after the manner of a judge, who holds the court of assize. The judge is God himself; the accusers, Satan and a mans conscience; the charge is, taking Gods name in vain; the accused is found guilty and condemned: The Lord will not hold him guiltless.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:12-15<\/span>. Fourth<\/em>. O, what a blessing is Sunday, interposed between the waves of worldly business, like the Divine path of the Israelites through Jordan. (Wilberforce<\/em>.) The streams of religion run deeper or shallower, as the banks of the Sabbath are kept up or neglected. (Calcott<\/em>.) Coleridge once said to a friend on Sunday morning, I feel as if God had, by giving the Sabbath, given fifty-two springs in every year.Bowes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:16<\/span>. Fifth<\/em>. Richard Knill so regarded this commandment, that he would not even go out as a missionary without his mothers consent. He said, I know that God never smiles on a boy that breaks his mothers heart.Pul. Com<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:17<\/span>. Sixth<\/em>. There is a close connection between anger and murder. Killing is not mere blood shedding. Anger without cause is murder. Oppression of the weak is murder. Depriving a man of the means of getting a livelihood, to gratify revenge, is murder.Dr. Parker<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:18<\/span>. Adultery debases a person, and makes him resemble the beastsNay, it is worse than brutish; for some creatures void of reason, by the instinct of nature, observe some decorum and chastity. The turtle dove is a chaste creature, and keeps to its mate; and the stork wherever he flies, comes into no nest but his own. Naturalists write that if a stork, leaving its own mate, joins with another, all the rest of the storks fall upon it and pull its feathers from it. Adultery is worse than brutish, it degrades a person of his honour.Watson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:19<\/span>. Eighth<\/em>. A man may rob God as well as his neighbour. He who wastes his employers time is a thief. He who withholds just praise is a thiefsocial and literary thieving. He who detracts from the just honour of his fellow man is a thief. He who vows and does not pay is a thief.Dr. Parker<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:20<\/span>. Ninth<\/em>. A man that hath no virtue in himself ever envieth virtue in others; for mens minds will either feed upon their own good or upon others evil; and who wanteth the one will prey upon the other. (Bacon<\/em>.) There would not be so many open mouths if there were not so many open ears.Bp. Hall<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To speak no slander, no, nor listen to it.<\/p>\n

Tennyson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Soft buzzing slander; silky moths<\/p>\n

That eat an honest name.Thomson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:21<\/span>. Tenth<\/em>. The covetous man is like a greedy ostrich, which devours any metal; but it is with an intent to feed upon it, and in effect it makes a shift to digest and excern it. The avaricious man is like the foolish chough, which loves to steal money only to hide it.Archbp. Trench<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The cloyed will,<\/p>\n

That satiate yet unsatisfied desire,
That tub both filled and running.<\/p>\n

Shakespeare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu. 5:22-25<\/span>. Great voice<\/em>. Richard Morris, a Baptist minister in England, when a young man attended as a spectator a funeral, which he had followed into St. Marys Church, Stamford. His mind being solemnised and softened by the scene, the blast of six trumpets sounded together to set the evening watch, and reverberated through the dome, striking the whole audience with awe. The thought was vividly suggested to his mind that he must certainly hear the tremendous sound of the trump of God. With this impression upon his mind, Mr. Morris retired to his room and prayed to that God whom he knew would be his judge. His prayer was heard, and he began a life of religion and usefulness. This trifling occurrence arrested attention, gave rise to workings of conscience which ended in conversion.Whitecross<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A. THE NATURE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVENANT MADE AT SINAI (Deu. 5:1<\/span> to Deu. 11:32<\/span>)<\/p>\n

1. THE TEN WORDS REVIEWED (Deu. 5:1<\/span> to Deu. 6:3<\/span>)<\/p>\n

a. THE COMMANDMENTS GIVEN (Deu. 5:1-21<\/span>)<\/p>\n

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Hear O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. 2 Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 4 Jehovah spake with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between Jehovah and you at that time, to show you the word of Jehovah: for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount:) saying,<\/p>\n

6 I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
8 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: 9 thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; 10 and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.<\/p>\n

11 Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain: for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that take this name in vain.
12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Jehovah thy God commanded thee. 13 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. 15 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.<\/p>\n

16 Honor thy father and thy mother, as Jehovah thy God commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not kill.
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
21 Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbors wife; neither shalt thou desire thy neighbors house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbors.<\/p>\n

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 5:121<\/p>\n

99.<\/p>\n

Please read Exodus the twentieth chapter to give an adequate background for this text.<\/p>\n

100.<\/p>\n

What distinction is there in statutes, ordinances, and commandments?<\/p>\n

101.<\/p>\n

Who is involved in the pronoun us in Deu. 5:27<\/span>?<\/p>\n

102.<\/p>\n

Jehovah did give the ten commandments to the fathers of the very persons to whom Moses spoke. How are we to understand Deu. 5:3<\/span>?<\/p>\n

103.<\/p>\n

Read the account in Exodus to provide an understanding of just how we are to understand the expression spake with you face to face . . . out of the midst of the fire.<\/p>\n

104.<\/p>\n

What one great lesson did God want to teach Israel by their sojourn in the house of bondage?<\/p>\n

105.<\/p>\n

Examine carefully every word of the first commandment as an example: Thouwho is involved here? Is this just a commandment for the nation of Israel? shalt have does this mean they had formerly worshiped more than one God? etc.<\/p>\n

106.<\/p>\n

Is there some difference between an image and a likeness? Just what is a graven image?<\/p>\n

107.<\/p>\n

Is the second commandment a prohibition against all sculpture? Discuss.<\/p>\n

108.<\/p>\n

How is iniquity associated with idol worship?<\/p>\n

109.<\/p>\n

Is verse nine natural or supernatural in the promise of punishment?<\/p>\n

110.<\/p>\n

Someone said, I do not even know when I am cursing; it has become such a part of my vocabulary that I use it unconsciously. Is this a violation of the third commandment?<\/p>\n

111.<\/p>\n

Why did God command Israel to keep the Sabbath day?<\/p>\n

112.<\/p>\n

Does the Christian have any reason for keeping the Sabbath day? Discuss.<\/p>\n

113.<\/p>\n

How could longevity possibly be linked with honoring parents?<\/p>\n

114.<\/p>\n

Does God forbid killing under any and all conditions?<\/p>\n

115.<\/p>\n

Are all forms of stealing condemned?<\/p>\n

116.<\/p>\n

What is a briefer form of stating commandment number nine?<\/p>\n

117.<\/p>\n

It would be interesting to list these same ten commandments in a positive form; instead of Thou shalt not try Thou shalt.<\/p>\n

118.<\/p>\n

Does the tenth commandment forbid lustful thoughts concerning thy neighbors wife?<\/p>\n

119.<\/p>\n

Which commandment would be the easiest to observe?<\/p>\n

AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 5:121<\/p>\n

And Moses called all Israel, and said to them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, that you may learn them, and take heed and do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The Lord made this covenant not with our fathers, with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.
5 I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount. He said,
6 I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
7 You shall have no other gods before Me or besides me.
8 You shall not make for yourself [to worship] a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
9 You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 And showing mercy and steadfast love to thousands and to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
11 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in falsehood or without purpose.
12 Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work;
14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son, or your daughter, or your manservant, or your maindservant, or your ox, or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the stranger or sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.
15 And (earnestly) remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstreched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe and take heed to the sabbath day.
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
17 You shall not murder.
18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
19 Neither shall you act slyly or steal.
20 Neither shall you witness falsely against your neighbor.
21 Neither shall you covet your neighbors wife, nor desire your neighbors house, his field, his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbors.<\/p>\n

COMMENT 5:121<\/p>\n

This section cannot properly be appreciated without reviewing the first giving of these commandments at Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 20<\/span>. Much of what we could say by way of comment (on the ten commandments, particularly) belongs more correctly, perhaps, in a study of Exodus, However, these words have particular significance in view of Israels present condition and location, (See the Introduction, II,), and it is with this in mind that the remarks below are offered.<\/p>\n

JEHOVAH . . . MADE A COVENANT WITH US IN HOREB (Deu. 5:2<\/span>)The reference is primarily to the ten commandments, Deu. 4:12-13<\/span>. Along with these were statutes and ordinances (Deu. 2:14<\/span>, Deu. 5:1<\/span>)a more inclusive term (See Exo. 21:1<\/span>). In what way was it with us? The previous generation of numbered Israelites had died (Deu. 2:14<\/span>). The covenant nevertheless applied to all Israel, Israel was assembled at Sinai, Israel was assembled on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n

JEHOVAH MADE NOT THIS COVENANT WITH OUR FATHERS (Deu. 5:3<\/span>)What fathers? Obviously, the law had been given to their literal fathers, for most of those now hearing Moses words were the sons and daughters of those who had died in the wilderness, Fathers sometimes refers to forefathers in the scripture, and it could have such significance here. Moffatt and Meek translate not with our forefathers . . . The law given at Sinai had not been given to their progenitorsAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[28] Fathers can refer back several generations and often does in Deuteronomy. See Deu. 1:8<\/span>, Deu. 4:37<\/span>, Deu. 9:5<\/span>, Deu. 10:22<\/span>, Deu. 29:13<\/span>, Deu. 30:20<\/span> (where note that the Abrahamic covenant was made with their fathersAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That covenant was made with their forefathers; this one was not). See also such passages as Jos. 24:15<\/span> and Joh. 8:39<\/span>. Moses then is saying, God made this covenant with you (Israel)and not with your forefathers. You were its first recipients. See Neh. 9:13-15<\/span>, and notes below.<\/p>\n

[28] This is obvious in scripturein spite of the insistence of some that such commandments as keeping the sabbath were given long before the exodus. . . . the sabbath was kept by Adam in his innocence in holy Eden; by Adam, fallen yet repentant, when he was driven from his happy estate. It was kept by all the patriarchs, from Abel to righteous Noah, to Abraham, to Jacob. When the chosen people were in bondage in Egypt, many, in the midst of prevailing idolatry, lost their knowledge of Gods law . . . (The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White, p. 51 Pacific Press, 1944 edition.)<\/p>\n

Another explanation, however, is preferred by many. That is, to understand Deu. 5:3<\/span> to be simply saying, Jehovah not only made this covenant with your own fathers, but with us, even uswe who are all here alive this very day. The covenant was, indeed, made with their literal fathers and mothers. But, Moses is saying not just with them, It was also made with every one of you! The covenant was with Israel as a nation, not just its original recipients. He [Moses] means, Jehovah made a covenant not with our fathers only, or specially, but with us also (McGarvey). (Clarkes rendering is almost identical.) Instructions or commandments to their fathers were instructions or commandments to them. So in Deu. 5:15<\/span> he could say to the present generation, thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt etc. And Deu. 6:20-24<\/span> . . . We were Pharaohs bondmen etc.<\/p>\n

JEHOVAH SPAKE WITH YOU FACE TO FACE IN THE MOUNT (Deu. 5:4<\/span>)A figurative expression for Gods miraculous manifestations to Israel at Sinai (Exo. 19:9-11<\/span>; Exo. 19:16-19<\/span>; Exo. 20:18-21<\/span>. Cf. Deu. 4:33<\/span>; Deu. 4:36<\/span>). No other nation had such a privilege.<\/p>\n

NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Deu. 5:7<\/span>)Margin, besides me. Not no other gods ahead of me, for that infers that Jehovah God tolerates others, just so he is first. Ye shall not make other gods with me; gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you (Exo. 20:23<\/span>). It might be well to note here that the New Testament forbids making a god or object of worship of anything earthly: Philip. Deu. 3:18-19<\/span>; Col. 3:5<\/span>, 1Ti. 6:10<\/span>; 1Ti. 6:17<\/span>; 1Co. 6:12-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

VISITING THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN, AND UPON THE THIRD AND UPON THE FOURTH GENERATION OF THEM THAT HATE ME (Deu. 5:9<\/span>)Cf. Exo. 34:6-7<\/span>. This passage is not speaking of final or eternal guilt. It is speaking of the effect of ones sin through several generations. It was a civil law in Israel that The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin (Deu. 24:16<\/span>). Will God have a less equitable sense of justice in the final day? Our Righteous Father judges as we should judgeindividually. This is abundantly taught in such passages as Ezek. the 18th chapter, and in the New Testament, in Mat. 16:27<\/span>, 2Co. 5:10<\/span>, Eph. 6:7-9<\/span>, Col. 3:22-25<\/span>, 1Pe. 1:17<\/span>, Rom. 14:10-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

How, then do we explain the righteousness of God in such cases as his commanding Israel to execute Achans entire family (Jos. 7:22-26<\/span>), including his sons and his daughters? We do not know, in that case, but that his family was an accomplice in his crime. The loot was hidden in the family tentrather hard to conceal!<\/p>\n

God, however, did sometimes punish entire groups with death. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were destroyed with their wives, and their sons, and their little ones (Num. 16:25-35<\/span>). And we have just read how Israel was commanded to destroy the native tribes with the women and the little ones (Deu. 2:34<\/span>), These latter verses, I believe, form a parallel to the passage now under consideration. Many who were destroyed in Korahs rebellion and in the extermination of the Canaanite tribes were probably innocent themselvesbut suffered physical death because of their parents sin. The Canaanite tribes were being banished for their own evil, as well as making way for Israel (Gen. 15:16<\/span>, and under Deu. 9:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

We conclude that through the ages and even to the present day, children and other innocent parties may suffer physical death as a result of their parents or others sins, This may be the will of God. But final and eternal judgment is on a strictly individual basis, and no one will be in hell eternally who has not gone there on their own volition. See further under Deu. 24:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF JEHOVAH THY GOD IN VAIN (Deu. 5:11<\/span>)Not here a prohibition of swearing by or to Jehovahs name per se, but of using his honorable name with lightness, levity, or without keeping an oath made to him. See Deu. 6:13<\/span>, Deu. 10:20<\/span>. But Jesus taught Swear not at all . . . (Mat. 5:33-37<\/span>), and James taught, But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment (Jas. 5:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The Hebrew word for vain (SHAV) is rendered by Baumgartners Lexicon here as meaning name a name without reason, vainly; misuse a name, and by Gesenius Lexicon as specifically falsehood, a lie, translating here: utter not the name of Jehovah upon a falsehood, do not swear falsely, compare Psa. 24:4<\/span>, Isa. 1:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

This commandment, of course, has broad and far-reaching implications relative to our use of the name of God. Adam Clarkes comment, made many years ago of conditions in Britain, is still very much in order: Is it necessary to say to any truly spiritual mind, that all such interjections as God! my God! good Heavens! & c., & c., are formal positive breaches of this law? How many pass for Christians are highly criminal here!<\/p>\n

OBSERVE THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY (Deu. 5:12<\/span>)a law that had the most severe punishment if broken, Exo. 16:29-30<\/span>; Exo. 31:14-17<\/span>; Exo. 35:2-3<\/span>; Num. 15:32-36<\/span>. Present day sabbath-day advocates must, of necessity, keep the sabbath as the Bible directs, or not keep it at all. Anything less is inconsistent. See below.<\/p>\n

AND THOU SHALT REMEMBER THAT THOU WAST A SERVANT IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, AND JEHOVAH . . . BROUGHT THEE OUT . . . THEREFORE JEHOVAH THY GOD COMMANDED THEE TO KEEP THE SABBATH DAY (Deu. 5:15<\/span>)One of many scriptures which shows this law was only given to Israel. See also Deu. 5:2<\/span> and notes. The sabbath was in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt. Thus, its observance by the Patriarchs (Deu. 5:2<\/span>) was impossiblefor the historical event it commemorated had not yet come to pass! Nor would its observance have any significance to any other nation! The sabbath was a national law of Israel made known at Sinai as an institution (Neh. 9:13-14<\/span>) and never observed before Exodus 16<\/span> in the wilderness of Sin. Cf. also Deu. 4:12-13<\/span>. To Israel, and Israel alone was this law givenExo. 31:13<\/span>, Eze. 20:10-12<\/span>. The word sabbath is not mentioned before the 16th chapter of Exodus, and it is obvious from the above phrase that no people were commanded to keep it who were not Israelites! How could the sabbath commemorate deliverance from Egypt before such a deliverance was a fact?<\/p>\n

In Gen. 2:3<\/span>, Moses, writing from somewhere in the wilderness or perhaps on these very plains of Moab, can say that God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made. When was it hallowed? Some (Alexander Campbell was among them) think it was hallowed thenthat is, at creation. But in the light of this verse, as well as Deu. 5:2<\/span> and what is said in Exodus, such a position becomes untenable. Gen. 2:3<\/span>, we believe, is a literary prolepsis. The statement made by Moses in Genesis was written after it had become historical fact at Sinai. It was now a facta very recent and prominent one in Israels history. And Moses tells us the seventh day was chosen because God rested on that day or epoch when the world was being formed. (See C. C. Crawfords first volume on Genesis, pp. 362370 in this very series). The Jewish people needed to know why God chose to memoralize the seventh day of the week rather than one of the other six days. And it was to be observed as a memorial of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Crawford puts it We have in Genesis the reason why the particular day of the week was chosen! We have in Deuteronomy what the day was chosen for, that is, what it was divinely intended to memorialize. In regard to the phrase, And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah brought you out . . . Therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day (Deu. 5:15<\/span>). McGarvey states, The motive presented for keeping the sabbath, that Jehovah had delivered them from servitude in Egypt, was an appeal to their sense of gratitude. It was not given as the reason why God had sanctified the seventh day, but as a reason why Israel should observe it: therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day, The reason why God had hallowed the seventh day, because in creation he had rested on the seventh day, had been given in Exodus [Exo. 20:11<\/span>] and so far as it furnished a reason for keeping the sabbath, it was a reason applicable to all men, Moses, without repeating that, gives Israel a special reason why they should keep it, whether others did or not; and the reason is, gratitude to God for giving them rest from the servitude in Egypt. It was easy for every one who heard him, and who had ever heard or read the original commandment [as given at Sinai], to see that at this point he was not quoting the commandment, but adding a motive for its observance.[29]<\/p>\n

[29] Authorship of Deuteronomy, pp. 80, 81.<\/p>\n

And, as we have just seen, Israel was, in fact, the only nation divinely instructed to keep the sabbath. If others (strangers or foreigners) joined Israel, they, too, would be under Israels lawthe law of God. See Deu. 31:12-13<\/span>, but especially Num. 9:14<\/span>; Num. 15:14-16<\/span>; Num. 15:29<\/span>, Lev. 24:22<\/span>. This would, of course, include the keeping of the Sabbath. But other nations, as such, were never given the sabbath. They could not commemorate a miraculous deliverance from Egypt, as Israel could.<\/p>\n

No other nation had been dealt with as Israel had; no one been given the laws he had been given. See Deu. 4:7-8<\/span>; Deu. 4:32-39<\/span>, 2Sa. 7:23<\/span>, 1Ch. 17:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n

He showeth his word unto Jacob,
His statutes and his ordinances unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation:
And as for his ordinances, they have not known them.
Praise ye Jehovah.<\/p>\n

Psa. 147:19-20<\/span><\/p>\n

So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness . . . Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth them (Eze. 20:10<\/span>; Eze. 20:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER (Deu. 5:16<\/span>)Cf. Eph. 6:2<\/span>. Honor (Hebrew, kabed) literally signifies heavy or weightyi.e., their parents were not to be regarded lightly, carelessly, or with indifference. Rather, proper respect, reverence, thoughtfulness, and obedience should be rendered them. This law carried with it the severest punishment if brokenDeu. 21:18-21<\/span>; Deu. 27:16<\/span>, Exo. 21:15<\/span>; Exo. 21:17<\/span>; Lev. 20:9<\/span>. Let us, as Christians, not forget that the Son of God was in subjection to his earthly parents as a child, Luk. 2:51<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Today, more perhaps than any other time in all the history of the western world, parents are not honored. Rather, there is disrespect, back-talk, scowls, sneers and contradiction. But what is being done about it by the parents themselves? By their own lives and conduct, they frequently encourage rebellion and disrespect! When there is no regular teaching in the home, (both by word and by example) and when parents so flaunt the law of Christ themselves, how can they expect respect, reverence, and obedience from their children? As the homes go, so goes the nation. Disrespect of parents becomes, in the minds of a youngster, the spawning ground for disrespect in all walks of lifeof school teachers, law enforcement officers, Christian leaders, and, worst of all, of Christ and his word.<\/p>\n

Before leaving the ten commandments, we must ask the question, what is a Christians relationship to this covenant? In what way or manner are these laws binding on the child of God today? What is his responsibility to them? Is he bound to some, and not bound to others?<\/p>\n

The answer is simply this: We are no longer bound in covenant relationship to ANY of the Mosaic lawincluding the ten commandments. This law was given to Israel alone (Deu. 5:3<\/span>; Deu. 5:15<\/span>) and the covenant was between God and that nation only. This answer may come as a shock to many, but it is plainly taught in the New Covenant scriptures.<\/p>\n

Jesus taught that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and that Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished (Mat. 5:17-19<\/span>). I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. What does that mean to you? Christ was the very essence of the Mosaic dispensation, keeping the law perfectlythe only one who ever did. He lived and died under that economy. How, then, could he say he came to destroy it? He came to bring it to its culmination, to completion, and hence to its termination! I did not come to abolish but to complete . . . (Berkeley). Thus, Jesus taught that while he was yet alive the law (including the ten commandments) should be kept. Note Luk. 10:25-28<\/span>, where loving God (Deu. 6:5<\/span>) and your neighbor (Lev. 19:18<\/span>) are both cited as a part of the law. (In fact, On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets [Mat. 22:40<\/span>]i.e., love for God and ones neighbor was at the center and core of all the writings in the law and prophets,)<\/p>\n

Again, in another instance, a certain ruler asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus answer was a reference to the ten commandments as well as an exhortation to sell all he had, distribute it to the poor, and follow Christ (Luk. 18:18-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Jesus teachings (whether promulgated by himself or his inspired apostles) were being spread while he lived. But his new covenant could not be officially binding on all mankind until after his death, For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth (Heb. 9:16-17<\/span>). The new covenant is not some kind of hodge-podge combination of Old Testament and New. Not at all. To think of it as such is only to confuse and befuddle the mind. Rather, it is a BRAND NEW covenant, and it is only binding as a testament between us and its testator. It has certain stipulations and demands to qualify for its promised rewardsthese must be met. . . . he [Christ] is the mediator of a NEW covenant (Heb. 9:15<\/span>). Trying to mix or combine our covenant responsibilities is like putting a piece of undressed cloth [not shrunk] upon an old garment, or putting new wine in old wineskins. So taught Jesus, himself, Mat. 9:16-17<\/span>. Yet this is the very position (and an awkward position it is!) that those who propose to keep the decalogue today find themselves. The law, of course, must be kept as given by God, or not kept at all. Let us suppose, then, that we were to keep the sabbath, the seventh day, as specified in the law of Moses. (. . . the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, 1Ti. 1:8<\/span>). Here are a few things that we would have to keep in mind:<\/p>\n

1. Not to boil or bake (Exo. 16:23<\/span>)<\/p>\n

2. No fires to be built (Exo. 35:3<\/span>) (A rather difficult command to keep in cold or Arctic climates! But not impossible for Israel to keep.)<\/p>\n

3. Two male lambs, a year old, to be offered (Num. 28:9<\/span>)<\/p>\n

4. A meal-offering and drink-offering to be given (Num. 28:9-10<\/span>)<\/p>\n

5. Not to pick up sticks. Those doing so to be stoned to death (Num. 15:32-36<\/span>)<\/p>\n

6. . . . the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest unto Jehovah: whosoever doeth ANY work therein shall be put to death (Exo. 35:2<\/span>). . . . 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 (Exo. 20:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7. Must be kept according to Jewish time (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday). How would our brethren in Fairbanks, Alaska keep this law in mid-summer? The sun doesnt go down! Israel, to whom this law was exclusively given, would not be faced with such a problem.<\/p>\n

8. Death penalty for profaining the sabbath (Exo. 31:14<\/span>). (I have yet to witness a blackslidden or careless sabbath-keeper executed or punished in the manner specified. Yet the very law that teaches sabbath observance also teaches that those who defile it must be put to death). Is it the duty of Christians to put to death those who desecrate the seventh day? If yes, who will be the public executioner? Shall it be by stoning, as commanded in the law? If no, what do we do with the law just cited (Exo. 35:2<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

9. The weekly sabbath is not the only sabbath to be kept, but also the sabbath of the seventh year, and the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:1-22<\/span>). If Christians are required to keep the weekly sabbath as Israel did, why are they not also required to keep these sabbaths? By what authority do we keep the law in one instance and relegate it to obscurity in another?<\/p>\n

No, the sabbath, and all old-covenant laws are done away in Christ. Read carefully 2Co. 3:1-18<\/span>, Col. 2:13-17<\/span>, Gal. 3:7-14<\/span>; Gal. 3:23-27<\/span>; Gal. 5:1-4<\/span>. Christ was the perfect essence, the very embodiment of the law itself, and his death signified the death of the law.<\/p>\n

When Christ was alive, he could say to one, Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to another, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. But when he died, his new covenant was sealedratified by his own blood. Now, if we are to be the beneficiaries of his last will and testament, we must comply with its stipulations.
Some one will now ask, but are we not bound to keep such commands as Thou shalt not kill, etc. The answer is still nonot as a covenant. I do not kill, not because the Old Testament forbids it, but because Christ forbids, not only killing, but its source, hate. We have in the New Covenant a higher standard all the way through:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mosaic law<\/p>\n

New Covenant<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

No other gods before me<\/p>\n

. . . there is no God but one (1Co. 8:4<\/span>) . . . to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ (1Co. 8:6<\/span>)<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

No graven image<\/p>\n

My little children, guard yourselves from idols (1Jn. 5:21<\/span>) Neither be ye idolators (1Co. 10:7<\/span>) flee from idolatry (1Co. 10:14<\/span>) See also Rom. 1:21-23<\/span>, Col. 3:5
<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

Not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain<\/p>\n

Swear not at all (Mat. 5:34<\/span>) Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one (Mat. 5:37<\/span>) . . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment (Mat. 12:36<\/span>)<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

Observe the sabbath day<\/p>\n

There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest [heaven] for the people of God (Heb. 4:9<\/span>) (Sunday, the Lords day of Rev. 1:10<\/span> is not commanded to be a day of rest, but is a day of worship: Act. 20:7<\/span>, 1Co. 16:1-2<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

Honor thy father and mother<\/p>\n

Honor thy father and mother (Eph. 6:2<\/span>) let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents (1Ti. 5:4<\/span>)<\/p>\n

6.<\/p>\n

Thou shalt not kill<\/p>\n

. . . every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Mat. 5:22<\/span>) Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (1Jn. 3:15<\/span>)<\/p>\n

7.<\/p>\n

Not commit adultery<\/p>\n

. . . every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (Mat. 5:28<\/span>) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness . . . (Gal. 5:19<\/span>) . . . men that count it pleasure to revel in the daytime, spots and blemishes . . . having eyes full of adultery (2Pe. 2:13-14<\/span>)<\/p>\n

8.<\/p>\n

Not steal<\/p>\n

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need (Eph. 4:28<\/span>)<\/p>\n

9.<\/p>\n

Not bear false witness against thy neighbor<\/p>\n

Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor (Eph. 4:25<\/span>). . . . lie not one to another . . . (Col. 3:9<\/span>)<\/p>\n

10.<\/p>\n

Not covet<\/p>\n

Put to death . . . covetousness, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5<\/span>). But godliness with contentment is great gain . . . having food and covering we shall be therewith content (1Ti. 6:8<\/span>)<\/p>\n

We could, of course, extend the New Testament list considerably; but the above references are sufficient to illustrate the point: By observing the new covenant, (whose standards are always higher) the old law is no longer observed as a covenant.<\/p>\n

Why then study the Old Testament? 1Co. 10:11<\/span>, Rom. 15:4<\/span>, and 2Ti. 3:16<\/span> have the answer. Inasmuch as the Mosaic law supplied Gods will to Gods people of a past age, there is much there for learning, instruction, comfort, and example, for us. And one can continually ask himself, Are my standards as high as these standards Gods people had under the OLD covenant? (A good test on this one is found in Deu. 6:4<\/span> and Lev. 19:18<\/span>), Further, much in the old (both by way of type and prophecy) foretells the new, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of the feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christs (Col. 2:16-17<\/span>). See also Hebrews 8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(1) And Moses called all Israel, and said.<\/strong>What follows is thus presented to us as an actual exhortation, not merely a portion of a book.<\/p>\n

The statutes and judgments.<\/strong>The religious ordinances and institutions, <\/em>and the general requirements. <\/em>The mention of these is prefixed to the Decalogue, of which they are only the application<\/em>to a special people under special circumstances. More precisely, the words apply rather to what follows the Decalogue than to the Ten Commandments themselves. (See Deu. 6:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

REPETITION AND EXPOSITION OF THE LAW.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. <\/strong> Moses called all Israel <\/strong> The nation is addressed as present, it being represented by its tribal chieftains. <\/p>\n

Hear, O Israel <\/strong> An impressive commencement, more emphatic than the usual way of beginning a discourse.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Moses Emphasises That The Covenant Was Not Only Given To Their Fathers But Was Given Also Directly To Them Out Of The Midst of The Fire ( Deu 5:1-5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Moses now repeats briefly what he has already said in his previous speech. We note here that this directly connects back to Deu 4:10-14<\/span>, and that Moses wants them to see the covenant words as directly addressed to them. <\/p>\n

Analysis. <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> All Israel are called together (at the Tabernacle). Then Moses says, “Listen and take heed, O Israel, to the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your (your) ears this day, that you may learn them, and observe to do them (Deu 5:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Yahweh our God made a covenant with us in Horeb (Deu 5:2<\/span>). <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> Yahweh did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day (Deu 5:3<\/span>). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> Yahweh spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire (Deu 5:4<\/span>). <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to show you the word of Yahweh, for you were afraid because of the fire, and did not go up into the mount” (Deu 5:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ that Moses is declaring to them the testimonies, statutes and ordinances of Yahweh, and in the parallel had done so at the Mount, acting as mediator between them and Yahweh, because they had been afraid of the Fire (Yahweh revealed in fire). In ‘b’ he reminds them that Yahweh had made a covenant with them in Horeb (Sinai) and in the parallel that Yahweh had done it speaking fact to face with them from the midst of the Fire. In ‘c’ he declares that the covenant was not to be seen as made with their fathers but as made with him and those who were listening to him. <\/p>\n

Deu 5:1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And Moses called to all Israel, and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your (your) ears this day, that you (ye) may learn them, and observe to do them.’ <\/p>\n

Moses calls ‘all Israel’ as a nation, but also as a plurality (ye), to hear his proclamation of Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances, so that they may learn them and observe them. This proclamation of the covenant was no doubt required on a regular basis at the different feasts, so that it would come as no surprise. We do not know exactly what was read out at the different feasts, but certainly there would be participation in cult activity and declarations of the Law as well as feasting. In fact Moses will later declare that every seven years the whole law was to be read out to the people at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deu 31:9-13<\/span> compare Jos 8:34-35<\/span>). This proclamation here thus simply follows precedent, and something like it would have been expected before the great move forward, and may well to some extent have previously occurred during their feasting. <\/p>\n

“Observe to do them.”<\/strong> In New Testament terms they were to be like the wise man who built his house on a rock, depicting the fact that he not only heard God’s words through Jesus but did them (Mat 7:24<\/span>). They also were to hear Yahweh’s words and do them, for it is only those who do His word who are truly established on the Rock. <\/p>\n

Deu 5:2-3<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> Yahweh our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Yahweh did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.’ <\/p>\n

He begins by reminding them of the covenant that Yahweh had made with them. He stresses that the covenant was made with all of them, not just with their fathers. It is personal to them. Indeed they are not to think of it as a covenant made with their fathers at all but as one that has been made with them, that is, ‘with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day’. <\/p>\n

“Yahweh did not make this covenant with our fathers.”<\/strong> This is not to be seen as a denial that the covenant was made with their fathers. What he is indicating here in a forceful way is that the covenant was not only for their fathers. At this present time it was a covenant made with them. Of course, it had been made with their fathers, but they had failed to obtain its full benefit by refusing to enter the land at Yahweh’s command. Thus in the end there was a sense in which it had not been for them. They had not obtained its full benefit, and in the end had forfeited it. But now that covenant was being renewed with those who were currently listening to Moses and he was calling on them to make it effective. Their fathers had failed to respond to it, but now it was made to them too and open for their response. They must choose whether they will make it their own, and act on it. That is why he will now repeat it almost word for word. <\/p>\n

This reflects the important principle that no man is in covenant because his father was. Each must in the end respond for himself. Each succeeding generation must opt to enter into the covenant. <\/p>\n

It reminds us that God’s word comes to all of us, both as a church and as individuals, but that if we fail to respond to Him truly and fail to walk in His ways, then He will declare that it is not for us but for others. If we refuse His light shining on our lives in order to reveal what we are and bring us to His Lordship, we will be left in outer darkness (Joh 3:19-21<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Deu 5:4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> Yahweh spoke with you (ye) face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,’ <\/p>\n

Moses now encircles the words of the basic covenant itself with a reminder of the awe-inspiring background against which it was given, and what had been their response to it. He wants them to recognise the seriousness of what he is bringing to their thoughts. <\/p>\n

He opens by reminding them of the circumstances of the giving of the covenant, of how Yahweh had spoken with them face to face out of the midst of the raging, savagely burning, resplendent and glorious Fire that had descended on the Mount, the Fire which had made its peak seem alight. Some of them who had been children then would remember it vividly. They could never have forgotten its glory. Others would have been retold the story again and again. The Fire had both laid bare His glory and warned them that He was a consuming fire so that they would take heed to what they heard (Deu 4:24<\/span>). <\/p>\n

“Spoken with them face to face.”<\/strong> Not strictly of course. They had not seen His face. But it had been a person to person encounter, for they had seen the Fire that signified His presence and personally heard His voice. <\/p>\n

“Talked with you out of the midst of the Fire.”<\/strong> Compare Deu 4:12<\/span>; Deu 4:15<\/span>; Deu 4:33<\/span>; Deu 4:36<\/span>; Deu 5:22<\/span>; Deu 5:24<\/span>; Deu 5:26<\/span>; Deu 9:10<\/span>; Deu 10:4<\/span> where the same thought is emphasised. Moses clearly saw the voice at Mount Sinai as connected with the God of the burning bush where God ‘in a flame of fire’ (Exo 3:2<\/span>) spoke to him ‘out of the (burning) bush’ (Exo 3:4<\/span>). He wanted the people to be aware of the source of the commandments, statutes and ordinances, and continually stresses the Fire through which Yahweh revealed Himself (thirteen times in Deuteronomy 4-5). <\/p>\n

Deu 5:5<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> (I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to show you the word of Yahweh, for you (ye) were afraid because of the fire, and did not go up into the mount), saying,’ <\/p>\n

And he reminds them of the fearsome nature of their own experience, and that in the end he alone had been able to go up into the Mount, standing as mediator between Yahweh and the people, and giving them the word of Yahweh. Indeed they had been so full of fear because of the Fire and the Voice, that they had not wanted to go up into the Mount, even though they had previously been able to wander in it freely. And once Yahweh took possession of it they had actually not been able to, for it was forbidden to them. It had become ‘holy’ ground. <\/p>\n

“Saying.”<\/strong> And this was what Yahweh had said. He will now repeat the ‘ten words’ as given at Mount Sinai with slight changes to suit the present situation. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Moses Rehearses the Decalogue to the Children of Israel <\/strong> In Deu 5:1-22<\/span> Moses repeats the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel, which was first given in Exo 20:2-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16-21<\/strong><\/span> The Commandments to Love Your Neighbour As Yourself <\/strong> Jesus summarized the last six commandments of the Decalogue to mean that men were to love their neighbours as themselves. <\/p>\n

Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note Jesus’ reference to five of these commandments in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Mat 19:18-19<\/span>, “He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”<\/p>\n

Mar 10:19<\/span>, “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.”<\/p>\n

Luk 18:20<\/span>, “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.”<\/p>\n

Note a reference to Deu 5:17-21<\/span> in Rom 13:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Rom 13:9<\/span>, “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.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16<\/strong><\/span> Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note references to Deu 5:16<\/span> in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Mat 15:4<\/span>, “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”<\/p>\n

Mar 7:10<\/span>, “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:”<\/p>\n

Eph 6:1-3<\/span>, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:17<\/strong><\/span> Thou shalt not kill.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:17<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note a reference to Deu 5:17<\/span> in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Mat 5:21<\/span>, “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:”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:18<\/strong><\/span> Neither shalt thou commit adultery.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:18<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note a reference to Deu 5:18<\/span> in Mat 5:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Mat 5:27<\/span>, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:17-18<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note a reference to Deu 5:17-18<\/span> in the Jas 2:10-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Jas 2:10-11<\/span>, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:21<\/strong><\/span> Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:21<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament<\/em><\/strong> –<\/strong> Note a reference to Deu 5:21<\/span> in Rom 7:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Rom 7:7<\/span>, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22<\/strong><\/span> These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong> The Ten Commandments as Given on Sinai<\/p>\n

v. 1. Add Moses called all Israel and said unto them,<\/strong> he intended his voice to reach as many as possible and to make the announcement as impressive as possible, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep and do them,<\/strong> watch carefully to perform them. After this brief introduction, Moses immediately launches forth in the repetition of the Decalogue as it was given by the Lord on Mount Sinai, Exo 20:2-17<\/span>. <\/p>\n

v. 2. The Lord, our God, made a covenant with us in Horeb,<\/strong> in the third month after their departure out of Egypt. <\/p>\n

v. 3. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers,<\/strong> with the patriarchs, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. <\/strong> The covenant which the Lord made with Israel as a nation differed from those made with Noah and Abraham, especially as to the extent and inclusiveness of the obligations imposed. <\/p>\n

v. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face,<\/strong> as one Person might talk with another, but not in visible form, in the mount out of the midst of the fire,<\/strong> Exo 20:22<\/span>, <\/p>\n

v. 5. (I stood between the Lord and you at that time,<\/strong> Exo 20:21<\/span>, in the capacity of mediator, to show you the word of the Lord,<\/strong> that is, to make it known to them; for ye were afraid by reason of the fire,<\/strong> Exo 20:18<\/span>, and went not up into the mount,) saying,<\/strong> <\/p>\n

v. 6. I am the Lord, thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. <\/strong> There is here a reminder both of the fact that they were a peculiar people to the Lord and that a typical part of His redemptive work had been accomplished in delivering them out of their position as slaves. <\/p>\n

v. 7. Thou shalt have none other gods before Me,<\/strong> either over and above Him, or by His side, or beneath Him, as subordinate gods; He is the one and only God. <\/p>\n

v. 8. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image,<\/strong> a carved or hewn picture or statue of wood, stone, or metal, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth,<\/strong> Deu 4:15-17<\/span>. <\/p>\n

v. 9. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them;<\/strong> for that is the real point of the prohibition, the prevention of idolatry; 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,<\/strong> if the children follow their sinful parents in their iniquity, in their wicked behavior, <\/p>\n

v. 10. and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep my commandments,<\/strong> since it pleases the Lord to make His grace and mercy known in much more abundant measure than His wrath and justice. The love toward God is a fruit of faith, itself a gift of God, and this love shows itself in keeping His commandments. <\/p>\n

v. 11. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain,<\/strong> not use it in a foolish, fruitless manner; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. <\/strong> Such a person cannot plead innocence; his transgression will invariably be charged to his account and will be demanded of him with a sharp reckoning. <\/p>\n

v. 12. Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it,<\/strong> observe it as a day set apart for the worship of Jehovah, as the Lord, thy God, hath commanded thee. <\/p>\n

v. 13. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work;<\/strong> <\/p>\n

v. 14. 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, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, that thy man-servant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. <\/strong> Cf Exo 20:8-11<\/span>. <\/p>\n

v. 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,<\/strong> an expression denoting the exercise of God’s almighty power; therefore the Lord, thy God, commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. <\/strong> The fact that Israel was the redeemed people of God and thus distinguished by Him above all nations was to be brought out in their Sabbath observance. The Sabbath-day, as a day of rest by God’s command, has been abrogated in the New Testament, and we Christians do not transfer to any other day the special ceremonial prohibitions which attached to the Sabbath of old. Cf Mat 12:8<\/span>; Mar 2:28<\/span>; Gal 4:9-11<\/span>; Col 2:16-17<\/span>. But the principle of the commandment is in force today as it ever was. It has been most succinctly and successfully stated by Luther: “We should fear and love God that we may not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred, and gladly hear and learn it. ” <\/p>\n

v. 16. Honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord, thy God, hath commanded thee, that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee. <\/strong> The New Testament form of this commandment is given by Paul, Eph 6:2-3<\/span>. <\/p>\n

v. 17. Thou shalt not kill. <\/p>\n

v. 18. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. <\/p>\n

v. 19. Neither shalt thou steal. <\/p>\n

v. 20. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor. <\/p>\n

v. 21. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor’s. <\/strong> The fact that the last commandment, or the last two commandments, differ slightly in form from the corresponding precepts in Exo 20:17<\/span>, is due to the special object in view at this point, when Israel was about to enter upon its possessions. The Law is in force to the end of time. It assists the regenerate in overcoming the temptations of the flesh, and serves as a rule and guide in showing them the holy will of God. It leads the way in sanctification. <\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE<\/strong> DECALOGUE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BASIS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong>, THE<\/strong> ESSENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CONDITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> FELICITY<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses reminds them of the making of the covenant at Horeb, and of the revelation of the fundamental law of the covenant there. As he was about to recapitulate the laws which God their King had enacted, it was fitting that he should refer at the outset to that covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel on which all the injunctions of the Law rested.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And Moses called all Israel<\/strong> [called to all Israel], and said<\/strong>. “The calling refers not to the publicity of the address, but to the clear voice which, breaking forth from the inmost heart of Moses, aimed at penetrating, as far as possible, to all (Gen 49:1<\/span>; Joh 7:37<\/span>)” (Schroeder). (Cf. also Pro 8:4<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Deu 5:2<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Not with our fathers<\/strong>, the patriarchs (cf. Deu 4:37<\/span>.) The covenant to which Moses refers is not that made with Abraham, but that made at Sinai, with Israel as a people; and though the individuals who were then present had all perished with the exception of Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, the nation survived, and as it was with the nation as an organic whole that the covenant had been made. it might be with propriety said that it was made with those whom Moses addressed at this time, inasmuch as they constituted the nation.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:4<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lord talked with you face to face<\/strong>. God spoke to them immediately, in their presence and to their face, from the mount, as one person might to another. There is a slight difference in form between the phrase here and that in Exo 33:11<\/span> and Deu 34:10<\/span>, where it is used in reference to Moses, but it is so slight ( instead of ) that no difference of meaning can be elicited. God <\/em>spake directly to the people, as he did to Moses, only Moses was admitted to closer communion with him than the people were. This difference is sufficiently indicated in Deu 34:5<\/span>, where the mediatory function of Moses, in the promulgation of the Law and the making of the covenant, is described as necessitated by the fear of the people, and their not going up into the mount (cf. Exo 19:19<\/span>, etc.). This is referred to more fully afterwards (verse 23, etc.). I stood between the Lord and you<\/strong>; i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>acted as mediator; LXX<\/strong>; (cf. Gal 3:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 5:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

I am Jehovah thy God<\/strong>. “The Law, the establishing rule for men, can proceed only from him who alone and over all stands fast; i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>from God, specially as Jehovah. The eternal, unchangeable One, since he demands the obedience of faith (is not merely the moral imperative), must not only reveal himself, but in revealing himself must claim Israel as loyal and faithful; thy God<\/em>“ <\/em>(Schroeder).<\/p>\n

Deu 5:7-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Repetition of the Ten Commandments<\/em>. <\/em>On these, as the basis of the covenant, the whole legislation rests, and therefore a rehearsal of them is a fitting introduction to a repetition and enforcement of the laws of the theocracy. Some differences appear between the statement of the “ten words,” as given here and as given in Exo 20:1-26<\/span>. It is chiefly in the fourth commandment that these are to be found. It begins here with “remember” for “keep;” reference is made to the command of God as sanctioning the Sabbath (Exo 20:12<\/span>), which is omitted in Exodus; a fuller description of the animals to be exempted from work on that day is given (verse 14); the words, “that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou” are added (verse 14); and in place of a reference to the resting of God after the Creation as the ground of the Sabbath institute, as in Exodus, there is here a reference to the deliverance of the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt as a reason why the Lord commanded them to keep the Sabbath day (verse 15). In the fifth commandment there are two additions here-the one of the words,” as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee,” and the other of the words, “that it may go well with thee” (verse 16). In the tenth commandment, the first two clauses are transposed, “desire” appears in place of “covet” in relation to “wife,” and “field” is added to the specification of objects (verse 21). These differences are of little moment. The only one demanding notice is that in the fourth commandment, where different reasons are assigned for the ordinance of the Sabbath. The two reasons assigned, however, are perfectly compatible; the one is fundamental and universally applicable, the other is subsidiary and special in its application; the one is a reason why the Sabbath was originally instituted and is for all men, the other is a reason why it was specially and formally instituted in Israel and was especially memorable to that people. In a popular address to them it seems fitting that the latter rather than the former should be the one adduced. As a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt, the Sabbath was all important to them, for by it they were constantly reminded that “they were thereby freed from the dominion of the world to be a peculiar possession of Jehovah, and so amid the toil and trouble of the world had part in the holy rest of their God” (Baumgarten). It was also fitting in a recapitulatory address that special emphasis should be laid on the fact that what the Law enunciated was what “the Lord had commanded.” The addition of “field” in the tenth commandment is probably due to the fact that now, the occupation and division of the land having begun, the people were about to have, what they had not beforeeach his own property in land. In the tenth commandment, also, there is a difference in the two accounts worthy of notice. In Deuteronomy, “field” is added to the enumeration of objects not to be coveted, and the “wife” is put first and apart, while in Exodus the “house” precedes the “wife” and the latter ranks with the rest. In Deuteronomy also this separation of the wife is emphasized by a change of the verb: “Neither shalt thou <\/em>desire () thy neighbor<\/em>‘s wife<\/em>, neither shalt thou <\/em>covet () thy neighbor<\/em>‘s house<\/em>,” <\/em>etc.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:7-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

FIRST<\/strong> TABLE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> praecepta pietatis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In this, the first commandment, the great principle and basis of all true religion is assertedmonotheism, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism There is but one God, and that God is Jehovah, the self-existent and eternal, who yet has personal relations with men.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:8-10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here the spirituality of God is asserted, and, in the prohibition of the use of images in the worship of the Deity, all idolatry is denounced, and all deification of the powers of nature in any sense is prohibited. By the Jews, this commandment was not always regarded, for they were not infrequently seduced into following the idolatrous usages of the nations around them. It does not appear, however, that, though they set up images of the idol-gods whom they were thus led to worship, they ever attempted to represent by image or picture the great God whom their fathers worshippedJehovahby whom this command was given; and at a later period, when they had long renounced all idolatry, they became noted as the one nation that adored the Deity as a spirit, without any sensible representation of him: “Judaei mente sola unumque Numen intelligunt igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum temples sinunt<\/em>” (Tacit; ‘Hist.,’ 5.5). It appears that, by many of them at least, the commandment was regarded as prohibiting absolutely the graphic and plastic arts. This may account for the low state of these arts among the Jews, and for the fact that they alone of the civilized nations of antiquity have left no monuments of art for the instruction or admiration of posterity. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them<\/strong>; LXX<\/strong>; . Every kind of worship of images is forbidden, alike that of proskunesis<\/em> and that of latria<\/em>. <\/em>And showing mercy unto thousands<\/strong>; i<\/em>.e<\/em>. to the thousandth generation (cf. Deu 7:9<\/span>)<\/p>\n

Deu 5:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain<\/strong>; literally, Thou shalt not take <\/em>[or lift<\/em>] up the Name of Jehovah thy God to vanity<\/em>. <\/em>This commandment forbids not only all false swearing by the Name of God, but all profanation of that Name by an irreverent or light use of it (Le Deu 19:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 5:12-14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.<\/strong> This phraseology implies that the Sabbath institute was already well known to the people of Israel; so that this commandment was intended, not to enact a new observance, but to enforce the continuance of an observance which had come down to them from earlier times. The Sabbath was to be kept by being sanctified<\/em>. <\/em>This means that it was to be consecrated to God to be used as he had appointed. The sanctification of any object “always goes back to an act of the Divine will, to Divine election and institution. In other words, it is always a state in which the creature [or institute] is bound to God by the appointment of God himself, which is expressed by ,”. The sanctification of the Sabbath, accordingly, was the consecration of that day to the Lord, to be observed as he had enjoined, that is, as a day of rest from all servile work and ordinary occupations. Among the Jews, those who were careful to keep this law “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luk 23:56<\/span>). Not, however, in mere indolence and idle vacancy, unworthy of a man. Not thus could the day be sanctified to the Lord. Man had to “release his soul and body from all their burdens, with all the professions and pursuits of ordinary life, only in order to gather himself together again in God with greater purity and fewer disturbing elements, and renew in him the might of his own better powers”. In the Sabbath institute, therefore, lies the basis of spiritual worship and pious service in Israel.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The germ of society is the family, and the family is sustained only as the authority and rule of the heads of the house are upheld and respected. The command, then, to honor parents may be justly regarded as asserting the foundation of all social ordinances and arrangements. Where parents are not honored, a flaw lies at the basis, and the stability of the entire social fabric is endangered.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:17-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

SECOND<\/strong> TABLE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>: praecepta probitatis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the enactments of the second table there is a progression from the outward to the inward. First, sins of deed <\/em>are prohibited, such as murder, adultery, and theft; then sins of word<\/em>, <\/em>such as injury of a neighbor’s good name by false testimony; and finally, sins of the heart<\/em>, <\/em>which do not come into open manifestation, such as covetousness and evil desire. The “commandment” is thus seen to be” exceeding broad” (Psa 119:96<\/span>). So that only the man “who hath clean hands and a pure heart, and who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully,” shall “ascend into the hill of the Lord, or stand in his holy place” (Psa 24:8<\/span>, Psa 24:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22-27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here is an expanded citation of Exo 20:15-18<\/span>, addressed by Moses to prepare the way for the solemn admonition to observe and do all that the Lord had commanded them, with which he passes on to the enunciation of the various statutes and ordinances he had been enjoined by God to lay upon them.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And he added no more.<\/strong> “Only these ten words did God speak immediately to you; all the rest he spoke afterwards by me” (Herxheimer); cf. Num 11:25<\/span>, where the same formula occurs, “and they added not,” i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>they prophesied only when the Spirit of God came on them, but this was not continuous. And he wrote them in two tables of stone.<\/strong> This anticipates what is recorded in its proper historical connection in Deu 9:10<\/span>, Deu 9:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:23-27<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a purely historical narrative such as that in Exodus, a condensed statement of what took place on this occasion was sufficient; but in an address to the people, it was fitting that Hoses should give it in fuller detail, especially in view of what follows.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:28<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The words of God in reply to those of the people are not given in Exodus; here they are fittingly inserted God approved of their words because they expressed a proper reverence and m due sense on their part of the unworthiness of sinful men to come into the presence of the great and holy God; but knowing their fickleness, and proneness to forget and depart from him, he added, Oh that there were such an heart in them that they would fear me and keep all my commandments always!<\/strong> God looks upon the heart, and will accept no service or worship that is not rendered from the heart. Only they who do his will from the heart (Eph 6:6<\/span>) really fear and keep his commandments. The tongue may sometimes promise what the heart does not guarantee; and so when the occasion that provoked the utterance has passed, the whole may be forgotten, and the promise never be fulfilled.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:30<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:31<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The people were commanded to return to their tents, and Moses was appointed to act as mediator between God and them, receiving from him his commandments and communicating them to the people.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:32<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses winds up this part of his discourse by exhorting them to observe and do all God’s commandments, not in any way departing from that course of action to which he had called them, that they might live, and it should be well with them in the land they were about to possess.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:32<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

To the right hand or to the left<\/strong>. “This signifieth an exact care to walk in God’s Law, as in the highway, from which men may not turn aside, as in Deu 2:27<\/span>” (Ainsworth); cf. Deu 17:11<\/span>, Deu 17:20<\/span>; Deu 28:14<\/span>; Jos 1:7<\/span>; Pro 4:27<\/span>; Isa 30:21<\/span>. “To receive what God enjoins is only half obedience; it belongs thereto also that nothing be required beyond this. We must not desire to be more righteous than as we are taught by the Law” (Calvin).<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Divine Law based on a divinely revealed relationship.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I am the Lord thy <\/em>God,” etc. This little word thy<\/em>, <\/em>in this connection, gives us the basis on which the Law was set. Of the event called “the <\/em>giving of the Law,” we feel the thrill even now. That Law has in it four features, corresponding to one or other of the aspects in which the people to whom it was first given may be regarded. They were<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> members of the great human family, moral, responsible beings, amenable to the government of God. They were<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> a Church in the wilderness, with their own institutions, which embodied the worship appropriate to the religion enjoined upon them. They were<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> a people rescued from bondage, about to have a commonwealth of their own, for which sundry civil and political regulations had to be provided. They were<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> a nation which for years was to be in a wandering state, yet destined in the long run to find a home in Palestine. Adapted to them in this last-named aspect, they had sanitary laws; for them in the third aspect there were civil and political laws; for them in the second aspect there were religious institutions; and for them in the first aspect there was the great moral law. The set of rules having reference to health would be binding only so far as the laws of climate and modes of life necessitated their continued observance. The civil law would be but temporary so far as it received its complexion from the idolatrous surroundings of the people. The ceremonial law would pass away in form<\/em>, <\/em>but the underlying principles of it are permanent. The moral law is unchanging as man’s nature, and enduring as his relation to God. It is given in the ten commandments, of which the first <\/em>enjoins supreme love to the Divine Being: the second, recognition of the spirituality of the Divine nature: the third, reverence for the Divine Name: the fourth, care for Divine worship: the fifth inculcates religion in the home: the sixth, the religion of the temper: the seventh, the religion of the body: the eighth, the religion of the band: the ninth, the religion of the tongue: the tenth, the religion of the heart. But antecedently to the Law in any of its aspects, there is a question of deep interest and importance, viz. From whom came it? The reasons for obedience to it come very largely out of the answer to be given to that question. Now, the words in Deu 5:6<\/span>, which precede the Law itself, are not merely a preface to <\/em>it, they are at once the basis of it and the reason for obedience to it. And these words should be opened up clearly in every case where the Decalogue is about to be expounded. The <\/em>Law is not set on law<\/em>, <\/em>but on grace! <\/em>For observe<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A SPECIAL<\/strong> VIEW<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> PRESENTED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> DRAW<\/strong> FORTH<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> ATTENTION<\/strong> AND<\/strong> WIN<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> ALLEGIANCE<\/strong>. “Thy<\/em> God<\/em>.” The Hebrews were never expected to believe in, obey, or love an absolutely unrelated Being. THERE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NO<\/strong> SUCH<\/strong> BEING<\/strong>! God is related to all the creatures he has made. Hence our knowledge of him is not unreal, because it is relative; but real, because in knowing God’s relations to us, we, so far, know him as he is. God was Israel’s Redeemer. He had redeemed them that they might be his. He would have the entire life of his redeemed ones spent in covenant relationship with him. Hence he sets his own Law on the basis of those relations. And so it is now. We are not expected to love a Being whose relations to us are doubtful or obscure, or whose mind and will towards us are unknown. We love because <\/em>he first loved us.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> VARIED<\/strong> ASPECTS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRISTIAN<\/strong> TRUTH<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> SET<\/strong> UPON<\/strong> A LIKE<\/strong> BASIS<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> IT<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> REASON<\/strong> AND<\/strong> POWER<\/strong>. The following suggestions may be developed largely with great advantage.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The conception of law is materially changed when we know that it comes from One who loves us infinitely, and cares for us with a tender care. This gives sweetness to the command. We are “under law to Christ.”<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> “The Lord thy <\/em>God;” that gives the worship of God its charm.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> This is the truth which is objectively disclosed by the Incarnation.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It is the truth which the Holy Ghost graves on the hearts of the saints (Rom 8:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> This truth shows us that real religion is love responding to love (1Jn 4:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> It gives a manifest ground for trust. We know <\/em>whom we have believed.<\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> It gives a charm to every precept.<\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> It gives meaning to every trial (Deu 8:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

9.<\/strong> It is in the light of this truth that prayer becomes possible, and is seen to be reasonable.<\/p>\n

10.<\/strong> This gives a solemn aspect to our responsibility (Psa 81:10<\/span>; Amo 4:12<\/span>; Heb 4:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

11.<\/strong> The fuller understanding of the words, “My God<\/em>,” will be the result of ripeness in grace (Zec 13:9<\/span>; Isa 41:10-20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

12.<\/strong> This is pre-eminently the truth which gives its certainty and its glow to the hope of future glory (Mar 12:26<\/span>; Heb 11:16<\/span>; Rev 21:3<\/span>, Rev 21:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> SEEING<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WIDE<\/strong> BEARING<\/strong> AND<\/strong> VAST<\/strong> IMPORTANCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TRUTH<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEXT<\/strong>, WHAT<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> BE<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> US<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> PRACTICAL<\/strong> OUTCOME<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Seeing the fearful havoc agnosticism would make, if it should ever come to govern human thinking, let us show men:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> That a God out of relation to <\/em>us does not <\/em>exist.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> That the one God is related to us as Creator, etc.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> That his varied relations are explicitly revealed, specially through the Son and through the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> That these relations are to be apprehended by our moral and spiritual nature, and not by the intellect alone. It should never make us stagger that, after getting to the very outer rim of natural knowledge, men should look out on an awful blank, and call it “the great unknown.” It shows us only that they cannot find God in that way<\/em>not <\/em>that there is no way of finding God, still less that God cannot find us or make his communications intelligible to us. Do not let us suffer men to think that God cannot be found because no one can find him out to perfection! He is our <\/em>God.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Since God is our <\/em>God, let us cultivate fellowship with him. It is for this purpose he hath revealed himself, that we may come to him (1Jn 1:1-3<\/span>; Heb 10:19-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Let us seek to realize the blessedness of a known and happy relationship to God, enjoyed through Christ, by the Spirit, in a life of penitence, faith, devotion, and love (Isa 61:10<\/span>; 1Ch 12:18<\/span>; Psa 68:28<\/span>; Psa 46:1<\/span>; Psa 18:29<\/span>; Psa 146:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Let faith in the love of our <\/em>God fill up our duties with glorious meaning, and make the discharge of them a delight (Deu 6:5<\/span>; Deu 28:58<\/span>; Le 25:38<\/span>; 11:45<\/span>; Isa 41:10<\/span>; Jer 3:13<\/span>; Mic 6:8<\/span>; Rom 12:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Let the fact that God is our <\/em>God create, confirm, and perpetuate our assurance of immortal blessedness. See the wonderful words in Mat 22:31<\/span>, Mat 22:32<\/span>; Heb 11:16<\/span>. As if God would be ashamed to be called our God, if he did not mean to do something worthy of the name! Wondrous grace! How perfect the reconciliation effected by Christ, to bring together the holy God and sinful men in blest accord and union forever!<\/p>\n

Deu 5:7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The first commandment. God the sole object of worship.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Thou shalt have none other gods before me.” So runs the first of the Ten Commandments. (For the specific direction of each, see enumeration in Homily on Deu 5:6<\/span>; for the completeness of the whole, see Homily on Deu 5:22-33<\/span>.) It has been well observed, in reference to the delivery of the Ten Commandments, that “this is the only authentic case in the history of the world of a newly formed nation receiving at once, and from one legislator, a complete code of laws for the direction of their whole future life.” They are, in outline, the Old Testament revelation of God’s will. If any one would wish a clear statement of Old Testament morality, he should be referred to these sayings, or to our Savior’s brief epitome of them. We should do very wrongly if we expounded the Decalogue merely <\/em>as the Hebrews might have done at the time it first was given. Comparison of corresponding or parallel passages in the New Testament will help us in the exposition and enforcement of these ten words. A reference to Mat 5:17-20<\/span>; Mat 15:1-9<\/span>; Mat 19:16-19<\/span>; Mat 22:36-40<\/span>; Luk 10:25-28<\/span>; Luk 16:31<\/span>; Joh 5:46<\/span>, Joh 5:47<\/span>, will help to show what regard our Lord paid to the Mosaic Law. Bearing this in mind, we will endeavor now to sketch in outline an exposition of the first commandment, using the clearer teaching of the gospel to give us any additional light and force in so doing. Thus saith the Lord, “Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> COMMAND<\/strong> AT<\/strong> ONCE<\/strong> SETS<\/strong> ASIDE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CLAIMS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ANY<\/strong> OTHER<\/strong> SUPPOSED<\/strong> GODS<\/strong>. (Cf. Deu 4:19<\/span>; Exo 23:24<\/span>, Exo 23:25<\/span>.) “None other gods before me,” i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>“over <\/em>against me. I will suffer no rival deity; you must worship no other god,” etc. Does, then, the command permit Israel to suppose that there is <\/em>any other god whom they could possibly worship? Not by any means. It recognizes the fact of the existence of idolatry round about them. According to the heathen conception, there were gods many and lords many. Israel was not to regard one of all the gods adored by the heathen. This is the very gracious way in which our Father in heaven would help his children in those young days to higher thoughts about himself. Is it not always the case with young children now? They have to be told what they may or may not do, and as they get older they will discover the reason<\/em>. Indoctrinate into dogma by means of precept<\/em>. <\/em>This was the way God taught Israel “when he was a child,” by putting this <\/em>precept in the front. Had Moses discoursed to the people on the philosophic excellence of monotheism, and so on, he would have been virtually speaking in an unknown tongue. They would not have caught a glimpse of his meaning; but they could understand this<\/em>. <\/em>And the faithful obedience to this precept would be for them the very surest way of learning the doctrine which lay beneath it. By serving only <\/em>one God, they would best come to learn that there was no god but the One. But further. This commandment is much more than a mere prohibition of what we usually call idolatry. It is a declaration of the Divine intolerance of any rival in the heart. Though we acknowledge that there is but one God, yet that is practically the idol of our hearts which engrosses our dearest affections, and with a view to which we shape our lives. God wants the innermost sanctuary of our hearts to be sacredly reserved for him.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> WERE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> DRAW<\/strong> OFF<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> REGARD<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> OTHER<\/strong> GODS<\/strong>, THAT<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> THE<\/strong> POWERS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> SOULS<\/strong> MIGHT<\/strong> BE<\/strong> CONCENTRATED<\/strong> ON<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. (See Deu 6:5<\/span>.) In our text, the form is negative; the intent is positive. They are to know none but God<\/em>, <\/em>that they may concentrate all their strength on God. In fact, the command is equivalent to this: “Let all your personal, family, social, national life be regulated completely by the commandments of your God. And let this be done from love.” Is it asked, “Is this practicable? Can a man put forth all his strength for God when his energy is absorbed in trade?” We answer, “Yes; by regulating his business rightly, as God wills.” “Can a mother put forth all her strength on loving God, when the care of her family is taxing and even straining all her powers?” We answer, “Yes; by training her children for God.” And so on in each one of life’s tasks.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> IS<\/strong> SET<\/strong> ON<\/strong> GROUNDS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> TENDER<\/strong> APPEAL<\/strong>. (See the preceding Homily.) God does not say, “When you love me supremely I will redeem you from Egypt;” but “I have redeemed you, therefore yield me your all.” The religions of man go out to an unrevealed Being, if perchance he may be propitiated. Scriptural religion is the response of the heart of man to the revealed love of the Infinite One. Hence the gospel claim is, in substance, like the Mosaic, although its form is new, and the view we get of Divine love is larger (see Rom 12:1<\/span>). In both, duty is the same: the whole heart of man is demanded for God. But note the advance in light, tenderness, and strength in<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the mercies of God; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> the “beseeching” tone; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> the “consecration of a living sacrifice” asked; <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> the reason given, “Your reasonable service.”<\/p>\n

Here is the difference in the method of the gospel.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> SET<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FOREFRONT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ISRAEL<\/strong>‘S NATIONAL<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>? It was the law for each one’s life. It was the rule for all. In their legislation, the supreme feature was to be the national recognition of God. And even now, yea, ever, so far as the legislation of any people is based on righteousness, so tar as that legislation recognizes the rights of the Great Supreme, so far as a people are loyal to God, to that extent will there be the surest guarantee for individual, family, social, and national prosperity. If ever a nation as such <\/em>should “break his bands asunder,” and inaugurate an age of reason versus <\/em>faith, instead of a reasonable faith, the reign of terror would not be far off. And it is owing to the supreme importance of thus launching into the world a nation with God for its Lord, and righteousness for its law, that the open transgression of this first commandment was so severely punished, as being a crime against the State as well as a sin against God (Deu 13:7-12<\/span>, Deu 13:13-18<\/span>; Deu 17:2-7<\/span>). (The frequent phrase “cut off” does not refer to punishment in another life, but to a man’s being “cut off” from the congregation.) And even now fidelity to God is the supreme condition of a nation’s well-being; and that man is playing foully with the highest interests of a people, who is seeking to undermine its allegiance to heaven.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>? THEN<\/strong> LET<\/strong> US<\/strong> MAKE<\/strong> THREE<\/strong> USES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> As a touchstone<\/em>. <\/em>It reveals guilt. The need <\/em>of any such command is a very humiliating fact. “The law is not made for a righteous man.” “By law is the knowledge of sin.” This precept<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> discloses the world’s sin.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> It shows the deep root that sin had in the natures even of the freed people, that they should need such legislation to grave this precept on their hearts.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> It shows our <\/em>sin, that we should need the written Law. If we were what we ought to be, we should do God’s will spontaneously without needing a written law at all!<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> As a judge<\/em>. <\/em>This being the Law, we see how it is that as by law we stand convicted, so by it we stand condemned, “subject to the sentence of God,” for failures innumerable; and our guilt is the greater, since he who asks our heart reveals his own love that he may call forth ours. This Law is a perpetual, silent accuser (see Joh 5:45<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> As a child-guide to Christ <\/em>(see Gal 3:24<\/span>, Greek). God only is greater than law. And he alone can restore those who, having broken law, must needs, in the ordinary course of things, be regarded and dealt with as law breakers. For restoration, three things are required:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Forgiveness; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> justification; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> re-creation.<\/p>\n

Bare Law does not provide for either of these, but God in his Law has witnessed concerning this great restorative scheme. So says Paul in Rom 3:21<\/span>, “But now there has been manifested a righteousness of God apart from law, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets,” etc. So in Rom 1:16<\/span>, Rom 1:17<\/span>, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for therein there is revealed a righteousness of God by faith, with a view to [the production of] faith.” By believing in Christ, forgiveness is sure to the penitent, and grace re-creates the man, writing the Law on the heart, so that we obey and love God, not because God says we must, but because we are remade so that we can do nothing else. And what we need is to have our whole nature so reset by Divine grace, that we shall instinctively see God’s will and do it, without needing any precept at all. As by the regenerative efficacy of the Holy Ghost we attain to this, shall we understand what it is to do the will of God on earth, “even as it is done in heaven.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:8-10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The second commandment. The spirituality of Divine worship.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is sometimes said that there is a reason attached to this second commandment. It is scarcely accurate to affirm that. There is a double sanction <\/em>attached to it to enforce it, but there is no mention made here of a reason, strictly so called. We will, however, incorporate in this Homily the true reason which underlies this precept. But we shall have to go to the New Testament for the clearest statement of that. Let us then, in connection with the above, ask the reader to turn to Joh 4:24<\/span>, in which he will find a deep reason for the second commandment. We will first of all, as briefly as we can consistently with clearness, open up the contents of this command, and will then endeavor to unfold the double sanction by which it is guarded.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> CONTENTS<\/strong>. The first <\/em>commandment claims for Jehovah alone the love and worship of the people. The second <\/em>warns off from any mode of worship which would bear a resemblance to or which would be a compromise with idolatry. While Israel was in Egypt, there had been a general worship on the part of the Egyptians, of bird, beast, and reptile, not for their own sake, but as representing some attribute of the invisible God. The forms of Egyptian worship, the names of Pasht, Osiris, etc; must be done away with. No representation <\/em>of the object of worship was to be allowed. However much men might have pleaded that sense was an aid to faith, the stern “Thou shalt not” peremptorily barred the way. We know the reason why<\/em>, <\/em>as they in their childhood did not. God is spirit. Being spirit, it is only by spirit that he can be approached. No merely <\/em>bodily act can possibly be worship. Further, neither God nor any one of his attributes can be represented by any physical form. Whatever idea of Jehovah may be gained or retained through impressions derived from beholding a sensible object with the bodily eye, will be an idea representing it<\/em>, <\/em>not him<\/em>. <\/em>It will be a thought of God formed by the image and limited by itnot the true thought given by revelation. Obviously, however, this command did not forbid decorative designs in the tabernacle or the temple (cf. Exo 25:18<\/span>, Exo 25:20<\/span>, Exo 25:34<\/span>; Exo 26:32<\/span>; Num 21:8<\/span>, Num 21:9<\/span>; 1Ki 7:25<\/span>; 1Ki 10:20<\/span>). But never were any creature-forms allowed, either as objects of worship or as aids to it. Nor can we read through Hebrew history without seeing how much need there was of such a command. Ere long, the people were dancing round the golden calf! And in the days of Jeroboam two calves were set upone in Bethel, another in Dan. But surely the history of Christendom is even a sadder one than that of the Hebrews. Ere four centuries of the Christian era had passed away, how did the Christian Church lapse into repeated breaches of this law? “An <\/em>enormous train of different superstitions was gradually substituted in the place of true religion and genuine piety . Images were not as yet very common. But it is certain that the worship of the martyrs was modeled by degrees according to the religious services that were paid to the gods before the coming of Christ.” It is true, indeed, that in 726 A.D. Leo III<\/strong>. issued an ordinance forbidding the use of images in churches, as heathenish and heretical, and a Council of Constantinople, in 754 A.D; sanctioned that condemnation. Another Council, which met at Nice in 789 A.D; declared the previous Council heretical, and ordained the worship of pictures in churches. The decisions of this Council were rejected at a Council in Frankfort, in 794 A.D. Also at another in Constantinople, in 815 A.D; all worshipping of pictures and images was forbidden. In 869 A.D. the iconoclasts were condemned. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, affirmed a threefold use of images, and declared that like homage is due to the image or Christ as to Christ himself! And we know but too well what the later history of Rome has been, how pagan rites have become more and more mingled with Christian service. The Savior is approached through the crucifix, and fed upon through the bread; and, as if blind to the warnings of history, ritualism openly proclaims that the best exposition of doctrine is that which meets the eye rather than the ear. Perhaps it is not to be wondered at, that in Roman Catholic catechisms the second commandment is left out<\/em>; <\/em>and not even Luther was sufficient of a reformer to restore the missing law in his catechisman easy way, indeed, of blinding the people to the evil of a mistaken ritual, to leave out <\/em>the authoritative command, obedience to which would render such evil impossible!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DOUBLE<\/strong> SANCTION<\/strong> ATTACHED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. The first is drawn from the Divine nature, the second from the Divine administration.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>From the Divine nature<\/em>. <\/em>“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.” “They that worship him must <\/em>worship him in spirit and in truth.” God is jealous:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> For truth <\/em>in his worship. He would have us think <\/em>of him as glorious in power, wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and love. Our thoughts of God can be but limited at the best. They need not be untrue. But untrue and dishonoring to him they certainly will be if we come at them through the means of any graven image. We do not even except the crucifix. It represents the bodily form of Christ. It may represent the nails, the wounds, the spear, the crown of thorns, the pain-crushed brow; and we confess it may be possible, by looking at these physical marks, to receive so vivid an impression of the physical suffering that we may be wrought up to agony in thinking of it! But even then this is only knowing Christ after the flesh; it is making an idol of his humanity; and in sympathy with the anguish of his bodily woes, we may altogether miss the acting of faith in that atoning sacrifice which lay among the things unseen and eternal!<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> For spirit <\/em>in his worship. The worship paid to a spiritual Being is nothing if it be not spiritual worship. But in the endless bowings and prostrations, genuflexions, cross-markings, and waving of the body at the word “Jesus,” there is, at least in appearance, a taking for granted that bodily postures are spiritual attitudes.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> God would have man lifted up to a higher level by the worship of him. But the sorry record in history of the breaches of the second law shows us four transitions:<\/p>\n

(a)<\/strong> An object which at first represents the Being who is worshipped, comes at length to be worshipped. <\/p>\n

(b)<\/strong> Worship paid through the body will sink to merely bodily worship.<\/p>\n

(c)<\/strong> When the lofty platform of spiritual worship is quitted, religious service will inevitably lose its meaning. Sense first comes as “an aid to faith,” and then is put in the place of it!<\/p>\n

(d)<\/strong> When this is the case, the vitalizing force of religion is gone, and man, sinking in religious vitality, sinks also in morality (see Jer 7:1-34<\/span>. for an illustration of this in the Hebrew people; see Rom 1:1-32<\/span>. for illustrations of it in the Gentile world).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> From the Divine administration<\/em>. <\/em>“Visiting the iniquities,” etc. It would not have seemed wonderful to have found this second sanction appended to such sins as murder, adultery, etc.; but how is it that it follows on so apparently slight an offense as the use of graven images? Because of the sure and inevitable quadruple transition already referred to<\/em>. <\/em>He who comes to lose the life of religion will, so far, be undermining the foundations of morality, not only for himself, but for those who come after him.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> What a man is and what his family are or may be, are regarded as bound up together by an unalterable law of God.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Evil follows on from generation to generation. A ghastly inheritance to hand downformalism and idolatry!<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> But if a man maintains the true spiritual worship of God in his family, that too will be handed down to those who follow him as a priceless heritage; not only to those who come in the physical line: our Lord’s words in Joh 8:1-59<\/span>. should teach us to look beyond that.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> In the mercy of God the influence of a man’s good <\/em>is more lasting than the influence of his evil. Evilto third or fourth generation. Goodto thousands [of generations]. The influence of Paul, e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>at this moment, is prodigious; that of Nero is nil<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Learn<\/em>, in conclusion<\/em>:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> <\/em>We receive an influence from the generations which preceded us; we shall transmit one to the generations that will follow. (We do not think this latter consideration is sufficiently pressed on the people, either on its physiological or on its spiritual side.)<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Whoever wishes to ensure a prolonged influence that shall blessedly affect generations to come, let him bend all his force to the upholding of the worship of God in purity, in spirit, in truth. So much depends on this. The weal of the land in which we dwell is dependent thereon. Oh! for our own sakes, for our country’s sake, for our children’s sakes, let us contend earnestly for the maintenance of the worship of God in simplicity and in truth!<\/p>\n

Deu 5:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The third commandment. Reverent regard for the Divine Name.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The “Name” of God is the form of speech for God himself. “To take” the Name of God means “to take it up”to use it in any way, which may be done either by speaking to <\/em>him, of <\/em>him, for <\/em>him, or against <\/em>him. “To take up this Name in vain” means to take it up falsely or vainly. And inasmuch as it has been so grievously common to use the Name of God profanely in oaths, this third commandment has come to be regarded chiefly as a prohibition against swearing. It is that<\/em>, <\/em>but it is a great deal more. This commandment is “exceeding broad.” It may be wronged, not only by an undue limitation of it, but also by a too slavish adherence to the letter of it; e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>according to the teaching of the rabbis, certain oaths were harmless if the Name of God was not specifically mentioned in them (cf. Mat 23:16-22<\/span>). Further, the expression “in vain” was interpreted as meaning “if you take an oath you must fulfill it;” take as many oaths as you please, so long as you do not break them, and thus turn them into falsehood. The effect of this cold and superficial teaching of the rabbis was twofold. It created artificial distinctions which our Savior did not recognize, and it obliterated such as were of great importance in his eye. It is needful for us, then, to be guided by the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, if we would rightly develop this third law. Since our Savior in his Sermon on the Mount removed the glosses with which the rabbis had overlain the Law and restored it to its pristine clearness and purity.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> FORBIDDEN<\/strong> BY<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> THIRD<\/strong> COMMANDMENT<\/strong>? We are all aware that some have regarded our Savior’s words, “Swear <\/em>not at all,” as prohibitive of solemn oath-taking in a court of justice. We cherish all respect for those who so regard them, but we cannot view them in this light, for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The occasion on which our Lord uses the words seems to refer rather to habits in private life.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Christ and his apostles solemnly appealed to Heaven.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> In Heb 6:1-20<\/span>; the oath of God is spoken of by the sacred writer, and we cannot suppose this would have been if all <\/em>oath-taking were wrong. We cannot think that, even by way of accommodation, the Most High would represent himself as doing that which it would be always wrong for his creatures to do.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> In prophetic language there is predicted a swearing by the Name of God, which is regarded as obviously right (Isa 45:23<\/span>; see also Deu 6:14<\/span>). These reasons seem to us to set the matter entirely at rest. And the view that Christ was referring to men’s ordinary conversation when he said, “Swear not at all,” is confirmed by Mat 5:37<\/span>; the meaning of which evidently is: “If it is needful for you to interlard your conversation with sundry adjurations, you are the victims of a spirit of falsehood which has ‘ the evil one’ for its father!” Further, this precept covers a far wider range than that of swearing. It forbids any “taking up” of the Divine Name which is not true as to loyalty of purpose, actual fact, and after-fulfillment. This precept manifestly prohibits:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> All scoffing at sacred things<\/em>; <\/em>not merely at the word <\/em>“God,” or at the doctrine of the Divine existence, but ridiculing the Bible as the Book of God, the Sabbath as the day of God, Christians as the people of God, and religion as obedience to God. The mild and supercilious scorn of modern skepticism is equally a violation of this preceptit tramples under foot the Son of God.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Perjury is another form of violation of this command<\/em>. <\/em>The idea of swearing is that of calling God to witness; and to invoke that great and awful Name to witness a lie is one of the most grievous breaches of this law.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Profanity also is here forbidden<\/em>, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. taking the Name of God on the lips on every trifling occasion. This is now thought, as indeed it is, ungentlemanly, to a far greater extent than was the case fifty years ago. So far well. Only let us take care that for a custom to be out of fashion<\/em>, <\/em>does not act with us more powerfully than its offensiveness to God, in inducing us to give it up! Some are more concerned at a hole in their manners than at a breach of morals. These things ought not so to be.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Frivolity in reference to Divine things is a transgression of this command<\/em>. <\/em>This is by no means to be confounded either with scoffing or with profanity. It may be found where there is great reverence for God, great kindness of heart, combined with an excessive fondness for raising a laugh. And where this is the case, even sacred things are but too seldom exempt from frivolous treatment. We recall some acquaintance whose chief, yea, whose only apparent fault, was the extreme tendency to turn everything into a joke, even things most sacred. Many were ready to excuse the frivolity for the sake of the talent it revealed. But they are “nowhere” now. Their levity was their ruin. Wit and humor have indeed a place of no mean value in social life. Social evils are often exposed more effectively in scorn and satire than in graver speeches. But there is no tendency of any man which needs to be more wisely cultured, more carefully and prayerfully guarded, and more conscientiously directed, than that to which we are now referring. Apart from this, there is exceedingly great danger of its leading to the “taking the Name of God in vain.”<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> There may be a breach of this commandment without frivolity (as usually understood), even where there is no sense of humor and no talent for witticisms, in the indulgence of a vicious habit, much more easily formed than broken off, of interlarding the conversation with certain well-known epithets<\/em>. <\/em>We know what these were in Christ’s time (see Mat 23:16-22<\/span>; Mat 5:33-36<\/span>). This is conceited talk, and it is sinful talk.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> False teaching for God breaks this law <\/em>(see Jer 23:21-24<\/span>, Jer 23:31<\/span>). There are several ways by which, in teaching others, the Name of God may be taken falsely. Either<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> by declaring as God’s what he has not <\/em>said; or by <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> denying what be has <\/em>said; or <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> by calling in question the truth of what he has spoken.<\/p>\n

The first was common in the days of Jeremiah; the second and third are at once more ancient and more modern. Whenever any ambassador for God gives his own thoughts as if they were God<\/em>‘s message<\/em>, <\/em>he is taking the Name of God in vain. Or if a man, while professing to speak for God, is speaking with the desire to exalt himself, he is guilty of the same sin.<\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> Hollowness and formality in the professed worship of God are breaches of the third commandment<\/em>. <\/em>We take God’s Name in vain if we sing “the songs of Zion” with a vacant heart, or outwardly join in the prayers of the sanctuary without devotion in the soul (Eze 33:30<\/span>, Eze 33:31<\/span>; Isa 29:13<\/span>). Oh, the number of times we have been on our knees and have used the Name of God in” indolent vacuity of thought!” “Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?”<\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> We may break this commandment by vowing unto God<\/em>, and then not fulfilling the vow<\/em>. <\/em>When at the Lord’s table, we take the sacramental oath of obedience to our Great Commander, and if we are not true to that, we add sin to sin by “taking the Name of God in vain.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> GUARDED<\/strong>? “The Lord will not hold him guiltless,” etc. God may or may not mark this sin by visitations of temporal judgment; there are many cases in which levity has been the ruin of a man, even temporally. But the probability is that the more occult and deceptive forms of this sin will leave no appreciable mark on a man’s earthly career. The marking of the guilt will be between God and a man’s own soul. Hollow prayers bring no blessing; empty worship no growth in grace. Violated vows will bring down the displeasure of God. If God were to visit upon us all the sins of unreality and formalism, of mechanical routine, and of heartless work in his service, we should be lost men! “God often sees more in our prayers to disgust him than to please him,” says Charnock. The Lord pardon the iniquity of our holy things!<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> BE<\/strong> USED<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> As a probe<\/em>. <\/em>Possibly, when a preacher takes this text, some may say, “We don’t need that. We never break God’s law so I” Possibly not, in the conventional sense in which the text is often used now. But what about that conversation laden with frivolity? What about that lesson which had more of self than of God in it? What about the songs of the sanctuary, enjoyed for the sake of the music, without a thought of the words? What about the forgotten vows? Surely we can all recall so many breaches of this third commandment that, if we had not a pardoning God, we should be shut up in despair!<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> To quicken to penitence<\/em>. By so much as our conviction is deep that we have broken this commandment a thousand times, by so much should our penitence be deep and definite <\/em>before God.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> To lead us to earnest entreaties for forgiveness<\/em>. If <\/em>we were not permitted to ask this, it would be all over with us, even if the third commandment were the whole of the Law.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> To lead to fervent prayer for daily heart-renewal<\/em>. <\/em>“Out <\/em>of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” If the heart is right the tongue will be right. “If a man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.” Well may we pray that every word we speak may be conformed to truth <\/em>(for in each of the eight ways named above there is a violation of truth<\/em>). <\/em>When our heart, thoughts, words, and deeds are in harmony with God’s nature and will, then shall we be true to the duty implied, and free from the sin forbidden, in the third commandment.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:12-15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Sabbath, or a rest-day for man.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(For a notice of the variations between the wording of this command in Exo 20:1-26<\/span>. and in this chapter, see Exposition.) No Christian preacher could wisely deal homiletically with the question of the Divine intent in the appointment of a seventh-day rest, without noting, in connection with our text, the teaching of our Lord and his apostles thereon. In developing the true doctrine and use of our rest day, let us<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> INDICATE<\/strong> SEVERAL<\/strong> PRINCIPLES<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> CONCEPTION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HEBREW<\/strong> SABBATH<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> START<\/strong>. The Hebrew Sabbath has a far-back look. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” What spaces of time the “six <\/em>days” represent we may perhaps never know in this life. One thing is cleara “day” of Divine action must <\/em>be indefinitely longer than one of man’s days. This far-back look, moreover, reveals to us a method of Divine work, after which ours is to be modeled. As man’s nature is made in God’s image, so our time is to be portioned out after God’s order. Further, the basis of the right observance of the day is that of “rest.” The word “Sabbath” means that; whatever else may have been connected with the day, the notion of rest <\/em>lay beneath all. While the Hebrews were to regard the observance of the day as a part of their covenanted duty as a nation, yet the rest was not for them as Hebrews only, but as men<\/em>. <\/em>The Sabbath was made for man<\/em>. <\/em>Work was to be laid aside, that man might give himself up to a holy and happy day of rest and worship<\/em>. <\/em>With a view, moreover, to securing all this, the work of the six other days was to be arranged.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SUBSEQUENT<\/strong> PRECEPTS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAME<\/strong> DIRECTION<\/strong>. Never is there anything <\/em>out of harmony with this benign command to rest (see Exo 16:29<\/span>; Exo 23:9-13<\/span>; Exo 31:13<\/span>; Exo 34:21<\/span>; Exo 35:1-3<\/span>; Le Exo 19:3<\/span>, 30; Exo 33:3<\/span>; Exo 26:2<\/span>; Num 15:32-36<\/span>). Of such importance to the good of the people was their rest day, that if a man attempted to turn it into a day of common work, he was to be stoned! Severity to the one was a guard of mercy round all! If the people could not or would not guard their rest day for themselves, the great Lord who gave it would shield it for them all! In course of time these precepts were grievously disobeyed, either by an entire neglect of the day, or by a merely formal <\/em>observance of it (2Ch 36:21<\/span>; Neh 9:14<\/span>; Neh 10:31<\/span>; Neh 13:15<\/span>, Neh 13:16<\/span>; Isa 1:13<\/span>; Isa 56:2<\/span>; Isa 58:13<\/span>; Jer 17:19-27<\/span>; Eze 20:12<\/span>, Eze 20:13<\/span>; Eze 22:8<\/span>, Eze 22:26<\/span>). Later on, when Jesus Christ came, many had lost the spirit of the day in the letter; so that the day which was given to man as a boon of mercy had come to be a chafing yoke and a grievous burden. Consequently, not even Jesus Christ was a sufficiently strict Sabbath-keeper for the -Pharisees<\/em>. Hence, Jesus in his teaching respecting the Sabbath, did not divert it from<\/em>, <\/em>but restored it to<\/em>, <\/em>its original intent. The Sabbath as God made it<\/em>, <\/em>was restful, beautiful, and free<\/em>. <\/em>As rabbinical teaching had perverted <\/em>it, it was rigid and burdensome. Men came to be on the Sabbath under a hard yoke; but it was man<\/em>‘s <\/em>yoke, not God’s (see in Dr. Geikie’s ‘Life of Christ’ abundant illustrations of this).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> NEW<\/strong> TESTAMENT<\/strong> INDICATIONS<\/strong> VARY<\/strong> IN<\/strong> FORM<\/strong> BUT<\/strong> ACCORD<\/strong> IN<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong>. We find in the New Testament some passages which indicate some observance of the first <\/em>day of the week (Joh 20:19-26<\/span>; Act 20:7<\/span>; 1Co 16:2<\/span>; Rev 1:10<\/span>). It is remarkable how few there are of such. We have no specific precept to direct us with regard to a Christian Sabbath. There is nothing very <\/em>clear on the matter, either in the Gospels or the Epistles. Judaism is waning; what is peculiar to it <\/em>dies away; what is worldwide and for humanity, lives. We seem to see the seventh day receding from our gaze, its luster fades and is lost in the brightness of the first day. There is a dissolving view. Winter is succeeded by spring. Here is something which has Christ’s sanction and apostolic warrant, viz. meeting on the first day. It <\/em>is the day of religious assembling, the day of “breaking bread.” The God of Sinai has invested the Son of man with all power in heaven and in earth. He is the Lord of the Sabbath. Memories of the great deliverance wrought by him eclipse those of the deliverance from Egypt. Wherefore, ever after, rest-day becomes “the Lord<\/em>‘s <\/em>day.” Ignatius says, “Let every friend of Christ celebrate the Lord’s day.” Justin Martyr, “On the Lord’s day, all Christians in the city and in the country assemble together, because that is the day of the Lord’s resurrection.” Tertullian, “The Lord’s day is the holy day of the Christian Church. So gradually, however, did the seventh-day Sabbath change into the first-day rest, that we find for a while both <\/em>days observed. Accordingly we find, in ‘The Apostolic Constitution,’ both days named as days for the assembling of the Church; that on the Sabbath and <\/em>on the Sunday the slaves should rest from their labors, and attend church with the rest to hear the sermon. But as the new skin is forming under the surface, the old is getting looser and looser. Yet for a time, there are two coverings<\/em>. <\/em>Soon, however, the old is shuffled off, and only the new is seen. The Sabbath is lost, but rest-day reappears as the Lord<\/em>‘s day!<\/em><\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> STANDS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REST<\/strong>–DAY<\/strong> NOW<\/strong>? The fourth commandment had a natural basis and a religious one. It gave a day of rest for man as man<\/em>, <\/em>and, as such, has never been repealed. God has never taken away the world’s rest-day. It is ours stilla priceless heritage. The religious <\/em>side of the Hebrew Sabbath, though abolished so far as the observance of Jewish rites is concerned<\/em>, <\/em>was at once taken up by the Christian Church, and Christians have, as we well know, by meeting for worship on the first day, recognized the principle of a world<\/em>‘s rest-day<\/em>, <\/em>and have used it for the higher purposes of the kingdom of heaven. And now to us the Lord’s day is<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> our day of rest from earthly toil; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> the day of hallowed calm; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> of richest memory; <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> of united worship; <\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> of mutual recognition of our common relationship to one God and Savior; <\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> of spiritual training; <\/p>\n

(7)<\/strong> of holiest service for the Master; <\/p>\n

(8)<\/strong> of noblest outlook (see Dr. R. W. Hamilton’s ‘Horae Sabbaticae’).<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> REGARD<\/strong> TO<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> REST<\/strong>–DAY<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> As men, let us regard it as an inestimable boon for the right use of which we are responsible to God. We are so made, as to our physical constitution, that we require <\/em>one day’s rest in seven. Then let us take <\/em>the rest gratefully.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> As citizens, we have a trust to guard for our fellow-countrymen. Legislation can never direct a man how to spend his rest-day, but it may do something to guard it for him. While we use the rest wisely, so that it makes us not only brisker animals, but holier men, let us also give others the rest.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> As Christians, we have a sacred day for sanctuary worship, and for home and school instruction. We should do everything to show the young that the Sunday is a bright, light, cheery day, remembering that whatever helps best to health<\/em>, rest<\/em>, worship<\/em>, and holiness is<\/em>, <\/em>and always has been<\/em>, <\/em>lawful on the Sabbath day.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> As workers for God, the rest day is our glorious day of special service for Christ and for souls, in the very fatigue of which the spirit finds refreshment. Then surely we enter into the Master’s spirit. Our meat is to do the will of him who hath sent us, and to finish his work.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The fifth commandment. Honor due to parents; or, the religion of home life.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many are the passages in the Word of God which speak of or refer to the duty of children to their parents; e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>Exo 21:15<\/span>, Exo 21:17<\/span>; Le Exo 19:3<\/span>; Exo 20:9<\/span>; Deu 21:18-21<\/span>; Deu 27:16<\/span>; Psa 78:5-8<\/span>; Pro 10:1<\/span>; Pro 13:1<\/span>; Pro 20:20<\/span>; Pro 23:22<\/span>; Pro 30:17<\/span>; Jer 35:18<\/span>; Eze 22:7<\/span>; Mat 15:4<\/span> 9<\/span>; Col 3:20<\/span>. It is worthy of careful noting, that when God would launch forth into the world a new national life, he lays great stress on the recognition of and regard to family sacredness<\/em>. <\/em>At the outset of the redemption from Egypt, family life was specially hallowed (cf. Exo 12:24-27<\/span>; Exo 13:8<\/span>, Exo 13:9<\/span>). The covenant of circumcision handed down from Abraham was to be observed. Children were to be scaled as the Lord’s, and brought up in his fear. That is here assumed. ]t was the understood law. And now, when a moral code for the nation and for the world for all time is to be laid down, the very next precept to those relating immediately to the honor due to God himself, is this”Honor thy father and thy mother.” Not, indeed, that they were to render them a blind obedience, for see Eze 20:18<\/span>, Eze 20:19<\/span>. If the parents were bad, the best honor the children can render them is to become better than they were. So that we may note, once for all, in passing, that the commandment recognizes it as incumbent on parents to see that their lives and rules are such as their children can <\/em>honor, and that their <\/em>precepts accord with those of the Father of spirits. Throughout our homiletic application of this fifth commandment, we shall assume this to be the case. It is, indeed, understood by many, that this command is to be regarded not only as requiring obedience in the family, but “as requiring the preserving the honor and performing the duties belonging to every one, in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals;” and as forbidding “the neglecting of or doing anything against the honor and duty which belongeth to every one, in their several places and relations.” Doubtless this is so. But there is quite as much as we can compass in the brief space afforded us, in the specific duty named in the text. Let us<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> INQUIRE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> WAYS<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> BE<\/strong> FULFILLED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> During the earlier stages of life, while needing the fostering care and sheltering love of the home, implicit obedience <\/em>is a child’s first duty. We not only say that it is next to his duty to God, but that it is a part of it<\/em>. <\/em>The parent’s precepts may be distasteful, even rigid, but if they are right, it is the child’s part implicitly to obey.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Honoring <\/em>parents is the form which obedience will take when the child is growing up towards manhood. No wise parent would think of directing a lad of sixteen as closely as he would a child of six years; at the same time, though the father may give him more liberty, it may not be either wise or right on the son’s part to take <\/em>all the liberty which is given. At that age his own sense of honor and right ought to be sufficiently strong to guide him; and respect and reverence for his parents will create a loyal regard to their wishes when once they are known, and will lead him to deny himself a great deal that might be gratifying to him, rather than cause pain to or cross the wishes of those to whom he owes his life. Rude words to a parent, “answering again,” disputing his rule in the house, will be utterly out of the question where a youth wishes to live in the fear of God.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Supporting them may become a duty. There will come a time, if the parents are spared to see their children grow up in life, when they will lean on the children, rather than the children on them. If the children are worthy, they will let <\/em>their parents lean on them, and will show them that they can be as faithful to their parents in their weakness, as the parents when in their strength were to them.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Becoming an honor to them is another way of honoring them, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>by living so that they can feel proud of what their children are<\/em>, <\/em>quite apart from what they do. If a father car say, “My son never gave me an uneasy thought about him,” that is such a testimony as a son might well wish him to be able to bear.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> By guarding very jealously the sacredness and purity of England’s family life, the commandment may be obeyed. We may honor our parents by honoring that holy marriage tie which made them what they were to us.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> By guarding and handing down to others the holy faith in which they have trained us (Psa 78:1-8<\/span>; 1Ch 28:9<\/span>). We may well desire to honor them by taking on our lips that dear Name which gladdened them in life and sustained them in death.<\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> There is another way of honoring parents which we would there were no occasion to name. But there is a drift clearly to be discerned in some directions of English life, which makes a warning imperative (see Mat 15:1-9<\/span>). The Jewish rabbis put their Church and their rabbinical rules between a child and his parents. Modern (so-called) priests are doing the same now. Hence this rule: Honor your parents by refusing to let any priest edge his way in between you and them. In Divine institutions, the priest is nowhere <\/em>compared with the parent. And under the Christian economy he has no right to be. He is humanity’s pest and plague. “Honor thy father and thy mother,” and never allow a priest to tamper with the sacredness of home!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> SPECIAL<\/strong> ARGUMENTS<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> A CHRISTIAN<\/strong> TEACHER<\/strong> ENFORCE<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Here let us set in the front a reason given by Paul in Eph 6:1<\/span>, “It is right ().” There is another word which is usually translated “right,” viz. , <\/em>which is the equivalent of “straightforward.” But the word here used is “just.” Obedience to parents is simply a piece of bare justice. For, consider how much we owe them. When we first came into being their care and watchfulness guarded and supplied us long ere we knew aught. They thought us, perhaps, something wonderful<\/em>, <\/em>when no one else thought anything of the kind, save in the reverse sense. Ought not all this to be repaid?<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It is well-pleasing to the Lord. He has in this “set us an example, that we should follow his steps.”<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> There is a specific promise made to the obedient and loyal, as such<\/em>, <\/em>“That it may go well with thee,” etc. In the culture of home obedience will be found a strong safeguard of character. Vicious excesses will not exhaust. Insubordination and recklessness will not blight life’s prospects. Hence coet<\/em>. par<\/em>. <\/em>such a life, being the purest and happiest, will also be the longest.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Such home virtue is a contribution of no mean value to the stability of a state. The reference of Moses is to the weal of the nation as well as to that of the home. The downfall of Israel’s glory is attributed to two evils: neglect of Sabbaths, and making light of father and mother. No nation can prosper without purity in the home.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Such virtue brings great joy. “A wise son maketh a glad father.” There is joyousness on both sides. This is the beauty with which God’s blessing makes the plants of virtue to bloom. It is like the fragrance exhaling from a bed of violets quietly blossoming in a shady lane.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> The neglect of this will ensure many unavailing regrets on both sides in after life. “A foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.” Many an undutiful son, when laying his parents’ remains in the grave, would give all he has if he could but call them back, if he could atone for his sin, or could cancel the past. Disobedience treasures up sorrow. God may and will forgive the sin, when repented of, but the penitent will never forgive himself; he will often moan out, “Thou makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth!”<\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> The curse of God will rest on those who are loose and disloyal at home. Richard Knill so regarded this fifth commandment, that he would not even go out as a missionary without his mother’s consent. He said, “I know that God never smiles on a boy that breaks his mother<\/em>‘s heart<\/em>.” <\/em>(See Pro 30:17<\/span>.) And who does not know how often it is proved true, “With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again”? Jacob deceived his father, and his sons deceived him. Can any observant man reach middle life without having had oft to make such notes as these: “A” honored his parents, and honor has attended him. “B” dishonored <\/em>his parents, and his lamp has gone out in darkness? Though the <\/em>judgment has not yet come, yet there is a judging process of God’s providence continually at work.<\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> The observance of this rule is the best possible preparation for serving our generation according to the will of God. He who is a blessing in the home will never be a curse out of it! The habits of self-restraint, of courtesy, of respect to superiors, well learnt and practiced at home, will not be thrown off when outside its walls. Men learn to command well by first obeying well. Even Christ’s own preparation for active service was found in filial obedience at home; and he is not only our perfect example, who shows us what to do, he is also our omnipotent Savior, who will give us strength to do it. Be it ours to repent not only of sin in general, but of the <\/em>sin of disobedience to parents. Let us ask his forgiveness as well as theirs, if the latter is yet possible. Let us implore his renewing grace that we may henceforth keep this and every command, not only because it is written in the Book, but because the love of it is graven on our hearts. It will be no small addition to the joy of retrospect, if, as we afterwards look back on our home life, we can think of it as one of filial loyalty on one side and of parental delight on the other!<\/p>\n

Deu 5:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The sixth commandment. The religion of the temper.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If a preacher were to announce this as a text in one of our Christian congregations, some of his hearers might be disposed to say, “Such a text might be appropriate enough if the preacher were expounding the Word of God to Zulus, but for us civilized, not to say Christianized, people, it is out of place!” Obviously such a remark would be based on an acknowledged fact, that murder <\/em>is one of those sins against God which are also a crime against human law, and that no one in a congregation of ordinary character would be likely to dream of committing it. That is so. But we are apt to forget that even among Christian congregations it was not always so. When Peter is writing to believers, he deems it needful to say, “Let none of you suffer as a murderer<\/em>,” <\/em>etc. And even now, in heathen lands, in many an audience of men just reclaimed from barbarism, it might be necessary for a missionary to preach from this text, adhering to it simply in the negative form, “Thou shalt not kill<\/em>.” <\/em>In endeavoring now to “open it up” for pulpit use, we would recall to the reader some elementary principles concerning the law already named.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That the Law was first given in infantine form. God laid down precepts rather than assigned reasons.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> That the form in which the Divine Being could put the most effective guard around human life was by a stern and strong prohibition like this, proclaimed amid thunder and lightning, terror and flame.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> That though the form of the precept is negative, yet it has a positive significance, of such depth and breadth that, even though we may shrink with horror from transgressing the former, it is by no means an elementary stage of Christian character which any one has reached if he attains to the latter. So far were the Jewish rabbis from catching the spirit of this command, that they dealt with it as if the negative prohibitions of the act of murder were the whole of its meaning. Our Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount, shows us how much deeper than this the precept goes (see Mat 5:21-26<\/span>). And the Apostle Paul, in Rom 13:9<\/span>, Rom 13:10<\/span>, indicates what positive virtue must be cultivated, the maintenance of which will make it impossible to transgress the sixth commandment. If we include in our Homily a notice of these later teachings, it may appear that, even with all our advances, there is something here for us to study, some holy practice for us yet to strive after, urged upon us by weighty reasons, which, though not presented in the world’s childhood, are set in full force in “these last days.” Let us, then<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> LOOK<\/strong> AT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEANING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> COMMAND<\/strong>. It is sixfold.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It forbids the taking of human life from passionate vindictiveness. The Hebrews had, as we have, two verbs with the distinctive meanings of “to kill” and “to murder.” We see in the quotation in Mat 19:18<\/span>, and from the reference in Mat 5:21<\/span>, that the Savior regards the command as a prohibition of passionate lawlessness. But even had we not that light from Christ’s teaching, the legislation of Moses himself would shut us up to the same conclusion. For in the administration of justice and in necessary war, the taking of life was commanded (see Num 15:35<\/span>; Num 35:31<\/span>; Exo 21:12-14<\/span>). So that, unless we regard the lawgiver as setting enactment against enactment, there is in this commandment a prohibition of passionate outbreaks, but neither of capital punishment nor necessary war.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It forbids any carelessness by which the life or zeal of our neighbor would be risked (Exo 21:28<\/span>, Exo 21:29<\/span>). Wherever human life is risked by insufficient precaution, there is a breach of the sixth commandment.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It forbids that anger which takes the form of a revengeful spirit. So Christ teaches. This precept strikes at the thoughts and intents of the heart. Every time a schoolboy angrily lifts a hand to hurt his school-fellow, he is breaking in spirit this commandment.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It forbids that indifference in our life to the power of example which would put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in a brother’s way (see Mat 18:1-3<\/span>; Rom 14:5<\/span>). If by careless living we “destroy” him for whom Christ died, we are breakers of this law.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> It forbids dislike and hatred to our brother, and also a selfish isolation and neglect of him (1Jn 2:9-11<\/span>; 1Jn 3:14<\/span>, 1Jn 3:15<\/span>). If we are merely pursuing our own ends in life, and are not caring whether our brother is saved or lost, this law condemns us. If we even refrain from helping our brother in difficulty or trial, we are guilty (Pro 24:11<\/span>, Pro 24:12<\/span>; Isa 58:6<\/span>, Isa 58:7<\/span>). We may “kill” by withholding the help which might save!<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> It requires, therefore, the cultivation of that kindly spirit of genial benevolence, which would seek in every way to promote the gladness and safety of the society in which we move, and of men at large. Negative in form, the sixth commandment is positive in intent. “Thou shalt not kill” is but the elementary form in which God asserts the great law of mutual dependence and interdependence. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law.” Would we keep the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”? Let us read it in the New Testament light, “Thou shalt help <\/em>thy neighbor.” “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WE<\/strong> WOULD<\/strong> THROW<\/strong> OUT<\/strong> A FEW<\/strong> HINTS<\/strong> AS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GROUND<\/strong> ON<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> OR<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> BE<\/strong> ENFORCED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The preciousness of man in God’s sight. He who killed a beast had to make it good; but no satisfaction might be taken for the life of a murderer (see Gen 9:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The spiritual nature of man.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The high and holy destiny designed for man forbids any tampering on our part with him or with it.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> WE<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong>, MOREOVER<\/strong>, IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NEW<\/strong> TESTAMENT<\/strong>, A NEW<\/strong> SPRING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ACTION<\/strong> DISCLOSED<\/strong>. This should actuate us in refraining from violating, and in seeking to fulfill, the law of love.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The incarnation of the Son of God is so touching a revelation of the greatness of man, and does of itself so elevate him, that no one realizing it can trifle with man.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The atoning sacrifice gives new views of man. After the Apostle Paul has been referring to the death of Christ, he says, “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh.” Christ’s death for every man has shown us a halo of glory around every man. We look at him no more according to the accidents of birth, position, color, clime; we judge all men thus: “Christ died for them<\/em>.” <\/em>Oh! it is this cross which teaches us that reverence for human nature, which else we had lost altogether.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The incarnation and the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God not only give us the moving spring whereby to rise to a proper view of the greatness of man, but also the supreme reason for devoted love to him, for Christ’s sake (1Jn 4:11, 1Jn 4:20<\/span>; see Eph 4:31<\/span>; Eph 5:1<\/span>, Eph 5:2<\/span>). With what immeasurable strength does the gospel bind us to fulfill “the royal law,” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself!”<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> NEWLY<\/strong> ILLUMED<\/strong> PRINCIPLE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> ENSURE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FULFILLMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIXTH<\/strong> COMMANDMENT<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> EVEN<\/strong> MAKE<\/strong> A BREACH<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IMPOSSIBLE<\/strong>. God would have us lifted up by his love to so high a level, that we shall learn to love like him, even with a love<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> of good will, <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> of compassion, <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> of forgiveness, <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> of actual service, <\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> of self denying sympathy and devotion.<\/p>\n

This is the love which “is born of God.” This is the Divine philosophy of obedience to law. Learn, in conclusion:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It is to revelation alone that we owe the clearest view of human dignity<\/em>. <\/em>It is not from philosophy, nor from natural science that we learn to appreciate man. Whatever science may have to say as to his physical organism (and what it can say must depend on its own appropriate evidence), it is the “image of God” which he bears, that is his true dignity, and around it is the Divine guard so stringently placed.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> From God<\/em>‘s revelation to man we learn respect for man as man<\/em>. <\/em>Human life is held very cheaply in lands where the gospel is unknown, and even in lands where it is known by men who reject it. There are some, indeed, who reject gospel light, yet borrow gospel morality, and call it theirs, while others who treat it as “a strange thing” are already darkly suggesting a “morality” gross as that of pagan days.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> From God<\/em>‘s revelation we gather the only guarantee for human security and peace<\/em>. <\/em>It is by the cross and by the cross alone that the unity of man in a world wide brotherhood of love will ever be secured.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It is only by the new life bestowed by the Spirit of God that we come to possess and <\/em>practice this love to which the cross constrains<\/em>. <\/em>We may all of us have refrained from an open breach of the letter of the sixth commandment. Not one of us can stand its searching test in the light of God’s pure Word! Ah! “this commandment fit for Zulus?<\/em>“ <\/em>There is not a man amongst us who in the presence of its all-searching light, is not utterly condemned! (Jas 2:10<\/span>.) “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The seventh commandment. The religion of the body.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the second part of the Decalogue there are stern prohibitions against sin, without any positive indication of the opposite virtue. Nor is there a hint of how to attain such a life as shall make an offense against the commandments impossible, so that unless we recognize the educatory purpose of the Law, we shall at once underrate it and yet overrate it. We shall underrate it if we forget that it was just what was wanted, and all that could be serviceable at the time of its promulgation; we shall overrate it if we think that the mere prohibitory letter of this precept expresses the whole will of God in the matter to which it refers. We will, therefore, set side by side therewith, New Testament teachings. First, let us look at Mat 5:27-29<\/span>. Just as in referring to rabbinical teaching on the sixth commandment, Jesus Christ tells us that it is not only the open act of murder which is forbidden, but even the spirit of anger and revenge which might lead to it; so here, it is not merely the open act of physical degradation which is forbidden, but even the spirit of unhallowed passion which, if unbridled, might lead to it<\/em>. <\/em>Nor must we stop here. The New Testament opens up to us the Divine will in the positive direction (1Th 4:3-5<\/span>). We are told also what is the true secret of attaining a life which conforms to that will (Gal 5:16<\/span>). If we cultivate the life of God in the spirit, the lower life will be in due subjection. Reasons, moreover, which were not given in Israel’s childhood are given now (1Co 6:19<\/span>, 1Co 6:20<\/span>); while the issues of a life in which these are lost sight of, are put before us in dread array (1Co 9:27<\/span>). Hence a homiletic treatment of this seventh commandment can only be effective as it deals with it as but one branch of a subject, wide, deep, and high, viz.” The religion of the body<\/em>.” <\/em>Observe<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> CLAIMS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GOVERNMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong>. We regard man’s nature as triplebody, soul, and spirit. As an acute and learned divine remarks, “The body is the link between the soul and the world, the soul is the link between the body and the spirit; the spirit is the link between the soul and God.” It is in reference to our spirit-nature that we are made in the image of God. He is “the Father of spirits.” The same Book which reveals God to us, reveals us to ourselves. Any one who understands the structure of his own nature, will perceive which part thereof was meant to rule the rest. The body is to be at the service of the soul, the soul is to be regulated by the spirit, and God is to govern all. But it is by the great work of redemption that the stamp of true dignity has been most clearly impressed on man. The Apostle Paul tells us that it was through the cross that he learned truly to estimate human nature (2Co 5:16<\/span>). And elsewhere he argues, “Ye are bought with a price; therefore <\/em>glorify God in your body.” Christ is “the Savior of the body<\/em>.” <\/em>If we are the Lord’s, our body <\/em>is the temple of the Holy Ghost. No part of the body is base unless basely used. All its functions are to be discharged “in sanctification and honor.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> SACREDNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong>, AS<\/strong> REDEEMED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>, SHOULD<\/strong> LEAD<\/strong> TO<\/strong> A “RELIGION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BODY<\/strong>” ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PART<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THOSE<\/strong> WHO<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> ENTERED<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MARRIED<\/strong> STATE<\/strong>, This seventh command is far broader in spirit than the mere letter would indicate. It condemns all impurity of every kind, it forbids us to let the lower self run off with the higher, and, like the preceding commands, though negative in form, it is positive in substance. It bids us:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Let our own nature be duly honored, and self-respect be diligently cultivated.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Observe towards others that self-same respect which we owe to ourselves, on the same ground, and for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake. The art of “bridling <\/em>the whole body” is one of the most important in a life of godliness.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> A DUE<\/strong> REVERENCE<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SACREDNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> IMPART<\/strong> SANCTITY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MARRIAGE<\/strong> TIE<\/strong>. Marriage is God’s holy ordinance. It is not a sacrament, in the same sense in which Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are. Neither is it merely a <\/em>civil contract, as is sometimes shockingly said. It is a union of two in the closest ties of nature, based on an affinity of spirit which leads each to see in the other what each most admires. It is a union of spirit in the Lord (if it be all that it should be); each one of the two ceases to live in and for himself or herself, and begins practically to unlearn selfishness by living for the other, and thus the reciprocal outgoing of affection is a formative action of spirit, and tends to the very noblest culture of life. And where the Divine idea of marriage is carried out, the purely natural side of it will be by no means the only one or even the highest (see Matthew Henry’s touching words on the creation of woman, and also Kalisch’s most admirable remarks in his commentary on Exo 20:14<\/span>, on the position of woman under the Hebrew economy). There are spheres of duty which are most appropriately filled by men, e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>those in professional and commercial life; there are other spheres which are most appropriately filled by women, e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>those in the quiet of the home. And the work of one is the supplement and complement of the work of the other. Hence each one looks to the other for the discharge of special service. Thus there is a mutual leaning on one another. And if the crowning joy of married life be present in both being one in the Lord, in their spiritual fellowship they fan each other’s love to him who died for them. Each will supply what the other lacks. Perhaps the strength of the man may lie chiefly in intellectual power. That of the woman will lie in tenderness, and also in far keener and surer perceptions and more swiftly acting intuitions. Thus, through one being the fitting complement of the other, they become mutual helpers in all that is right and wise and true; and as even before they were made one, each one knew how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, so, when they are one, each honors the other, by making the sacred union subservient to virtue and to the honor of God. Thus rolling years do but deepen the fondness and sweetness of their love, and if it becomes calmer and less demonstrative, it is because it has become fuller, richer, and stronger. When youthful ardor dies down, the holy tie is holier than ever; their very souls become knit together in one. The care of one is the care of both; the joy of one is the joy of both; and any unkindness that stings one wounds both, As two trees side by side in a grove, their arms interlace and interlock, yet each has its separate root, So husband and wife, as trees of the Lord’s own right hand planting, do through the whole of this earthly life become interlocked with growing firmness, while their one Savior in whom they live is the common joy of their spirits, their one hope for eternity! That there are innumerable cases in which a noble type of Christian excellence is reached by the unmarried, we all know. While marriage opens up those claims in the discharge of which the most symmetrical character is usually formed, yet Divine grace can so sway the spirit as to culture it nobly for eternity, irrespectively of these sacred ties. There are fathers and mothers in Israel who are so by spiritual relationship. Thus, when our nature is duly honored in ourselves and others, by its uppermost part being kept uppermost, out of loyalty to Christ, it is possible for both the married and unmarried to glorify God in their body <\/em>as well as in their spirit.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> OBVIOUS<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IF<\/strong> THROUGH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> REDEEMING<\/strong> GRACE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> WE<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> BEING<\/strong> THUS<\/strong> LIFTED<\/strong> UP<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> A HIGHER<\/strong> REGION<\/strong>, THE<\/strong> STERN<\/strong> “THOU<\/strong> SHALT<\/strong> NOT<\/strong>” OF<\/strong> SINAI<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> BE<\/strong> NEEDED<\/strong> NO<\/strong> MORE<\/strong>. We shall have risen to a sphere in which the transgression of the seventh commandment will be impossible (see 1Jn 3:9<\/span>; Gal 5:16<\/span>, Gal 5:24<\/span>). The sure guarantee of our keeping this law, in the spirit as well as in the letter, is for us to be so re-created by God<\/em>‘s <\/em>Spirit, that it shall be impossible for us to break it. “The law is not made for a righteous man.”<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> WE<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> FAIL<\/strong> TO<\/strong> NOTE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> IMPERATIVENESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. If there are those who are not in the region of a higher life, as indicated above, they should be reminded that this law, in its wide sweep and searching depth, condemns all impurity of every kind; it discerns “the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hence the words in Mat 5:28<\/span>; hence the warnings in Mar 9:43<\/span>, Mar 9:45<\/span>, Mar 9:47<\/span>. One indulged sin will drag the whole man after it<\/em>. <\/em>“Science,” says Dr. Farrar, “confirms by decisive evidence that the Lord avenges the sins of the flesh. It tells us that men must possess in manhood the sins of their youth; that if they sow to the flesh, they will of the flesh reap corruption; that the punishment of sensuality, working not by special interventions, but by general laws, bears a fearful resemblance to the sin itself; that the Nemesis of a desecrated body is an enfeebled understanding, a tormented and darkened soul;” andthe writer might have addeda face from which the luster of the Divine has departed, and in which the lines of a true manhood are manifestly vitiated and defaced, and even exchanged for lines of sin and of shameless vice. Let all take heed and remember:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That where each one’s weak point is, a sentinel should be <\/em>kept on watch. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> We are not safe till the very thoughts are under control. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Only the Spirit of God can give us power equal to this. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Unless we keep ourselves in subjection we shall be cast away.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The eighth commandment. The religion of the land.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is much to be said in favor of the proposition that utility is the foundation of virtue; and provided that the sentence be well cleared up and guarded from abuse, and provided also that the word “utility<\/em>“ <\/em>be lifted up to its highest, and spread over its broadest significance, the maxim is less objectionable than it would otherwise appear. While it, however, has been and win be discussed in the philosopher’s classroom, for ages, we may safely go so far as to say, “That <\/em>is right which renders the highest service to mankind, and by its having this tendency, we know it to be right.” Now, among serviceable institutions is that of property, which, as men are constituted, is a necessity of social weal. If rightness consists <\/em>in recognizing the rights of each<\/em>, the necessity <\/em>of property comes out of the equality of natural rights. If a man is alone in the world, he may call it all his own. If there is a brother man with him, they must divide it between them. Apart from the institution of property, one incentive to labor would be gone. Who would be likely to toil day by day for that from which he would obtain naught when the work was over? Now, it is the social law of the institution of property, Divine yet natural, yea, natural because <\/em>Divine, the existence of which is here assumed, and the recognition of which is here enjoined: in the barest and most elementary form, it is true, yet in the very form best according with the circumstances under which it was given; in a negative form, too, like the other commands, but yet with a positive intent. Perhaps there <\/em>is no one of the commandments which is more extensively commented on, and repeated in so many forms in the Old Testament, nor one the violation of which is so variously prohibited. Our simplest mode of treating it homiletically seems to be to point out in turn the negative prohibition, and the positive duty which is to <\/em>be set over against it.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> LET<\/strong> US<\/strong> INDICATE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NUMEROUS<\/strong> FORMS<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THROWS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> SCRIPTURE<\/strong>. If we regard the spirit <\/em>of it, and read it by the light of Old Testament teaching, we shall find it set in great variety of ways.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It forbids our depriving any man of any right whatever (Lam 3:35<\/span>, Lam 3:36<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It is forbidden to gain an undue advantage at another’s expense (Exo 23:3<\/span>, Exo 23:6<\/span>, Exo 23:8<\/span>, Exo 23:9<\/span>; Le Exo 19:15<\/span>; Deu 16:19<\/span>, Deu 16:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It is forbidden to accumulate wealth by unlawful practices (Pro 10:2<\/span>; Pro 15:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It is forbidden to take long credit (Pro 3:28<\/span>; Le Pro 19:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> It is forbidden to oppress a poor man in his cause (Exo 22:26<\/span>, Exo 22:27<\/span>; Deu 15:7<\/span>, Deu 15:10-13<\/span>, Deu 15:17<\/span>, Deu 15:18<\/span>; Pro 22:22<\/span>, <\/em>Pro 22:23<\/span>; Mic 2:1-3<\/span>; Mic 3:1-4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> <\/em>It is <\/em>forbidden to pay insufficient <\/em>wages (Deu 25:4<\/span>; Deu 24:14<\/span>, Deu 24:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> To lend money in any oppressive or exacting form (Exo 22:25<\/span>; Le Exo 25:35-38<\/span>; Deu 23:19<\/span>). “The name ‘usurer<\/em>‘neshec<\/em>which is derived from biting, sounded badly, since no one chose to be likened to a hungry dog, who fed himself by biting others” (Calvin).<\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> To take advantage of the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless (Exo 22:21-24<\/span>; Deu 10:17-19<\/span>; Le 19:33<\/span>, 34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

9.<\/strong> Unfair trading (Le 19:35<\/span>, 36<\/span>; Deu 25:13-16<\/span>; Pro 11:1<\/span>; Pro 16:11<\/span>; Pro 20:10<\/span>, Pro 20:23<\/span>; Mic 6:10-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

10.<\/strong> Imperiling another’s property (Exo 21:33-36<\/span>).<\/p>\n

11.<\/strong> Life-long slavery (Exo 21:2<\/span>; Deu 15:12-18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

12.<\/strong> Connivance at wrong (Pro 29:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

13.<\/strong> Respect of persons (Exo 23:1-3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

14.<\/strong> Revengeful mischief even <\/em>in war-time (Deu 20:19<\/span>, Deu 20:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

15.<\/strong> <\/em>Removing a neighbor<\/em>‘s <\/em>landmark (2Ki 19:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

16.<\/strong> Withholding from the service of God (Mal 3:8<\/span>, Mal 3:9<\/span>). Whenever we withhold what is due to God, or keep back what we owe to man,if the master is unjust to his servant, or the servant wastes the time or the goods of his master; if a man is guilty of trickery in trade, by adulteration of goods, or scant weight, or short measure; if a man is in any way deprived of his own right or freedom; if we take undue advantage of any one for our own benefit, we are guilty of breaking the command “Thou shalt not steal.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> LET<\/strong> US<\/strong> INDICATE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PRECEPTIVE<\/strong> WORDS<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> SET<\/strong> OVER<\/strong> AGAINST<\/strong> THESE<\/strong> PROHIBITIVE<\/strong> ONES<\/strong>. In the fuller teaching of Moses there was not wanting an indication of an opposite duty, the cultivation of which would make a breach of the eighth commandment altogether out of the question. The people were to aim at cherishing a kindly feeling for each other, and instead of wishing to enrich themselves at another<\/em>‘s expense<\/em>, they <\/em>were to seek to enrich others<\/em>, <\/em>and to find their joy in helping the needy (Exo 23:4<\/span>; Le Exo 25:35<\/span>; Deu 15:7-10<\/span>; Deu 22:1-3<\/span>; Deu 23:19<\/span>; Deu 24:19<\/span>). While in Proverbs, the contrast between sloth and industry is said to be one mark of difference between the righteous and the wicked. <\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEACHING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NEW<\/strong> TESTAMENT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> STILL<\/strong> MORE<\/strong> EXPLICIT<\/strong>. (See Act 20:35<\/span>; 1Co 10:24<\/span>; Php 2:4<\/span>, Php 2:5<\/span>; and specially <\/em>Eph 4:28<\/span>.) The words <\/em>of our blessed Lord lingered in the apostles’ ears as the strains of a lovely song. His life <\/em>too seemed to say, “Be ever ready to give up what is your own, if thereby you can help another.” So that not only is there to be such respect for the rights of others, that we do not infringe on them by abstracting from his property; but over and above the institution of property, which is recognized and guarded, there is the institution of labor, which is to be looked at, utilized, sanctified, so as to subserve the enrichment of others. So that we come at this specific rule: Labor<\/em>, and sanctify your labor for others<\/em>; then you will be in no danger of depriving them of the fruits of their labor! <\/em>The political economist says, “Regulate labor so as best to subserve the production of wealth.” So far, good. But Christian maxims go higher, and say, “Pursue and regulate labor with a view of promoting each other’s well-being.” Now, in this sanctification of labor there are four rules to be observed.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Labor as servants of Christ<\/em>. <\/em>This is a specific direction both for employer and employed. Both are amenable to him who is the Head and Lord of the human race. In his eye the interests of the human family are the supreme concern on this globe. Material wealth is to him as nothing. Men are his purchased possession; and if by labor we increased the material wealth of this country a thousand-fold, if thereby one soul were destroyed, his curse would rest upon such labor.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Labor with an eye to the glory of God<\/em>: <\/em>not only as his servants, but so that all our labor may promote that great end for which he lived and died; and just in proportion as this is the case, will Christ approve our toil.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Labor in accordance with and for the promotion of another<\/em>‘s good<\/em>. <\/em>We are to let all our labors be in harmony with another’s well-being. We may not make ourselves rich at the expense of others; but only as our weal accords with theirs. All this, of course, applies nationally as well as individually. It is as clearly wrong for a nation to steal a continent as for a man to steal a shilling! And if we so labor as to ignore the good of another, we shall find that “there is a God that judgeth in the earth!”<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> But it is not enough that there should be an absence of spoliation or greed, nor that labor should merely accord <\/em>with human good; it is required of us that one direct object and aim of our labor should be the increase of our wealth that we may have the wherewith to give<\/em>. <\/em>As between man and man, the great God upholds our right to the produce of our labor. As between ourselves and him<\/em>, <\/em>he says, “Use <\/em>for your brother’s good, the wealth you get. You are but a steward. Nothing is yours absolutely. What hast thou that thou hast not received? Work, that you may get. Get, that you may have to give.” “The poor shall never cease out of the land.” If, by any sudden spurt, wealth could be equalized today, it would be unequal in twenty-four hours, and in twelve months scarcely a trace would be left of the readjustment. Some would be workers and some idlers; some spendthrifts and some misers; and any rectification of property, apart from the right-setting of men, would be of no avail. And, at any rate, so long as there are claims upon our sympathy, so long our labor is to have this stamp upon it: Labor<\/em>, to gain the power of giving<\/em>; <\/em>and this is the antidote for any danger of breaking the eighth commandment. Yet, strange to say, there are not wanting those who object, on grounds of “political economy,” to the withdrawal of a man’s gains for the purposes of benevolence (see Mr. Herbert Spencer, Contemporary Review<\/em>, <\/em>19.556). Now, no one would question that there is a large amount of unwise charity; but the proportion is insignificant between that and the vast amount of ill-gotten and ill-used wealth in our cities and towns. The former is not worth naming by the side of the latter. And the hearts of men are not so over-generous that they need to be dissuaded from giving, by arguments which could hold only if men were naught else but wage-getting animals! But whoever fulfils his labor in a spirit of loyalty to Christ and of kindliness to his brother, will find in labor so discharged, a holy and blessed discipline of character. Shall we <\/em>live under the low, selfish calculations of earth, or under the higher regulations of heaven? There is <\/em>a wealtha wealth most to be covetedwhich’ comes not as a heritage of birth, but as the reward of giving to others according as they have need. Acting on worldly maxims, a man might live for a thousand years and he will never have it. Acting on Christ’s rule, he will reap it as sheaves of golden grain. It is this: “The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy!” <\/p>\n

Deu 5:20<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The ninth commandment. The religion of the tongue.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This command gives us a precept touching our words. Inasmuch, however, as it is here given to us in barest, briefest, most elementary form, it would not be well if in the homiletic treatment of it we did not place side by side therewith the varied Scriptures which set before us the duty of regulating our speech. We will ask, and endeavor to answer, five questions concerning this commandment.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> PROHIBITED<\/strong>? Just as the sixth commandment throws a guard around human life, the seventh around purity, the eighth around the rights of property and labor, so this ninth throws a shield over every man’s reputation. A stern “Thou shalt not injure thy neighbor’s fair name” is one of the mandates of Sinai, issued amidst thunder and fire! The immediate <\/em>reference would seem to be to bearing testimony in a court of justice. A part of the judicial code of Moses had reference to this (Deu 19:16-19<\/span>). But the precept goes further than this in its spirit. We read in Exo 23:1<\/span>, “Thou shalt not raise (or receive) a false report;” literally, “Thou <\/em>shalt not bear it; ‘ i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>you are to have nothing to do, either in making or taking it. Further (Le Exo 19:16<\/span>), we are not to give way to gossip and scandal (see Psa 15:3<\/span>). Nor are we to make any statement that is prejudicial to the interests of another, unless we are sure of its accuracy, and unless also the good of society requires us to make it. Further (Psa 34:13<\/span>), our lips are to speak no deceit nor guile of any kind, either in what is said or in the manner of saying it. If we needlessly tell of another’s wrong act, instead of seeking to cover it, under the appearance of virtue in denouncing it, God may see a spirit of malice or revenge in naming it; and any act of another’s mentioned in such a spirit is sure not to be construed by us in perfect fairness, and therefore it will certainly become, so far as it is unfair, a false report, whatever foundation of fact there may be in it. The precept, moreover, forbids sitting in judgment on individuals, so as to denounce them <\/em>when we are contending against what we consider to be unsound in their faith, or unright in their practice. But further still does the precept reach. It forbids any thoughtless <\/em>word which might unwillingly injure another (see Mat 12:33-37<\/span>). How true is Heb 4:12<\/span>! Every uncharitable thought of another, which might prompt an uncharitable word respecting him, is condemned by the holy Law of God!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> POSITIVE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> OBSERVED<\/strong>? We have only to look at gospel law, as brought out by the Apostle Paul in Eph 4:25-32<\/span>, to see this.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Truth <\/em>is ever to mark our speech. The true in thought is to be aimed at, in order that there may be truth, absolute truth, on the tongue. No “pious frauds” are allowable.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Love <\/em>is to rule. While a supreme regard to truth will guard us from violating it consciously, a due cultivation of the spirit of love will guard us from forming those harsh judgments of others which might lead us to violate truth unconsciously by misjudging their actions.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Where truth and love reign, there will be self-restraint<\/em>. A <\/em>check will be put on unkind feeling of every sort. “Love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” Note further. In this ninth command the relations between men are supposed to be reciprocal. “Thy neighbor.” If any ask, Who is my neighbor? let Christ give the answer,” You may make yourself neighbor to any man by cherishing a readiness of disposition to do him a kindness<\/em>“ <\/em>(see Luk 10:29-37<\/span>). No distinction of race, color, or clime is to be allowed to stand in the way of our being true neighbors to men, the wide world over.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> RULE<\/strong>, STANDARD<\/strong>, OR<\/strong> MODEL<\/strong>, SHOULD<\/strong> WE<\/strong> BE<\/strong> GUIDED<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself<\/em>.” <\/em>That, applied to this command, would mean, “Be as careful of another’s reputation as you are of your own.” There is another rule.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Be imitators of God<\/em>. <\/em>“Let all evil-speaking be put away from you and be kind to one another even as God in Christ hath forgiven you.” The world’s rule is: exalt yourself at the expense of others. Christ’s rule is: exalt others at the sacrifice of yourself.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> REASONS<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> WEIGH<\/strong> ON<\/strong> US<\/strong> IN<\/strong> LEADING<\/strong> US<\/strong> TO<\/strong> RESTRAIN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TONGUE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INTERESTS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OTHERS<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The fact urged by Paul, that “we are members one of another”‘ In social life we are dependent on each other for the enjoyments which sweeten it, the luxuries which enrich it, the comforts which gladden it, and for the necessaries which make it possible; and, excepting so far as truth governs words and acts, the very props of social life are wanting, and its cohesive force is gone. If the eye refused to be true to the brain, or if the ear, the hand, or the foot resolved to be at variance with the decisions of the will, life would soon be intolerable, and must ere long come to an end. Even so, we cannot tamper with the law of truth in speech without doing our part towards poisoning the currents of thought, feeling, and action which flow through society, and so far as we bear false witness of any kind with the view of gaining advantage at another’s cost, we are aiding the infernal work of setting men at variance with each other, by loosening the bonds of mutual confidence which should unite them all!<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> If the tongue is duly bridled<\/em>, the whole body will be under command<\/em>. <\/em>So the Apostle James declares (Jas 3:2<\/span>). Our whole being is to be in subjection to God, body, soul, and spirit. And that means that we are to guard our lips. If we are successful here, that indicates so far a mastery over ourselves. We can bridle the whole body if we can but curb the tongue. “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak.” A man may do very much to make or mar himself according as he has learned the right government of the tongue.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> If the tongue is not bridled<\/em>, we have no religion at all! <\/em>So the same apostle (Jas 1:26<\/span>). Let us lay that word to heart. Whatever may be the outside profession, if we do not govern our tongue for God, if we use it for gossip, trifling, scandal, slander, our very profession of Christ’s name is a cheat and a lie.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> The thought of the coming judgment <\/em>should lead us to govern our tongue (Mat 12:37<\/span>). One would think that such words as these would make men more careful how they use the tongue! Are we so governing our words that we should confront without shame all those that we have ever spoken, when set in array before us? “We must <\/em>all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” How will backbiters, slanderers, and retailers of gossip meet the eye of the Great Judge of all?<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> WE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> LEARN<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEXT<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Let us awake to the importance, as before God, of remembering his perfect knowledge of our words (Psa 139:4<\/span>). Let us cultivate the impression such a thought is calculated to produce.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Let us resolve and act (see Psa 39:1<\/span>). So said David. Let such a resolution be formed and carried out.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Much may be done by auxiliary means, in the way of lessening the temptation to offend with the tongue. Very much of the habit of idle gossip results from unintelligence. Some have nothing to talk about, and for want of a well-stored mind, they fall a-slandering their neighbors. Over and above other means which are more directly religious of reducing the evil of an unbridled tongue, there is this serviceable one: furnish the mind with so much valuable knowledge, that you will be so occupied with useful talk that you have no time for idle words.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Let there also be devout attention to the more spiritual aspects of the case. Let the earnest prayer go up (Psa 141:3<\/span>), and, remembering the Savior’s words, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” let us earnestly plead with God for daily renewal in the spirit of our mind, since, when the heart is right, the words cannot be wrong. Maybe some of us used to think concerning the Ten Commandments, “All these have! kept from my youth up.” But, alas, so far from that, unless we are converted and renewed, we shall never keep even this one. Under its severe tests we have broken down thousands of times, and have abundant reason to cry, “God be merciful to me the sinner!” A tree is known by its fruit. The righteousness of the Law never will be fulfilled in us as it must be if we are to enter heaven, unless our hearts are so sanctified, and so imbued with the spirit of love, that by never violating charity in the thoughts we think, we never violate it in the words we speak. May God thus sanctify us! “Lord<\/em>, <\/em>have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”<\/p>\n

Deu 5:21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The tenth commandment. The religion of the heart.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This commandment is in some respects the most manifestly sweeping and searching of all. It even more fully than the others illustrates Heb 4:12<\/span>. If any reader has thought that in making such heart-work of the preceding, we have gone beyond the scope of the Decalogue, this verse should serve to correct such an impression, for it deals verbally <\/em>with the unexpressed wishes of the soul, and lays a restraint upon them. We will first of all<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> INQUIRE<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GROUND<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> COVERS<\/strong>. Recognizing the neighborly relation between man and man, and people and people, and implying the duty of each individual and of each nation cherishing a kindly feeling for another, it not only forbids the violation of neighborliness by any outward act of unkindness and wrong, but even the desire <\/em>out of which such unneighborly acts might arise. “Thou shalt not covet.” “As it was given,” said an earnest preacher, in the winter of 1870, “in the first instance to a nation, it is natural to consider some of the ways in which a nation may violate it, The history of the world is stained and darkened by the crimes to which nations have been driven by the spirit of covetousness. A great and prosperous people cannot endure that the corn-fields and vineyards and the noble river which can be seen from its frontiers should belong to a neighboring power. Sooner or later it is almost certain that this national covetousness will end in a war of aggression or conquest, Some pretext will be found for a quarrel, by some means or other there will be a justification discovered, or created, or alleged, for seizing by force of arms what the heart of the nation longed for” (R. W. Dale). But since the command forbids even the covetous desire<\/em>, <\/em>the justification alleged may be as wicked as the war itself; it may be but a cloak to hide from the undiscerning that covetousness which not the thickest veil of night can hide from him whose eyes are as a flame of fire. It is, however, chiefly with the application of this command to the individual that we have now to do. It forbids:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Desire after lower good to the neglect of the higher.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Desire after improper objects.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Desire after lawful objects carried to an improper degree.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Desire to gain any object in an improper manner.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Any desire after what belongs to another, which is inconsistent with the rule, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” It forbids too:<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> Discontent with the allotments of Divine providence. A discontented spirit is but one form of covetousness, albeit it is a very unamiable one. We are not to be envious of another’s possessions, nor for a moment to allow the wish, if our neighbor is rich and we are poor, that his wealth and our poverty should change hands. On the other hand, there is to be a thankful content with the mercies we possess, and a joy in our neighbor’s joy if he has more than we have. So far from wishing to gain advantage at another’s cost, we are to rejoice in another’s good as really as if it were our own. So runs the precept (Rom 12:15<\/span>). It is much easier to “weep with them that weep,” than it is to “rejoice with them that do rejoice.” When we do the former, we may have the secret thankfulness that we are spared the sorrow of others; but when the latter, our joy is apt to be checked by the secret wish that we were possessors of their cause of joy. Our obedience to this precept is not complete till we can “weep” or “rejoice” with others with equal <\/em>readiness. In a word, the tenth commandment requires entire unselfishness<\/em>. <\/em>“Love is the fulfilling of the Law.”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> COMMAND<\/strong> MAKES<\/strong> VERY<\/strong> REMARKABLE<\/strong> REVELATIONS<\/strong>. Sin is defined by the Apostle John as “the transgression of Law.” Consequently, wheresoever the Law reaches, there would the transgression of it come under that term, “sin.” Hence, by the Law is the knowledge of sin. We find accordingly that one of the most noted characters in New Testament history gained, not only from the Decalogue, but from this particular precept, his first deep convictions of sin (see Rom 7:1-25<\/span>.). Making a like use of it, we see:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That this law reveals that to be sin which else would not have been suspected as such. If we were asked by some to point out the marks of sin in the world, they would refer us to war, oppression, tyranny, etc, But God’s Word strikes at the lusts <\/em>out of which these evils come (Jas 4:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> This law reveals to us how deeply sin has struck its roots in our nature, that it has permeated and saturated our very thoughts<\/em>, <\/em>and made them selfish.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> We see too by the same light that many an apparently good act before men has been rotten by reason of the “lust” in which it had its root.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> So that we also learn that a man may be altogether blameless in the sight of his fellows, and yet be condemned in the sight of God. God judges acts by motives. Have all <\/em>our motives <\/em>been pure?<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Thus we see that there is quite enough in heart sins to shut us out from the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> Thus, by this commandment, and a fortiori <\/em>by all the commandments together, there is revealed to us the impossibility of any one who starts with a burden of accumulated guilt, attaining to the righteousness which is of the Law (Rom 7:9<\/span>, Rom 7:10<\/span>). Thus the Law reveals a mischief which it is not its province to cure.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> WHILE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> REVEALS<\/strong> MISCHIEF<\/strong>, THE<\/strong> GOSPEL<\/strong> REVEALS<\/strong> A REMEDY<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> IT<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It shows us how grace would cut up covetousness by the root.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Our Lord shows us by his teaching that our true wealth consists in what we are <\/em>rather than in what we have (Luk 12:13-20<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> When penitent, he forgives the past.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> He re-creates the soul, and lifts us up by promises <\/em>to a higher level (2Pe 1:3<\/span>, 2Pe 1:4<\/span>; Mat 6:33<\/span>; Luk 12:29<\/span>; Heb 13:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Nor is the element of holy warning wanting (1Co 10:1-6<\/span>, 1Co 10:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It shows us a sphere in which the natural ambition may have legitimate play without degenerating into lust. For, it may be urged, “If we had no desire after the improvement of our condition, we should do away with enterprise? Ought not a young man to be anxious to rise in the world?” Certainly. But not at the expense of others<\/em>. <\/em>In a right direction a man not only may, but should, make the very utmost of himself for which his power capacitates him (1Ti 4:8<\/span>; Pro 30:5-9<\/span>). Another may say, “I have the organ of acquisitiveness very strongly developed. I am so made that I must get, so that if I am anxious to have more, I am only acting out that which is imbedded in the structure of my physical frame.” Acquisitiveness! <\/em>an excellent organ to have, and one which makes it specially desirable to decide of what its possessor shall be acquisitive, If it is a necessity of any one’s nature to be ever getting, the greater the need that he should be rightly getting the right. Now, while God’s Law condemns acquisitiveness in the wrong direction, yet God’s grace and gospel open up the grandest possible field for its exercise. By all means let any one develop that noble capacity (Pro 3:16<\/span>; Pro 4:5-7<\/span>; 1Co 12:31<\/span>). The surest way of guarding against covetousness of ill will be so to develop this eagerness after good that the other cannot coexist (1Jn 2:15<\/span>). There is no faculty of our nature which can be developed to finer issues than this desire of having, if it be reset by Divine grace, and guided by the Spirit of God. No function of the soul is common or unclean, unless we make it so. Here is the right sort of covetousness (Php 3:8<\/span>), “That I may win Christ<\/em>.” <\/em>Let all our power of coveting go out after him. He will bring with him durable riches and righteousness. The wealth we have in <\/em>him will be vastly more than aught we can have from him, and by “the expulsive power of a new affection” he will wean us from the false craving for earth, and ever satisfy us with himself!<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Law as a whole, and its effect upon the people.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the account of the reception of the Law which we have in the Book of the Exodus, it would seem probable that we have a record which was penned at or near the time of the occurrence. The one before us is declared to be some thirty-nine years after. Moses was then verging towards the end of his career. He indulges in a retrospect of the eventful scenes, and rehearses them in the ears of the people. As we have seen in the first Homily, he “dug” into the Law, and dug up its contents. With this passage as our guide, as we have looked at each command in the Decalogue separately, let us survey it in its entirety.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> REGARDED<\/strong> AS<\/strong> A UNITY<\/strong>. It is not made up of isolated precepts. Our Savior declares that it is summed up in two commandments. And the apostle reminds us that “Love is the fulfilling of the Law,” love to God the root, and love to man the fruit. Taking them in order, the first four require of us a love that shall worship God alone, honoring his nature, revering his name, and guarding his rest day for his special service. The six later ones enjoin love to man, requiring loyalty in the home, restraint in the temper, purity of the body, fidelity of the hand, government of the tongue, unselfishness in the heart. What a space of ground all that covers! What part or power of our being is there that is not held in its comprehensive grasp? And how deeply it strikes! It is a “critic” of the thoughts and intents of the heart. No superficial obedience can meet its claims. It is not difficult to see the purpose which it was designed to serve. It was the basis of Israel’s national life and legislation. It was for the instruction of the nations round about (Deu 4:6<\/span>). And though it was set on a basis of redeeming mercy, it was designed to awaken the conscience to a sense of sin, to take the people to school, and thus to become their child-guide unto Christ. As compared with the simpler patriarchal dispensation, it was an apparent retrogression for the purpose of a spiritual education. It was a form, written, of that high, that holy, that eternal law of righteousness which is the same for all times, all places, and all peoples, yea, of that Law of perfect love which the Divine Being fulfils in absolute perfection, and after which he would have his creatures conformed.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> CONTAINS<\/strong> WITHIN<\/strong> ITSELF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EVIDENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> DIVINE<\/strong> ORIGIN<\/strong>. An able American commentator on the Laws of Moses (Dr. Wines), tell us of a distinguished lawyer who had been skeptical on the subject of Divine revelation, and who undertook the study of the Old Testament with a view of satisfying himself as to the validity of its claims to be an inspired writing. When he came to the Decalogue, and had given it an attentive perusal, lost in admiration of its superhuman perfection, he exclaimed,” Where did Moses get that Law?<\/em>“ <\/em>He applied himself to the study of the question, and the result was the removal of every skeptical doubt, and the attainment of a clear and earnest conviction of the Divine original of the Law. Nor is it surprising that a legal mind, accustomed to weigh evidence, should come to such a conclusion; for when we know how early in the world’s history this Law was promulgated, it is very marvelous to find that an infant nation should, at starting, have a code of moral law so complete; yea, so elevated, that no other nation at that time presented anything like it, and that even now, 3300 years afterwards, not the wisest man in the world can suggest anything loftier! The kingdoms of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, have furnished us with naught like this, to say nothing of the Roman, Grecian, and Persian empires, the earliest of which was not founded for centuries after. And if, leaving the merely civil and political side of legislation, we ask for an embodiment of a moral and religious code on which legislation could safely be based, we do not find aught to be compared with this. Nor, if we look at the record of the national life of the very people to whom this Law was first given, do we find that even they approximated to conformity to it. In fact, nothing is more marked in their subsequent literature than their grievous departure from their own standards. When man makes any code of laws, those laws reflect himself and his own standard of attainment. But here is a code far beyond the attainment of any yet recorded nation. It is not necessary, however, to go to ancient nations to show that this Law betokens a higher than human origin. Look at legislation now. Look at the moral sentiment of peoples now. What is the cry? Love thy neighbor as thyself? Emphatically no! But “take care of your own interests, and let your neighbors look after themselves!” “Remove your neighbor’s landmark as you think well!” Why, if no nation in the world is good enough to adopt the standard of the Decalogue, could it have created it<\/em>, <\/em>without ever having had any of its educating influence? And if no nation now could do it, how could they who were just liberated from centuries of slavery? But more than this. This Law is high above the attainment of well-trained Christian congregations. Let a minister proclaim the mercy of God in forgiving sin, and his preaching may charm, Let him insist on the demands of God’s righteousness, and while some earnest holy souls will lay it to heart, and humble themselves before God, many will be offended at the enforcement of righteousness; and even now many a minister is persecuted for righteousness’ sake. This Law from man? No! <\/em>it is too good for that. When man is brought face to face with its holy heart-searchingness he hates <\/em>it! But again. Take the most advanced and holiest Christian you can find. Let him stand in full front of this holy Lawand soon he will be crying out, in agony, “God be merciful to me the sinner!” “But,” it may be said, “are not Christians always preaching up to a higher level than that of their attainments?” Certainly; but why? Because they feel and know that here is a Law which they certainly did not originate, which is infinitely above them, and which, by being so, proclaims its intrinsic authority, and proves itself Divine. When such a Law is given, conscience can look at it and say, “That’s right<\/em>.” <\/em>But to create <\/em>a code above itself, is what no nation ever was able to do. This Law shines by its own light, and is “a <\/em>lamp unto our feet and a light to our path.”<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> WHEN<\/strong> PERCEIVED<\/strong> IN<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> GRANDEUR<\/strong>, THIS<\/strong> HOLY<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> FILLS<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> AWE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> TERROR<\/strong>. The thunder, lightning, flame, etc; revealed a majesty that Israel could not endure (Deu 5:25<\/span>, Deu 5:26<\/span>; cf. Heb 12:18-21<\/span>). But all this terror was nothing compared with the dread that comes over a man when his inmost self is confronted with the Law in its deep heart-searchingness (cf. Rom 7:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> TREATS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TERROR<\/strong> VERY<\/strong> GRACIOUSLY<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Israel was called near to the mount to meet with God, that they might learn a solemn awe, and then sent back to their tents, to wonder and to do.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> God hearkens to their voice, and appoints a mediatoreven Moses (Gal 3:19<\/span>, Gal 3:20<\/span>). We are come to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb 12:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Israel is reminded that what is needed on their part is, not emotion, but devotion (Deu 5:29<\/span>). God wants of us a heart to love and obey. Of itself, the Law does but shut us up to see the necessity of a power for righteousness which it cannot give (Gal 3:21<\/span>). God has made with us a new covenant. The old covenant says, “Do this, and you will live.” The new one says, “Live, and you will do this” (cf. Jer 30:1-24 :31; Heb 8:6-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> The people are assured that faithful obedience to the Law of God will ensure the well-being of the nation, its long continuance in the land, and the comfort and peace of the family as well as of the individual. Even so. We have in the Law of God a rule of life absolutely perfect. What is wanted is but obedience to it. This is the one thing to be desired (Jas 1:22<\/span>). It is bitterly to be lamented when this obedience is not given (Psa 80:8-16<\/span>). When this is the case, the Law becomes a silent accuser (see Joh 5:45<\/span>). It is this unwillingness to keep God’s Law which is charged against men as sin. It is of this sin of disloyalty that men are called on to repent (Rom 2:1-16<\/span>; Eze 18:30<\/span>; Mat 3:2<\/span>; Luk 13:3<\/span>; Act 20:21<\/span>). God in his great love offers to law-breakers, when penitent, the privilege of starting afresh (Act 2:38<\/span>). God forgives the penitent, and imparts new life and strength through the power of the Holy Ghost, to re-set and restore the nature disorganized by sin. Then the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled as men walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Then life has found its true support, is tending to its right issue, is realizing its highest ideal, and has its noblest outlook. Let us all, then, conscious of innumerable failures in obedience, penitently throw ourselves on Divine grace and love, and seek for energy Divine to work in us, canceling the guilt of the past, creating the life of God within; so will it be well with us forever and ever!<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Abrahamic covenant renewed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So solicitous was God for the well-being of Israel that, on critical epochs in their history, he reminds them of their privileged condition. Three main thoughts arrest our attention<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> COVENANTED<\/strong> BLESSING<\/strong> SECURED<\/strong>. God has not stood out for the maintenance of his rights; he has stooped to fetter his libertyto bind himself to generous deeds.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> He allows us to hold proprietorship in him<\/em>. <\/em>We can claim him to be “our God<\/em>.” <\/em>The Proprietor of all worlds permits fallen men to assert proprietorship in him! Herein is love! We can call upon him, in justice, to fulfill his self-imposed obligations.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> A<\/em> covenant implies reciprocal engagements<\/em>. <\/em>It is a deed of grace. God binds himself as a Friend and Defender to us, on condition that we bind ourselves in obedient loyalty to him. Failure on one side releases the other party from his pledge.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> A covenant includes mutual consent<\/em>. <\/em>No covenant is really valid, is not complete, until both parties have sworn to observe it. There may be command, law, decree, proceeding from God to man; but no covenant is really in force until we personally have accepted its terms, and bound ourselves by willing act to observe it. Then, our whole beingproperty, talent, blood, life, are pledged.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> MEDIATION<\/strong> PROVIDED<\/strong>. This is a further mark of condescending grace. When two parties are alienated, it is always deemed an advantage to one party to have a mediator chosen from its ranks. God allows a man to mediate between Israel and himself. “I stood between the Lord and you.”<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Such mediation was needful<\/em>, because of mutual disparity<\/em>, <\/em>Man is finite; God infinite. Man is for self; God is self-oblivious. Man is earthly minded; God is purely spiritual. That the two may coalesce in sentiment, purpose, life, mediation of some sort is required.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Mediation is needful<\/em>, because of man<\/em>‘s selfish fear<\/em>. <\/em>The people were “afraid, by reason of the fire”afraid for their own interests and pleasures. Were men impelled by wisdom, they would count it the highest privilege possible to approach God. What, though we have sinned;inasmuch as God has revealed himself as the Source of mercy, and has deigned to visit us, should we not gladly respond to his proposal, and draw nigh? What, though he is dressed in garments of flame;if we are penitent, the consuming flame will consume only <\/em>our sin; it will benefit and burnish us. This is our honor and our joyto come very near to God, and to gain larger acquaintance with him. If renewed, our former aversion is turned into longing desire.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> This mediation was very imperfect<\/em>. <\/em>It served a present purpose, viz. a mediation for communicating truth, a mediation for obtaining favor. It speaks a volume for the character and faith of Moses, that he was not afraid to draw near. Imperfect though he was, he displayed a rare spirit of self-sacrifice. “Pardon, I pray thee, this people! or else, blot out my name from thy book!” Here was a vivid type of Jesus.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> OBLIGATION<\/strong> INCREASED<\/strong>. In the very nature of things, kindness on the one side begets obligation on the other.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> This obligation is personal<\/em>. <\/em>“The Lord hath not made this <\/em>covenant with our fathers, but with us<\/em>.” <\/em>God’s covenant with men is renewed age after age. It is a covenant with us<\/em>, <\/em>if we will accept the terms. Are we willing to be hiswholly his? <\/em>Then the covenant is settled, “ordered in all things and sure.”<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> This obligation is all-embracing and complete<\/em>. <\/em>It includes every part of our nature, every moment in our history, every interest we have in life. Attention is demanded. The ear must be reserved for God. Intellect is pledged. We must “learn the statutes and judgments.” Active and dutiful service is due. Like the true Son, our intention must be, “I do always the things that please” the Father!D.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:6-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Divine plan for the conduct of our life on earth.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Had we been left in ignorance what the Divine intention in human life was, it had been a calamity indeed. Waste and failure must have been the disastrous result. For every honest-minded man, ample direction from the Supreme Source of authority is supplied. The most cogent argument is not always the most convincing. God might here <\/em>have prefaced his ten words with a proper assertion of his indisputable sovereignty. But he prefers to appeal to his recent interpositionhis emancipation of the people from Egyptian bondage. As if he had said, “I, <\/em>who released you from grinding miseryI, who created your liberty, and founded your nation, now <\/em>command your loyalty. Let the lives which I have ransomed be spent as I now direct.”<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> How HUMAN<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> DIRECTED<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>–WARD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That God must be supreme in our regard and affection<\/em>. <\/em>“Thou <\/em>shalt have none other gods before me.” This claim is founded in absolute right. The Proprietor has complete dominion over the work of his hands. If his workmanship does not please him, he is at liberty to destroy it. His claim is further pressed on the ground of his transcendent excellence. Essential and unapproachable goodness is he<\/em>; <\/em>hence his claims on worship rest upon his intrinsic worth. And his claim to reverent regard proceeds likewise on human benefit. God’s glory and man’s advantage are only different aspects of the same eternal truth. To give him all <\/em>is to enrich ourselves.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> That God must be supreme in our acts of worship<\/em>. <\/em>To picture him forth by material images is an impossibility. The plausible plea of human nature has always been that material forms serve as aids <\/em>to worship the Unseen. But the facts of human experience have uniformly disproved this hypothesis. It may cost us severe exertion of mind to lift our souls up to the worship of the true God; yet this very exertion is an unspeakable advantage. God has no pleasure in imposing on us hard tasks for their own sake<\/em>; <\/em>yet, for the high gain to his servants, be does impose them. Throughout the Scriptures, idolatry is represented as spiritual adultery; hence, condescending to human modes of speech, the displeasure of God is described as jealousy<\/em>. <\/em>Jealousy is quick-sighted, deep-seated, swift-footed. All revelation of God is an accommodation to human ignorance and feebleness. The visitation of punishment upon the children, and upon the children’s children, is not to be construed as excessively severe, much less as unrighteous. The thrice-holy God can never <\/em>be unjust. The idolatrous spirit would be entailed to children by natural law; hence punishment would culminate in final disaster. The menace <\/em>was gracious, because, if parents will not abstain from sin for their own sakes, they sometimes will for the sake of their children. The mercy shall be far more ample than the wrath. The anger may be entailed on a few, and that in proportion always to the sin; the mercy shall flow, like a mighty river, to “thousands.” True worship fosters love, and stimulates practical obedience.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> God<\/em>‘s authority is supreme over our speech<\/em>. <\/em>The faculty of speech is a noble endowment, and differentiates man from the inferior races. The tongue is a mighty instrument, either for evil or for good.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> We take God’s Name in vain when we make an insincere or superficial profession of attachment. We wear his Name lightly and frivolously if our service is formal and nominal.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> We take his Name in vain when we are unfaithful in the performance of our vows. Men pledge themselves to be his in moments of peril, and forget their pledges when safety comes.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> We take God’s Name in vain when we use it to give force and emphasis to a falsehood. Whether in private converse, or in a court of justice, we use God’s Name to produce a stronger persuasion in others’ minds, we contract fearful guilt if we use that sacred Name to bolster up a lie.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> We take God’s Name in vain whenever we use it needlessly, flippantly, or in jest. The moral effect upon men is pernicious, corrupting, deadly. The penalty is set forth in negative language, but it is intended to convey deep impression. Others may hold it as a venial sin; not so God.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> God<\/em>‘s authority over the employment of our time<\/em>. <\/em>All time belongs to God. He hath created it. Every successive breath we inspire is by his sustaining power. Since we are completely his<\/em>, <\/em>his claim must be recognized through every passing minute. But just as he allows to men the productions of the soil, but requires the firstfruits to be presented to himthe earnest of the whole; so also the firstfruits of our time he claims for special acts of worship. One day in seven he requires to be thus consecrated; but whether the first or the seventh depends wholly on the mode of human calculation. The grounds on which the institution rests are many. Even God felt it to be good to “rest” from his acts of creation. In some sense, he ceased for a time to work. Review and contemplation formed his Sabbath. His claims to have his <\/em>day observed are myriad-fold. If Sabbath observance was beneficial for Jews, is it not for Gentiles? If it was a blessing to man in the early ages, has it now become a curse? Even the inferior creation was to share in the boon. Strangers and foreigners would learn to admire the gracious arrangement, and learn the considerate kindness of the Hebrews’ God.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> WE<\/strong> LEARN<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> CONDUCTED<\/strong> MAN<\/strong>–WARD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In accordance with the degree of kinship<\/em>. <\/em>A parent has claims beyond all other men upon our love, obedience, and service. Parents are deserving our heartfelt honor. They claim this on the ground of position and relationship, irrespective of personal merit. Parents stand towards their children, through all the years of infancy, in the stead of God. For years the human babe is wholly dependent upon its parent; and this serves as schooling and discipline, whereby it learns its dependence upon a higher Parent yet. The disposition and conduct required in us towards our parents is the same in kind as that required towards God. Filial reverence is the first germ of true religion. Hence the promises of reward are akin. The family institution is the foundation of the political fabric. The health and well-being of home is the fount of national prosperity. If parents are honored, “it shall be well with thee.” This, <\/em>a law for individuals, a law for society, and a law for nations.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Our duty towards all men<\/em>. <\/em>We are to respect their persons<\/em>. <\/em>Their life and health are to be as dear to us as our own. We are to respect their virtue<\/em>. <\/em>The lower passions are to be held in restraint. Occasions for lust must be avoided. A bridle must be put upon the glances of the eye. We are to respect their property<\/em>. <\/em>This duty has extensive scope. It means that we should deal with others as if they were ourselves. All dishonest dealing, false representations in commerce, overreaching in bargains, fraudulent marks, are condemned. We are to have respect to their reputation<\/em>. <\/em>It ought to please us as much to see a conspicuous virtue, a generous quality, in another, as if it shone in ourselves. Idle tale-bearing is forbidden, as also detraction, slander, unfavorable interpretation of others’ deeds, and suspicion of their motives. We are charged, as the servants of God, to “love our neighbors even as ourselves.”<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> This Divine Law carries its sanctions into our interior life<\/em>. <\/em>“Thou shalt not covet.” Improper and irregular desires are to be repressed. Like a wise Ruler, God proceeds to the very root of sinto the very core of evil. ‘Tis easiest to strangle the serpent at its birth. If only this fountain were pure, all its streams would be likewise pure. Let the salt of purification be applied here! There is <\/em>scope for covetinga direction in which it may lawfully run. It may run Godward. It may fix its eyes and its hands on heavenly treasures. For in securing these we defraud no one else. Therefore, we may with advantage all round “covet earnestly the best gifts.” Desire after heavenly gifts and riches is never untimely or excessive, never irregular or inordinate. Hence, as an antidote to a covetous disposition, we may well nourish heavenly hope. “Delight in God” will bring a most satisfying fruition of desire. Sowing in this fertile field yields a prolific harvest. The Decalogue is complete. God “added no more.” Authority centers here.D.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:21-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Character determines environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> <\/em>THE<\/strong> STORMY<\/strong> ELEMENTS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> SERVE<\/strong> AT<\/strong> TIMES<\/strong> AS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FITTING<\/strong> ROBES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DEITY<\/strong>. All natural objects are the projections in space of his creative voice. He spake and they appeared. He <\/em>is still behind all phenomenathe only real substance. Since he is all-wise, the sole fount of knowledge, the true Revealer of secrets, he is properly said to be appareled with light<\/em>. <\/em>The rainbow is his diadem, the morning sun is his radiant face, the thundercloud his chariot. To human eyes, he can only be visible in such forms as these. His holiness can be visibly expressed in no other form than fire. The profound inscrutable ness of his will is best made manifest by the “thick darkness.” His insufferable glory is attempered by a cloud. His kingly power is betokened by a “great voice.” Such is his fitting environment.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NEAR<\/strong> APPROACH<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> IS<\/strong> INTOLERABLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> SINFUL<\/strong> MEN<\/strong>. The unrenewed man shrinks from contact with absolute purity. He is in an uncongenial atmospherelike a fish out of its native element. What tremendous losses foolish man submits to rather than abandon sinlosses of privilege, friendship, joy! So Peter prayed, when the vision of Christ’s wondrous power dawned on him, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” But the renewed man yearns and pants for a nearer, and yet nearer, approach to God. “I pray thee, show me thy glory!” This <\/em>is his joyto be near God, to grow like him. And yet, how often do we shrink from the passage of death, the passage by which we penetrate into the inner palace of Deity! Whatever brings us into nearer fellowship with God ought to be welcomed.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> A SIGHT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> KILLS<\/strong> EITHER<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIN<\/strong> OR<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SINNER<\/strong>. There is no question that God intends the former, but if the guilty man will not part with his sinidentifies himself <\/em>with itthen he too dies. To know <\/em>God, and his redeeming Son, is tantamount to eternal life. But to know God only in his judicial character, to have defective acquaintance with him, alarms and kills. The love of sin perverts the judgment, and destroys good logic. These Hebrews said, “We have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth;” and then they inconsistently add, “Therefore why should we die?” In presence of that mystic flame, they promise loyal obedience. If only life may be spared, and God’s commands be conveyed in a less alarming manner, they pledge themselves to be his liege servants. Alas! men little know their own weaknesses! So men still say that if they had such a revelation as they wishedsuch in degree<\/em>, <\/em>and such in kindthey <\/em>would yield compliance! Yet the real difficulty arises not from defects in the external revelation, but from the internal disposition.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S APPORTIONMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> HONOR<\/strong> AND<\/strong> DISHONOR<\/strong> APPROVED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> MEN<\/strong>. HOW<\/strong> different his language to different persons! To some, “Go, get you into your tents again;” to another, “Stand thou here by me<\/em>.” To dwell near to God, and to enjoy his revelations of light and lovethis is really man’s crowning privilege, this <\/em>his heaven. Yet the bulk of men are blind to their own good, dead to noblest joy. To possess any pleasure, their environment must be suited to their character; the external must correspond with the internal. “Depart from me!” says man to his Maker. “Depart from me<\/em>!” responds our God. “Out of our own mouths we are judged.”<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> OBSERVE<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S INTENSE<\/strong> LONGING<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> MAN<\/strong>‘S GOOD<\/strong>. How pathetic are such ejaculations as these, “Oh that there were such a heart in them, to fear me always!”<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Religion must be a matter of the heart.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Religion is not a compulsory, but voluntary, service.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Religion commands the allegiance of the whole manhis reverence, submission, and practical service; and that <\/em>not spasmodic, but continuous.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Religion brings largest benefit to ourselves and to our children. Even bad men have, at times<\/em>, <\/em>desires after a better lifefitful moods of regret and aspiration. God, in his wondrous patience, smiles on theseapproves a passing thought or a transient feeling-and says, in his paternal love, “Would <\/em>that this frame of feeling continued!” These are the openings of opportunity’s golden door.<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WORLD<\/strong>‘S OBEDIENCE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> DEPENDENT<\/strong> ON<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> MINISTRIES<\/strong>, The majority of men will not listen to God unless he speak to them through human agencies. Men will only read God’s Word as it is written, in large capitals, in saintly lives. Thus God commanded Moses: “I will speak unto thee<\/em> thou <\/em>shalt teach them<\/em>, <\/em>that they may do.” The pardoned man becomes God’s interpreter to the world. “Speak thou <\/em>to us,” they say, “and <\/em>we will hear.” “As Christ was, so we are to be in the world”light-bearers. The heathen nations learn only through the Church <\/em>the redeeming work of God.D.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY J. ORR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Reminiscences of Horeb.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong>. (Deu 5:2<\/span>, Deu 5:3<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Proposed by God (Exo 19:3-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Accepted by the people (Exo 24:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Entailed obligations on subsequent generations (cf. Deu 6:2<\/span>). In this covenant, formally ratified by sacrifice (Exo 24:6<\/span>, Exo 24:7<\/span>), Israel<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> accepted Jehovah to be its spiritual and temporal Sovereign. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Pledged itself to observe his Law. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Was adopted by him as his peculiar people. <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Had every blessing secured to it on condition of obedience (Exo 23:22-27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The new covenant in Christ, while in many respects different from, and superior to, that of Horeb, yet resembles it in several of these particulars.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. (Deu 5:6-22<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Holy in its nature.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Internally complete as a summary of duty. “He added no more” (Deu 5:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Explicative of the character of God. The absoluteness <\/em>and unity <\/em>of God, e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>taught in first commandment; his spirituality<\/em>, jealousy <\/em>of his honor<\/em>, sovereignty<\/em>, love<\/em>, <\/em>and mercy<\/em>, <\/em>in second commandment; his holiness<\/em>, <\/em>in third commandment; his searching of hearts<\/em>, <\/em>in tenth commandment; while in all he appears as the Source of moral obligation, and the Guardian of rights.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> To be kept from the motive of love (Deu 5:10<\/span>). This Law is not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ, by whose Spirit its precepts are written in the minds and hearts of believers (2Co 3:3<\/span>; Heb 8:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEDIATOR<\/strong>. (Deu 5:5<\/span>, Deu 5:22-33<\/span>.) The mediation of Moses was:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Craved by the people <\/em>(Deu 5:23-28<\/span>). The manifestation of God’s holiness overwhelms sinful men (cf. Isa 6:3-6<\/span>). Moses not only endured <\/em>this manifestation, but went up alone into the thick darkness where God was. How exceptionally great he appears in this!<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Acquiesced in by God <\/em>(Deu 5:28-32<\/span>). This transacting through a mediator was in harmony with the principle of his dealings with them from the first. A figure of the mediation of Christ.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Suitable in itself<\/em>. <\/em>As tending to enhance in their minds the impression of God’s holiness and the feeling of their own sinfulness.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:2<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The covenant at Horeb.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here spoken of as distinct from the older covenant made with the patriarchs (Gen 15:1-21<\/span>; Gen 17:1-27<\/span>.).<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> RELATIONS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong> MADE<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FATHERS<\/strong>, It was not a new thing absolutely. It rested on that older covenant, and on the series of revelations which sprang out of it. It could not disannul that older covenant (Gal 3:17<\/span>). It could not run counter to it (Gal 3:21<\/span>). It must, though “superadded,” be in subserviency to it (Gal 3:15-26<\/span>). But that covenant made with the fathers was:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Of promise (Gal 3:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Couched in absolute terms. God pledged his perfections that the promise conveyed in it would be ultimately realized (Rom 3:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In which an interest was obtained by faith (Gen 15:6<\/span>; Rom 4:3-23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> While yet it bound the person received into covenant to a holy life (Gen 17:1<\/span>). The new covenant could “make void” the older one in none of these particulars.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> DISTINCTION<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong> MADE<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FATHERS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It was a national <\/em>covenant, having reference primarily to national existence and prosperity.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It was a covenant of Law<\/em>. <\/em>It was<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> connected with a promulgation of Law, and<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> required obedience to the prescribed Law as the condition of acceptance.<\/p>\n

Does this look like a retrograde step in the Divine procedure, a contradiction of the covenant with Abraham? Seemingly it was so, but the backward step was really a forward one, bringing to light demands of the Divine holiness which it was absolutely essential man should become acquainted with. Two points have to be noticed:<\/p>\n

(a) <\/strong>that obedience was not made the ground of admission to the covenant, <\/strong>or aught else than the condition of continuance <\/em>in privileges freely conferred; and<\/p>\n

(b)<\/strong> that the requirement of obedience did not stand alone, but was connected with provisions for the removal of the guilt contracted by transgression and shortcoming. This brings into view the peculiar feature in the covenant of Horebthe hidden grace of it. In form and letter it was a strictly legal covenant. Obedience to the Law in all its parts, and without failure, was the technical condition of the fulfillment of promise, and of continuance in covenant privilege (cf. Mat 19:17<\/span>; Rom 10:5<\/span>; Gal 3:10<\/span>). The fact that atonements were provided to remove the guilt which otherwise would have broken up the covenant, is proof that such was its constitution. The same fact shows that in the structure of the covenant it was recognized that sin and shortcoming would mark the history of Israel; that, on the strictly legal basis, standing in the state of acceptance was impossible. A theoretically perfect obedience no Jew ever rendered. His standing in no case was in virtue of a perfectly fulfilled Law, but was due to forgiving mercy<\/em>, which daily pardoned his shortcomings<\/em>, and gave him an acceptance which these shortcomings were as constantly forfeiting<\/em>. <\/em>It was faith, not works, which justified him; while yet, in harmony with the unalterable law of moral life, it was his duty to aim at the realization of the ideal of righteousness which the Law presented. Just as with Abraham, the faith which justified him, and did so before a single work had issued from it (Gen 15:6<\/span>; Jas 2:23<\/span>), was a faith which “wrought with works,” and “by works was faith made perfect” (Jas 2:22<\/span>). It follows from these peculiarities, and from the statements of Scripture, that it was:<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> A preparatory <\/em>and temporary <\/em>covenant. Its leading design was to develop the consciousness of sin, to awaken a feeling of the need of redemption, to evince the powerlessness of mere Law as a source of moral strength, to drive men back from legal efforts to faith, and so, finally, to prepare the way for Christ (Rom 3:20<\/span>; Gal 3:23<\/span>, Gal 3:24<\/span>, etc.). In this we discern the reason of the severe and threatening form in which it was couched, and of the terrors which attended its promulgation. It was a covenant which could not of itself save or do aught but kill (2Co 3:6-12<\/span>).J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mediation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> MEDIATION<\/strong> IN<\/strong> GENERAL<\/strong>. Mediation has a God-ward side and a man-ward side. The requirements of God’s holinessthe needs of man’s heart.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> On God<\/em>‘s side<\/em>, <\/em>communion with sinners can only be maintained on terms which uphold righteousness and law, and do not derogate from the sanctity of the Divine character.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> On man<\/em>‘s side<\/em>, <\/em>there is<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the feeling of weakness and finitude<\/em>, <\/em>awakening terror in presence of the Infinite (Deu 5:25-27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The feeling of sin<\/em>, <\/em>giving rise to the craving for a holier one to stand between him and God.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The feeling of needthe <\/em>soul’s longing for fellowship with God; giving rise to the desire for one to mediate in the sense of making peace, of bringing about reconciliation (Job 16:2<\/span> l).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEDIATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> A TYPE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong>, We trace the resemblance:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In his willingness to mediate<\/em>. <\/em>So did Jesus most willingly undertake to stand between God and sinners (Heb 10:5-10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> In his acceptance as mediator <\/em>(Deu 5:28<\/span>). So was Christ called to this office by the Father, invested with all the powers necessary for the right discharge of its duties, and accepted in the discharge of them (Isa 49:8<\/span>; Mat 3:17<\/span>; Mat 17:5<\/span>; Heb 5:4-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In the work he did<\/em>.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Conveying God’s words to the people (cf. Joh 17:6-9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Conveying the people’s words to God (Deu 5:27<\/span>). Jesus is in like manner the medium through whom prayer, worship, etc; ascend to the Father (Eph 3:18<\/span>; Heb 4:14-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Frequently interceding for them, and obtaining pardon for their sins (Exo 32:11-15<\/span>; Num 14:13-21<\/span>, etc.). So does Jesus ever live to intercede for us, and advocate our cause (Rom 8:34<\/span>; 1Jn 2:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Even, on one notable occasion, offering himself as a sacrifice for their sin (Exo 32:32<\/span>). What Moses would <\/em>have done, had it been possible so to save the people from destruction, Christ did (Gal 3:13<\/span>, etc.).J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The iniquity of the fathers visited on the children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> A FACT<\/strong> AMPLY<\/strong> ATTESTED<\/strong>. Borne out<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> By Scripture instances <\/em>(Jos 7:24<\/span>; 2Sa 12:14; 1Ki 21:21<\/span>, 1Ki 21:29<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> By<\/em> observation and experience<\/em>. <\/em>The case of children suffering in mind, body, character, and fortune, as the result of the sins of parents, is one of the commonest and saddest things in life.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Science<\/em>. <\/em>The law of heredity. (For illustrations, see Rev. Joseph Cook’s ‘Lectures.’)<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Literature<\/em>. <\/em>Especially do the Greek tragedies give expression to, and strikingly work out, this thought.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A FACT<\/strong> MYSTERIOUS<\/strong>, YET<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> VIEWED<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LIGHT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> VARIOUS<\/strong> RELIEVING<\/strong> CONSIDERATIONS<\/strong>. The difficulty is one of natural, quite as much as of revealed, religion. The following considerations relieve it only in part:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Every original disadvantage will be taken into account by the Searcher of hearts in estimating personal responsibility (Luk 13:1-35 :48).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The final judgment on a man’s character will turn, not on inherited tendencies, but on what he has made himself by his own moral determinations (Eze 18:1-32<\/span>.).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The less favorable conditions in which the sins of parents have placed the individual cannot turn to his ultimate disadvantage if he struggle well and persevere to the end (see ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ on Exo 20:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It is open to the evil-doer to cut off the entail of punishment by choosing for himself the way of righteousness (Eze 18:15-18<\/span>). God is reluctant to contemplate the heritage of evil descending further than the third or fourth generation, while thousands of generations are spoken of in connection with the blessing.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Experience of the effects of a parent’s evil-doing is designed to act as a deterrent from like sins. The child is less likely to imitate the parents’ vices, suffering these results, than if entirely exempt.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> The Law is the consequence of a constitution of society originally intended for the conveyance<\/em>, <\/em>not of evils, but of blessings. This is a consideration of importance as throwing light on the equity, as well as on the goodness, of Divine providence. The design of the organic constitution of society is obviously to hand down to succeeding generations the moral gains of those which precede. It is sin which has wrought the mischief, reversing the operation of a constitution in itself beneficent, and making that which is good work death to so many.<\/p>\n

Lesson<\/strong>The tremendous responsibility of parents, and of all who have it in their power to influence the destinies of posterity.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:12-15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Sabbath.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong>? The essential point in the institution is the sanctification to God of a seventh part of our time, of one day in seven. Which day of the seven is observed is indifferent, not in the sense of being left to individual choice, but in respect of any inherent sanctity in one day above another (Rom 14:5<\/span>). The day is made holy by the Divine appointment, and by the uses we put it to. We sanctify the Sabbath:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> By observing it as a day of rest from secular toil<\/em>. <\/em>The need of a rest day in the week is universally acknowledged. Every effort should be made to extend the boon as widely as possible, and to avoid infraction of the rights of others in connection with it. Our aim should be to lessen Sunday work, not to increase it. Apply to railways, steamboats, post-office work, museums, etc.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> By devoting it principally to religious uses<\/em>. <\/em>It is only by conserving the Sabbath as a day sacred to religion that we can hope to preserve it as a day free from toil. We need, for spiritual purposes, all the opportunities it gives us.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> WHOM<\/strong>? The answer isfor man. This is shown:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> From its primeval origin<\/em>. <\/em>That the Sabbath dates from creation is implied in the narrative in Gen 2:3<\/span>, in the terms of the command (Exo 20:8-11<\/span>), in Christ’s words (Mar 2:27<\/span>), in the argument in Heb 4:3<\/span>, Heb 4:4<\/span>, and in the recently deciphered Chaldean traditions. While it may be argued, that if designed to commemorate creation, this is a matter which concerns all men equally with the Jews.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> From its place in the moral law<\/em>. <\/em>It is certainly remarkable, if the Sabbath is a purely Jewish institution, that it should be found embodied in the first of those two tables which by their contents, as well as by the manner of their promulgation, are shown to be of a distinctly moral nature.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> From the respect paid to it by the prophets <\/em>(see Isa 58:13<\/span>, Isa 58:14<\/span>). The language here employed is very different from that which prophets were accustomed to use of purely ceremonial institutions.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> From Christ<\/em>‘s defense of it<\/em>. <\/em>It is noticeable, and supports our view, that while frequently charged with breaking the Sabbath law, the Savior never once admits the charge. He carefully defends himself against it. He unceremoniously clears away the rubbish which the Pharisees had heaped upon the institution; but the Sabbath itself he never speaks of as a thing to be abolished. He sets it in its true light, and shows high respect for it.<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> From its reappearance in the new dispensation in a form adapted to the genius and wants of Christianity<\/em>. <\/em>The name <\/em>Sabbath is not found in the New Testament, applied to the first day of the week, but the thing <\/em>appears in that weekly festival of the Apostolic Churchthe Lord’s day.<\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> From the proved adaptation of the Sabbath to the constitution of man<\/em>‘s nature<\/em>. <\/em>The seventh-day rest is found by experience to be essential to man’s welfare. It ministers to physical health, mental vigor, moral purity, and religious earnestness. The Sabbath-keeping nations are by far the happiest, most moral, and most prosperous. These reasons combine to show that this institution is one intended and adapted for the whole human family.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> WHY<\/strong>? The institution, as seen above, is grounded in deep necessities of man’s nature. It is, moreover, a suitable recognition of the Creator’s right to our worship and service. But further, it is:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Commemorative<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> of creation, <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> of redemption<\/p>\n

in the case of Israel, of redemption from Egypt (Heb 4:15<\/span>); in the case of the Christian, of redemption through Christ.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Prefigurativeof <\/em>the rest of heaven (Heb 4:9<\/span>).J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Honor to parents.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We prefer the arrangement which regards the fifth commandment as the last of the first tablehonor to parents being viewed as honor to God in his human representatives.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> STAND<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> REPRESENTATIVES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DIVINE<\/strong>. They represent God as the source of their offspring’s life; they have a share of God’s authority, and ought to exercise it; but much more ought they to represent God to their children in his unwearied beneficence, his tender care, his exalted rectitude, his forgiving love. With what intelligence or comfort can a child be taught to think of a Father in heaven, if its earthly parent is wanting in dignity, kindness, truthfulness, or integrity? How many fathers are thus spoiling for their children their whole conceptions of God! And with what anxiety and care should earthly parents study to leave such an impression on their children’s minds as will make the idea of God delightful and consolatory to them, while inspiring them towards him with proper feelings of reverence!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> ACCOUNT<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> HONORED<\/strong> BY<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>. They are to be regarded with affection, treated with respect and deference, promptly and cheerfully obeyed, and, where needful, liberally supported (Mat 15:4-7<\/span>; 1Ti 5:8<\/span>). Even the failure of parents to do all their duty to their children does not exonerate the children from the obligation of treating them with respect. Young people need to be reminded that failure in this duty is peculiarly offensive to God. We are told that when Tiyo Soga visited this country, a particular thing which astonished him was the deficiency in respect for parents compared with the obedience which prevailed in the wilds of Kaffraria.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HONORING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> HAS<\/strong> ATTACHED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> IT<\/strong> A PECULIAR<\/strong> PROMISE<\/strong>. Length of days and prosperity. The promise is primarily national, but it has fulfillments in individuals.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A<\/em> special blessing <\/em>rests on the man who shows his parents due respect. That has often been remarked.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> There is also a natural connection <\/em>between the virtue and the promise. Respect for parents is the root at once of reverence for God and of respect for the rights of others. Hence the place of the commandment in the Decalogue. It engenders self-respect, and forms the will to habits of obedience. It is favorable to the stability, good order, and general morals of society. It therefore conduces to health, longevity, and a diffusion of the comforts of life, furnishing alike the outward and the inward conditions necessary for success.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Moral Law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEN<\/strong> COMMANDMENTS<\/strong> A DISTINCT<\/strong> PART<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S REVELATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> They were spoken by God’s own voice from the midst of the fire (Deu 5:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> They only were thus promulgated; “he added no more.”<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> They were written on tables of stone.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> They were deposited in the ark of the covenant (Exo 25:16<\/span>). These facts show that they held a distinct place in the Law-giving at Sinai, and that they are not to be confounded with the ceremonial and judicial statutes, subsequently given.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GROUNDS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> DISTINCTION<\/strong>. The Decalogue was:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> An epitome of universal moral truth.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Internally complete as suchthe first table laying down our duties to God, as respects his being, his worship, his Name, his day, his human representatives; the second forbidding all injury to our fellow-men (injuries to life, property, chastity, character), while requiring by implication the fulfillment of all positive duties, and the regulation even of our secret thoughts.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The basis of the covenant with Israel. The foundation on which all subsequent legislation was reared.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:23-28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The element of terror in religion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FACT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> TERROR<\/strong>. It is not unnatural that man should tremble in presence of any near manifestation of the Divine. The chief cause of this terror is the consciousness of sin. Guilty man fears his Judge. The text is an instance of this terror, but the same thing has often been witnessed.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In presence of unusual appearances of nature<\/em>. <\/em>Comets, eclipses, unusual darkness, thunderstorms, earthquakes, etc.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Under the powerful preaching of judgment<\/em>. <\/em>Felix under the preaching of Paul (Act 24:25<\/span>). Massillon bringing the French court to their feet in terror, as he described the Lord’s coming. Whitfield’s oratory and its effects.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In prospect of death<\/em>. <\/em>There are few in whom the approach of death does not awaken serious alarms. The effect is most conspicuous in times of sudden danger, as in shipwrecks, etc.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INFLUENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> TERROR<\/strong>. Usually, as here:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It extorts confession of the truth<\/em>. <\/em>The Israelites spoke of God in juster terms than ever they had done before, or perhaps ever did again. Terror draws from the soul strange acknowledgments. The white face of the scoffer shows how little, in his heart, he disbelieves in the God he would fain have disavowed. The self-righteous man is made suddenly aware of his sins. The blasphemer stops his oaths, and begins to pray. The liar for once finds himself speaking the truth.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It awakens the cry for a mediator<\/em>. <\/em>Thus we see it leading men to send for ministers or lay Christians to pray for them, or crying for mercy to the Savior or to saints.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It prompts to vows and promises<\/em>. <\/em>In their terrified moods, men are willing to promise anythingwhatever they think will please or propitiate God (Deu 5:27<\/span>). They will repent, will pray, will go to church, will make restitution for wrongs, will abandon vices, etc.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INEFFICACY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> TERROR<\/strong> AS<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INSTRUMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CONVERSION<\/strong>. Terror, when excited by just views of sin, has its uses. It breaks up the hardened crust of indifference, ploughs into the nature, and prepares it for the reception of better teaching. But terror of itself cannot change the heart. It is the message of love which alone can exalt, renovate, and truly convert. Not the Law, but the cross. The Law is only useful when employed as a schoolmaster to bring to Christ. These Israelites soon forgot their terrors, and in less than forty days had made for themselves a golden calf. The jailor’s terrors (Act 16:27<\/span>) would have wrought death, but the words, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. (Deu 5:31<\/span>), made him live anew.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:28<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 5:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

God’s desires for man’s good.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A gleam, from amidst the terrors, of the Divine loving-kindness and tenderness.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> WELCOMES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> MAN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FAINTEST<\/strong> TRACES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A DISPOSITION<\/strong> TO<\/strong> RETURN<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIM<\/strong>. (Deu 5:27<\/span>.) This trait in the Divine character is scarcely recognized by us as it should be. We are apt to take for granted that till conversion is absolutely completetill it is in every respect sincere and thorough, it can obtain no favor in the eyes of Heaven. Scripture teaches, on the contrary, that God wills to recognize in man any signs of turning towards himself, and would fain, by holding out encouragements, ripen these into thorough conversion (1Ki 21:27-29<\/span>; Psa 78:34-40<\/span>; Jon 3:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NEVERTHELESS<\/strong> AWARE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> LACKING<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HEARTS<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> COMPLETELY<\/strong> SURRENDERED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIM<\/strong>. The professions of the Israelites did not deceive him. He knew the superficiality of their states of feeling. They lacked yet “one thing” (Mar 11:21<\/span>)the entire surrender of their hearts to him. We have the same discernment in the New Testament (Joh 2:25<\/span>; Act 8:21<\/span>; Rev 3:1<\/span>; cf. 1Ki 15:3<\/span>; Mat 13:20<\/span>, Mat 13:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> DESIRES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> MAN<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THOROUGHNESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CONVERSION<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> ALONE<\/strong> CAN<\/strong> SECURE<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong>, HAPPINESS<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> PERSEVERANCE<\/strong>. What God desires in man is heart-religion; this has:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Its seat in the heart. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Its principle in the fear of God. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Its outcome in obedience. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Its test in perseverance. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Its reward in blessedness.<\/p>\n

It is God’s love which here speaks, but also his righteousness, which is necessarily averse from whatever is unreal, and desires to see goodness triumphant.J.O.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Decalogue.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses here recalls the Sinaitic covenant, and wishes the Israelites to remember that, though given to their fathers primarily, it was also applicable to them. They were in many cases present as children then, and they were represented by their parents. Moses speaks with authority as having been mediator (Deu 5:5<\/span>) on the occasion.<\/p>\n

There are the following lessons to be learned from the Decalogue as here given:<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> BASED<\/strong> UPON<\/strong> A MERCIFUL<\/strong> DELIVERANCE<\/strong>. God gives his Law to his people after their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. It is intended to be a rule of life for those already redeemed. The gospel precedes the LawMoses the deliverer precedes Moses the lawgiver; the Lord was first known as the fountain of freedom, and then as the fountain of that Law within whose bounds freedom is to be realized.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> COVERS<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> RELATIONS<\/strong> BOTH<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> AND<\/strong> MAN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The Laws relating to God<\/em>. <\/em>These embrace the four which come first, i<\/em>.e<\/em>.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the law against polytheism <\/em>or atheism<\/em>. <\/em>This law is broken when we live “without God in the world,” ascribing to luck, chance, or fortune what is due to God’s providence. It is broken when we worship self<\/em>, or fame<\/em>, <\/em>or ambition <\/em> Dale’s ‘Ten Commandments;’ Washburn’s ‘Social Law of God;’ and Crosby’s ‘Thoughts on the Decalogue’).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The law against sensuous worship<\/em>. <\/em>For the second commandment is broken in so far as our worship is not “in spirit and in truth.”<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The law of reverence<\/em>. <\/em>Any spirit of undue familiarity which leads to the least trifling before God is a breach of this third commandment.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> The law of consecrated time<\/em>. <\/em>This fourth commandment is an acknowledgment that all <\/em>time is God’s by right, and the seventh portion should be <\/em>by special obligation. In Deuteronomy the Sabbath is based, not on creation, as in Exodus, but on the deliverance from Egypt. Each great providence increases our obligation thus to acknowledge God. Hence the Lord’s day is made commemorative of our Lord’s resurrection.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The laws relating to man<\/em>. <\/em>These embrace the succeeding six<\/em>, <\/em>thus:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The law of the family<\/em>. <\/em>This is the first commandment with promise (Eph 6:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The law of social love<\/em>. <\/em>For we are to avoid not only murder, but the unholy anger of which it is the manifestation (Mat 5:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The law of social purity<\/em>. <\/em>We must be pure in thought, as well as in act, as our Lord has shown us.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> The law of honesty<\/em>. <\/em>This must be in God’s sight and in man’s (2Co 8:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> The law of veracity<\/em>. <\/em>Restraining the turbulent tongue (Jas 3:6<\/span>, Jas 3:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> The law of contentment<\/em>. <\/em>The curbing of covetousness, which is idolatry (Col 3:5<\/span>).R.M.E.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

How Moses became mediator.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ten Commandments were a direct <\/em>communication from God to Israel. But it was too much for their sinful, terrified souls to stand, and so Moses is entreated to stand between God and them, and be the medium of communication between them. The Lord approved of the arrangement, and installed Moses into the office (cf. Exo 20:18-21<\/span>). This suggests<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CRY<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> A MEDIATOR<\/strong> AROSE<\/strong> OUT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FEARS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MEN<\/strong>. The surpassing glory of God makes such a terrific impression on the hearts of sinners that they cry instinctively for mediation. It is a need of mankind when aroused to a true sense of the majesty and purity of God. Those who question the necessity of mediation are really wanting in the due sense of God’s exceeding majesty and glory.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> OFFICE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A MEDIATOR<\/strong> NECESSITATED<\/strong> MUCH<\/strong> PERSONAL<\/strong> SELF<\/strong>–DENIAL<\/strong>. It was doubtless a great honor conferred on Moses; but it was also a great burden. Thus he declared his own fears in the circumstances. “I exceedingly fear and quake” was his testimony about the experience on the mount. Besides, the forty days’ seclusion and fast and all the attendant anxieties and troubles showed that it was most assuredly no sinecure. And these trials of Moses only faintly typify the severe strain and trial borne by Christ, the one Mediator between God and man.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEDIATION<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>–GIVING<\/strong>. Moses was to convey “the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments” of God unto the people. It was didacticits purpose was the conveyance of truth. It was a prophetic <\/em>office, consequently, which Moses in this instance received. The priestly <\/em>was made over to Aaron, on the principle of a “division of labor.”<\/p>\n

And so Christ is the great mediating Prophet. He came forth from the secret place of God to convey to us what God is. He came down from heaven. He testified about heavenly things (Joh 3:11-13<\/span>). And in the perfection of mediation, he embodied the truth, and was able to say, “I am the truth” (Joh 14:6<\/span>). Jesus was a living Law.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> RESULT<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MEDIATION<\/strong>. The whole Law was a “commandment with promise.” This is shown in Deu 5:33<\/span>. The children of Israel were to conduct themselves obediently as the children of God, and they would realize in all its breadth the promise of the fifth commandment. The Law was a Law of well-being (Deu 5:29<\/span>). Obedience was the condition of continued prosperity in the land. And the same arrangements continue. Obedience to God’s Law still secures the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. Not, of course, that the saints are always prosperous in this world; were this the case, saintship would be a very mercenary business. But other things being equal, the tendency of obedience is to present as well as future well-being. God makes no promise, but threatening, to the disobedient.R.M.E.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:1-25<\/span><\/p>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 6:1-3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Some connect this with what goes before, and take it as a sort of epilogue to the preceding discourse; but it is rather to be regarded as introductory to what follows. Being about to enjoin upon the people the commandments they were to obey in the land on which they were about to enter, Moses prefaces this with a general announcement of what he was about to deliver, and with a statement of the reason for such deliverance, and of the benefits that would flow from the observance of what should be enjoined.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

These are the commandments.<\/strong> In the Hebrew it is, This is the commandment<\/em>, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. the sum and substance of the Divine enactment; equivalent to “the Law” (Deu 4:44<\/span>). “The statutes and judgments” (rights) are in apposition to “the commandment,” and explain it.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The reason for this announcement of the Law was that the people might fear the Lord, so as to keep all that he enjoined, they and their children, from generation to generation, and that they might thereby continue long in life, and in the enjoyment of the advantages accruing from the land of which they were about to take possession.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

God had promised from the first to the patriarchs that he would make of their posterity a great nation (Gen 12:1<\/span>; Gen 17:6<\/span>; Gen 18:18<\/span>). But the fulfillment of this promise was conditioned by their continuing as a people in the fear of God, and in obedience to his Law. Everything, then, depended on their hearing what Moses had been commanded to teach them, and observing to do it (cf. Le Deu 26:9<\/span>, etc.). In the land<\/strong>, etc. This is to be connected with the clause, “that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily;” the land was to be the scene and sphere of their prosperity and increase. Some would render thus: “As the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee a laud,” etc; i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>a place in which thou mayest prosper and increase; the other, however, is the more natural construction and rendering. There is, indeed, no preposition before “the land” in the Hebrew; but nothing is more common in that language than for the accusative of a noun to be used adverbially to describe the place where anything is done. Milk and honey<\/strong>; emblem of fruitfulness and sweetness (So Deu 4:11<\/span>); proverbially descriptive of Canaan, as rich in pasturage for flocks, and abounding in flowers whence the bees could extract honey (cf. Exo 3:8<\/span>, Exo 3:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:4-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE<\/strong> FIRST<\/strong> AND<\/strong> GREAT<\/strong> COMMANDMENT<\/strong>. “In the fear of Jehovah all true obedience is rooted (Deu 6:2<\/span>, Deu 6:3<\/span>); for this is the first and most intimate fact in the relation of Israel and Jehovah (Deu 5:26<\/span>). But where the supreme fear of Jehovah hinders men from allowing self to preponderate in opposition to God, there will be no stopping at this renunciation of self-will, though this comes first as the negative form of the ten commandments also shows, but there will come to be a coalescence of the human with the Divine will; and this is love, which is the proper condition of obedience, as the ten commandments also indicate (Deu 5:10<\/span>)” (Baumgarten).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.<\/strong> This is an affirmation not so much of the moneity <\/em>as of the unity <\/em>and simplicity <\/em>of Jehovah, the alone God. Though Elohim (plu.), he is one. The speaker does not say, “Jehovah is alone God,” but “Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah” (comp. for the force of , Exo 26:6<\/span>, Exo 26:11<\/span>; Eze 37:16-19<\/span>). Among the heathen there were many Baals and many Jupiters; and it was believed that the deity might be divided and communicated to many. But the God of Israel, Jehovah, is one, indivisible and incommunicable. He is the Absolute and the Infinite One, who alone is to be worshipped, on whom all depend, and to whose command all must yield obedience (cf. Zec 14:9<\/span>). Not only to polytheism, but to pantheism, and to the conception of a localized or national deity, is this declaration of the unity of Jehovah opposed. With these words the Jews begin their daily liturgy, morning and evening; the sentence expresses the essence of their religious belief; and so familiar is it to their thought and speech that, it is said, they were often, during the persecution in Spain, betrayed to their enemies by the involuntary utterance of it.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

To the one indivisible Jehovah undivided devotion and love are due. Hence the injunction, Thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.<\/strong> The “heart” is the inner nature of the man, including his intellectual, emotional, and cognitive futurities; the “soul” is the personality, the entire self-consciousness; and the” might” is the sum of the energies, bodily and mental. Not by profession merely is Jehovah to be loved; the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, is to be yielded to him in holy and devout affection. The last letter Of the first word, and the last letter of the last word in this verse are larger than the ordinary size (majuscula<\/em>), <\/em>and as these two form the word for witness (), the Jews say that they are written thus “that every one may know, when he professes the unity of God, that his heart ought to be intent and devoid of every other thought, because God is a witness<\/em>, <\/em>and knoweth everything”.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:6<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 6:7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Where true love to God exists in the heart, it will manifest itself in a regard to his will, and in the diligent keeping of his commandments. Hence his words were to be not only in the memory of the people, but laid upon their heart (cf. Deu 11:18<\/span>), that they might be ever present to the thought and will. They were also to be inculcated upon their children, and to be the subject of conversation on all fitting occasions between them, the members of their household, and even their casual associates. Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children<\/strong>; literally, Thou shalt sharpen them to thy children<\/em>, <\/em>impress them upon them, send them into them like a sharp weapon.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The words of God were to be bound for a sign<\/strong> [a memorial or directory] upon thine hand<\/strong>, the instrument of acting, and to be as frontlets<\/strong> [fillets or bands] between thine eyes<\/strong>, the organs of direction in walking or moving, and so on the forehead, the chamber of thought and purpose; and they were to inscribe them on the posts of their houses, and on their gates. The purport of this is that they were constantly and everywhere to have these commandments of the Lord in view and in mind, so as to undeviatingly observe them. It seems, however, to have been a custom widely prevalent among the ancient Eastern peoples to carry about their persons slips of parchment or some other material, on which were written sentences of moral or religious import; and such sentences they were also wont to inscribe on conspicuous places of their dwellings; usages still to be found among the Moslems (see Wilkinson, ‘Ancient Egyptians,’ 3.364; Lane, ‘Modern Egypt,’ 1.358; Russell, ‘Nat. Hist. of Aleppo;’ Thomson, ‘Land and the Book,’ 1.216), and the latter of which was not altogether unknown among Western nations (cf. Virgil, ‘Georg.’ lit. 26<\/span>, etc.), of which traces may still be seen in Switzerland, Germany, and on old houses in both England and Scotland. This custom originated, probably, in a desire to have the sentiments inscribed always in mind; but for the most part these inscriptions came to be regarded as amulets or charms, the presence of which on the person or the house was a safeguard against evil influences, especially such as were supernatural. By the Jews this custom was followed; and they regarded it as authorized by the injunction of Moses in this passage. Taking his words literally, they had their ttphoth and their mezuzah, the former of whichthe phylacteries of the New Testamentwere strips of parchment, on which passages of the Law (Exo 13:2-10<\/span>, Exo 13:11-17<\/span>; Deu 6:4-10<\/span>, Deu 6:13-22<\/span>) were written, and these, enclosed in a box, were bound on the forehead and left wrist, and worn at prayers by the worshippers; the latter a slip of parchment, on which were written certain passages of Scripture (Deu 6:4-9<\/span>; Deu 11:13-21<\/span>), and which, enclosed in a reed or cylinder, was fixed on the right-hand doorpost of every room in the house (see arts. ‘Mezuzah’ and ‘Phylacteries’ in Kitto’s ‘Biblical Cyclopedia,’ 3rd edit.).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:10-12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As the Israelites were about to enter upon the possession of a rich and fertile land, where everything for their accommodation and comfort was already provided for them, there was a danger of their being so engrossed with their new possessions as to forget the Lord and his gracious dealings with them. They are, therefore, here warned against the danger to which they would be thus exposed. House of bondage<\/strong> (Exo 13:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:13-18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God.<\/strong> The fear of the Lordthat reverent awe which is akin to loveis the beginning of wisdom and the foundation of piety; where it is in the heart it will lead to serving of the Lord in holy obedience; and they in whom it dwells will swear by his Name, recognizing his presence and omniscience, and not daring to asseverate anything but what they know to be true. Thus, really believing in God and reverently worshipping him, the Israelites would be careful not to go after other gods, or to give to any object that homage which is due unto Jehovah alone, knowing that this he will not endure or suffer with impunity; for he is a jealous God, and them that thus dishonor him he will destroy (Exo 20:5<\/span>; Deu 4:24<\/span>, etc.). Thus also they should be kept from murmuring against God, and thereby tempting himputting him, as it were, to the proof, and calling in question his presence and his power, as they had done at Massah (Exo 17:1-7<\/span>). Without this genuine religious principle there will be no sincere worship, no true reverence, no real obedience, rendered unto God. But where this dwells in the heart it will influence the whole life, so that the commandments of God shall be diligently kept, and that which is good and right in his sight shall be done.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

To cast out<\/strong>, etc.; rather, to the castling out of<\/em>, <\/em>etc. The infin, here expresses the carrying out of the action intimated in the words,” that it may be well with thee” (cf. Exo 23:27<\/span>, etc.; Exo 34:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:20-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The injunction to teach the words of the Lord to the children (Deu 6:7<\/span>) is here more largely explained. When asked by their sons the meaning and reason of the commandments and institutes which they observed, they were to show them what the Lord had done for his people in bringing them out of Egypt and establishing them in Canaan, and how he had enjoined on them all these statutes that they might fear Jehovah their God for their good always, and for their preservation and safety.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:22<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Signs and wonders<\/strong> (cf. Deu 4:34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

And it shall be our righteousness<\/strong>; literally, And righteousness shall be to us<\/em>, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. we shall be held righteous by God if we observe to do all that he has enjoined (comp. Rom 10:5<\/span>; Rom 6:16<\/span>; Php 3:6<\/span>). Before the Lord<\/strong>, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>not only in his sight, but according to his judgment, so as to be approved of him (cf. Psa 56:13<\/span>; Psa 116:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 6:1-3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Obedience to God conducive to the highest good.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lord God had launched forth into the world a new nation, the basis of whose constitution was specifically religious. The worship, fear, and service of the one living and true God were the prime duties enjoined on the people, without which no bare morality as between man and man was accepted before him. In this paragraph, however, we get no indications of duty which have not previously been included in the ten commandments. How can we? The whole ground of duty was covered by them. Still, the same truths are ever being thrown into forms fresh and new. The primal laws of duty are not many; they may soon be recounted. But we need “line upon line, precept upon precept,” that the very precepts which perhaps we deem commonplace may be graven on our hearts, and there become living powers! In the three verses before us the enjoined duties are summed up in the one phrase, the commandment (Deu 6:1<\/span> : the word is singular, and includes in its meaning both statutes and judgments). Four expressions show how “the commandment” is to be kept.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> There is to be a fear of the Lord; a fear based on trust, not on distrust.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The Divine appointments are to be the rule of life.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The nurture and training of the family are to be in entire harmony therewith.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> This family loyalty to God is to be continuous and unswerving”all the days of thy life.” And in wealth and variety of diction the Legislator points out that in this loyalty of being Israel would find its well-being<\/em>. <\/em>Whence we get the topic for our present Homily: That our highest interests are ensured by the fulfillment of the Divine commands<\/em>. <\/em>Observe<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> SUPPOSED<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> MEN<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> BE<\/strong> INSENSIBLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> QUESTION<\/strong>“WHAT<\/strong> WILL<\/strong> BE<\/strong> MOST<\/strong> PROFITABLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> US<\/strong>?” As a matter of fact, they do <\/em>regard the measure of profit likely to accrue, as something which regulates their movements. Nor is there anywhere in the Word of God any censure passed on this. In fact, even our Savior himself appeals to considerations of profit in Mat 16:25<\/span>, Mat 16:26<\/span>. So also does the Apostle Paul in 1Ti 4:8<\/span>. The working of self-love is recognized without rebuke in the Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as <\/em>thyself;” and it is even remotely enjoined in the words, “Do thyself no harm.” The distinction between self-love and selfishness is very decided, yet is far too little noticed. Selfishness is having regard to our own interests in distinction from <\/em>those of others; self-love has regard to our own interests in harmony with <\/em>those of others. The first is sinful; the second is lawful; yea, more, to fight against our highest interests would be wrong. We may demur to the maxim that “utility is the foundation of virtue,” and rightly so, if “utility<\/em>“ <\/em>be taken in the selfish aspect thereof. But if by “utility” we mean “the tendency <\/em>to promote the highest good over the widest sphere, for all time,” then the maxim is lifted up to a higher level, and becomes <\/em>at least practically wholesome, even if it may be objected <\/em>to on philosophical grounds. If, then, we do but entertain a right and scriptural view of what our highest interests are<\/em>, <\/em>it is lawful for us, and even binding on us, to have a regard to them; and it is to the desire in that direction that the passage before us makes its appeal.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> SHOWN<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A COURSE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> IS<\/strong> APPOINTED<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> US<\/strong> BY<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. The appointments of God for us are specified here. We are to “fear the Lord.” Evidently this is to be a fear, not of dread, but of love; for see 1Ti 4:5<\/span>. In Psa 130:4<\/span> we read, “But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.” God forgives, and so takes away the fear of the offender, that the fear of offending may take its place. There is to be dread of sin, but not of God. The fear is to be suffused with tenderness and brightened with joy (Psa 33:1<\/span>). See the phrases in this section, even touching in their pathos”God, thy God,” “the God of thy fathers.” Yea, it is our own God who lays down our life-rules, and by all the force of his tender love would he win us to obedience.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> FOLLOWING<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S APPOINTED<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> WE<\/strong> ENSURE<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> OWN<\/strong> HIGHEST<\/strong> GOOD<\/strong>. (Psa 130:2<\/span>, Psa 130:3<\/span>.) The elements <\/em>of good which obedience ensures are:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Peace. We remarked above that the fear of God, which we are called on to cherish, is one based on trust. The Christian form of this is reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ in all the aspects in which he is revealed to us as ours. The effect of this is named in Rom 5:1<\/span>. Then there will be peace of conscience (see Isa 32:17<\/span>; Php 4:6<\/span>, Php 4:7<\/span>; Mat 11:29<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Harmony. Our nature will be in self accord when what we are and do corresponds to what we ought to be and do. There will be no schism between the judgment and the affections.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Health. Other things being equal, the man who is most obedient to God’s laws will have the soundest health in body, soul, and spirit. The gladsomeness and ease of a sound and well-balanced constitution will be his. Hence:<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Continuance will be a part of the reward”that thy days may be prolonged” (see Psa 91:16<\/span>; cf. Eph 6:3<\/span>; Psa 36:9<\/span>, 28, 34). The forms <\/em>in which the rewards of loyalty to God will show themselves are very varied. The individual <\/em>will find that godliness has “promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” The family <\/em>will find that “he blesseth the habitation of the just.” The city <\/em>will find that the keeping of God’s commandments is among the things “which <\/em>belong unto its peace.” And “the righteous nation which keepeth the truth” will find that “salvation doth God appoint for walls and bulwarks” (see Isa 26:1<\/span>, Isa 26:2<\/span>; Isa 48:17<\/span>). It is a remarkable instance of the Divine condescension to cur ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, that our God should stoop to teach us what is profitable to ourselves, and that he should deign in mercy to reward with honor and peace those who fear him (Psa 62:12<\/span>). Mercifully meeting us on the low ground on which we too frequently stand in looking out for profit, God would raise us up to the higher platform of a pure, self-abandoning self-forgetfulness and love, in which we are content to be nothing, that God may be all in all. For observe<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> APPARENT<\/strong> EXCEPTIONS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> RULE<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> EXCEPTIONS<\/strong> ONLY<\/strong> IN<\/strong> APPEARANCE<\/strong>. Sometimes obedience to God may be attended with a most unusual amount of affliction or of persecution. Take, e<\/em>.g<\/em>. <\/em>the roll of worthies referred to in Heb 11:32-39<\/span>. Can we say it was for their “profit” to serve God? Most certainly we can. For:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> By their endurance they became witnesses for God, and served their generation in the very way they would most have desired could they have seen as God sees.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Their afflictions were the means of purifying their characters, strengthening their principles, and ripening their virtues.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In the midst of all, God was himself to them” their exceeding joy;” and what they had in <\/em>him was, even on earth, an ample recompense for all that they had suffered for him.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> They had respect to the recompense of reward (Heb 11:10<\/span>, Heb 11:16<\/span>, Heb 11:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Their sufferings are long ago forgotten in the rest of the unseen state where they are “inheriting the promises” (Heb 6:12<\/span>). They had faith to believe them and patience to wait for them, and now they have entered into “the <\/em>rest.” Who need wish to change their lot for the smoothest and most prosperous career of a man “without God in the world?” Virtue may for a while seem “to have the worst of it,” but “they that are losers for God shall never be losers by him in the end.”<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> EXPECTED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RESULT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INTELLIGENT<\/strong> AND<\/strong> CULTURED<\/strong> FAITH<\/strong>, AND<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A BLIND<\/strong> ONE<\/strong>. Heb 11:1<\/span>, “The Lord your God commanded to teach you.” Nowhere has the adage, “Ignorance is the mother of devotion,” less warrant than in the Word of God. The priests of a spurious or alien faith may inculcate blind submission. Not so any of the inspired writers, whether legislators, prophets, or apostles. Men were to be taught not only what God required, but why he required it, that they might render him the homage of a heart quickened to love through the truth which reached the understanding and “commended itself to every man’s conscience.” God appeals to reason (Isa 1:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Deu 6:4-9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Truth and godliness to be perpetuated by means of home training.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In <\/em>this paragraph, the aged lawgiver rehearses the sum and substance of the Law he had delivered, and is showing what provision God had made in the structure of society for the maintenance and perpetuation of truth and godliness. It is easy to see how very incomplete his work would have been, had he not been guided to make provision for its perpetuation after his death. Doubtless God designs to use various kinds of workers in his field. Some may, like Whitefield, make a great impression while their oratory is swaying its thousands and tens of thousands. Others may be like Wesley, who not only moved the people for a generation by his pulpit power, but also prepared the way by his organizing skill for a great institution which should last for ages. Now, it is not for us to disparage one man because he does not do the work of another, but certain it is that, other things being equal, there is no comparison between the power of a man whose felt influence passes away with his life, and that of one whose works follow him, in the productions of his pen or the creations of his up-building skill. New, it was not by one like Aaron, eloquent though he was, that the continuance of the Hebrew faith and life was to be secured. He gives us no proof of stability or of that kind of power which ensures its own reproduction. That <\/em>was found in Moses, a man naturally slow of speech, who, in spite of his occasional outbreaks of vehemence, was yet a patient, wise, faithful leader, by whose practical genius provision was made for the permanence of Israel’s religious ordinances and life. Moved by the Holy Ghost, he called into existence those great institutions of worship and teaching, by means of which even we down to this day are feeling the impulses which started from Mount Sinai. In the six verses before us, we have what may be called a threefold appointment of God, which in all its essential features is as much in force now as ever. We propose to study it, not so much in its historical and local aspect, as in its bearing on us and on all men for all time.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> HERE<\/strong>, AT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BACK<\/strong> OF<\/strong> NATIONAL<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>, IS<\/strong> SET<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EXPRESSION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A CONDENSED<\/strong> THEOLOGY<\/strong>. “The Lord our God is one Lord.” Time was when this verse was quoted in the Socinian controversy in proof of the unity of God, as against the Trinitarians, though it has in fact no bearing on the matter at all. It refers, not to the nature of the Divine Being in himself<\/em>, <\/em>but is rather set over against the faiths with which Israel had been surrounded, of “lords many and gods many.” In contrast from polytheism, it declares that there is but one Great Supreme, who is the Lord of heaven and earth. And this is not the basis of Israel’s faith alone, but of ours likewise. We know more of God than the Hebrews did, but what they knew we retain. In atheism, the highest intellectual natures never can rest. Deism chills. Pantheism ignores personality. The God of the Bible, as revealed to us, satisfies the cravings of intellect and heart. In Jesus Christ, God is “manifest” as nowhere else. Nor should we leave out the touching word, “the Lord our <\/em>God.” We have one God and Father of all, to whom the vast and the minute are equally distinct, and by whose hand both are moved with equal ease; who, while he rolls the stars along, can take under his special sheltering love the widow and the fatherless; who hears the orphan’s moan and dries the falling tear. It is our inestimable privilege to know that infinitely above us, combined with an arm of mighty power, there is a heart of tenderest love, whose great concern it is to heal the wounds, to dry the tears, and obliterate the sins of a bleeding, weeping, guilt-stained world! What a revelation is this to our race! Well might Moses bid Israel “hearken”! For surely this one message to man, that there is a redeeming God whom he may call his own, is our gospel, our life, our joy, our crown!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> FRONT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CONDENSED<\/strong> THEOLOGY<\/strong>, WE<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> CONDENSED<\/strong> RELIGION<\/strong>. (Deu 6:5<\/span>.) The fundamental truth of theology is to be fruitful in practical godliness. God’s revelation of himself to <\/em>man is meant to be a redemptive power in <\/em>man. Man has heart, soul, strength, understanding, emotion, will, energy. God would have no schism in our being. Our varied parts and powers are to be in tune. There is no need for us to present the sad spectacle of the heart going one way, while duty and conscience point another. Apart from the dissipation of force which that involves, what reproach and self-loathing such inward discord must ensure! Now, we have one inner faculty, even that of love<\/em>, <\/em>which is meant to rule, and does in fact rule, the man. According to the love, so intellect thinks, emotion feels, will decides, life moves. Our text says, let love be all <\/em>concentrated on one grand objectGod! Let him have all (see Deu 10:12<\/span>; Deu 11:1<\/span>, Deu 11:13<\/span>, Deu 11:22<\/span>; Deu 19:9<\/span>; Deu 30:16<\/span>). Not even in the New Testament have we a greater commandment than this (Mat 22:37-40<\/span>). “The love of God which the gospel demands is more intensive and cordial than that which the Law of Moses demands of the Israelites, according to the gradual unfolding of the love of God himself, which was displayed in a much grandee and more glorious form in the gift of his only begotten Son for our redemption than in the redemption of Israel out of the bondage in Egypt” (Keil). Thus closely related are theology and religionGod as revealed to us in Christthat is theology; our love responding to God’sthat is religion. Without the first, in what could the religious faculty find a proper object? Without the second, infinite love is defrauded of its rights! Still, a third question naturally follows: granted that in this interlacing of theology and religion we have both interpreted in meaning and both realizing their aims, what means can be devised to ensure the preservation of both through generation after generation?<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A SPECIAL<\/strong> ARRANGEMENT<\/strong> DIVINELY<\/strong> APPOINTED<\/strong>, TO<\/strong> CONSERVE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> PERPETUATE<\/strong> BOTH<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The home is here supposed to be a center in which the conserving forces of truth and godliness are to be themselves conserved. What a profound principle Moses here indicates, viz. that a nation will be good or bad according to its home life! Wonderful! that an infant nation should, at starting, have this truth deep graven in its statutes;our land will be as our homes are!<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> In the home, our God looks to the parent to give it its character, tone, and influence. A child’s religious faith is, in a high and holy sense, to be chosen for him by anticipation, by those who were in Christ before” him.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The truths mentioned in sections 1 and 2 are to be in the parents’ heart, that they may be poured out anew from thence as rivers of living water. Hence the word in Deu 6:7<\/span>, “Thou shalt sharpen them;” coming fresh out of the sanctuary of a living soul, they are to be pointed, quick, and breathing truths.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> By a variety of ways, the parent is to see his child’s spirit early saturated with the truths of God.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> By talking of them, in the house and out of it (Deu 6:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> By exhibiting them, not only in the literal sense (see art. ‘Phylacteries’ ), but in a higher spiritual one.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> By writing them (Deu 6:9<\/span>; see art. ‘Mezuzah’ ). Thus the child is from the first <\/em>to be regarded as God’s child, to be trained for him. He is to receive God’s Word through the avenues of eye, ear, intellect, heart. Divine truth is to be ever before him, night and day, indoors and out. Those who gave him birth and who love him best, are to mold his young life for God; he is to grow up as the Lord’s rightful possession, with the view of his afterwards saying, in the spirit of devout surrender, “I am the Lord’s!” (Isa 44:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Note<\/strong>Whatever was essential in the days of Moses, in the training of children for God as the means of guarding a nation, is not less needful now (Eph 6:4<\/span>). The wider the range of human learning becomes, the more needful it should be rightly directed; otherwise the greater the attainment, the greater the peril!<\/p>\n

Deu 6:10-19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Dangers ahead! Beware!<\/strong><\/p>\n

The forecast of Moses is here directed to a period when Israel would have taken possession of the Promised Land (Deu 6:10<\/span>). There, their deliverance would be entire and complete. No longer would they he wanderers hither and thither, but would be occupants of a land that they would call their own. Neither from the nation to which they were once in bondage, nor from those which they were called on to supplant, would they fear aught any longer! And yet there is throughout this paragraph a voice of warning, as if danger would attend them still! It would be so. But the danger would be from within rather than from without: “When <\/em>thou shalt have eaten and be full; then beware lest thou forget the Lord,” etc. Whence, observe<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> NO<\/strong> AMOUNT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUTWARD<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong> CAN<\/strong> DELIVER<\/strong> A MAN<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> HIMSELF<\/strong>! By the time the state of calm was attained, which is here indicated, there would cease to be danger from hostile foes, at least for a while; but there would he perils of another kind, which would attend them even in the Promised Land. If Israel could have left themselves behind, it had been otherwise; but alas! go where they might, they must perforce take themselves with them, with all their liability to err, all the proneness to sin, and all the temptation to doubt or to pride. And not all the spears and slings of warriors could put the people in such peril as the corruptions of their own hearts! And so it is with us now and ever. We carry ourselves about with us everywhere; we cannot escape. There is within each one’s heart a “root of bitterness,” “a root that beareth gall and wormwood;” and let earthly circumstances be as fair, as easy, and as pleasant as they may, yet, unless we heed the danger within, they can do but very little to ensure our peace. And herein lies the great mistake of monasticism, as even Augustine reminded his hearers. He told them that it was vain for them to attempt to flee out of the world in order to escape corruption, for wherever they might be they would carry the evil within them. Never let us look to outer circumstances alone to ensure our entire rest. Not even a perfect world could bring us that, unless we were first made perfect.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> THREE<\/strong> PERILS<\/strong> SPECIFIED<\/strong> HERE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> EXPOSE<\/strong> US<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The first is that of “forgetting the Lord” (Deu 6:12<\/span>). When fields and vineyards and olive yards increase, and our cup is overflowing, then we are apt to lose sight of him to whom we owe all; and this not only in the receiving but in the using thereof (cf. Hos 10:1<\/span>). Too apt are we to say in our pride, “My river is my own; I have made it for myself.” So also are we apt to let our enjoyments conceal our God from view, and to think only of the mercies, while we forget to glorify God in the use of them. Nor is it any uncommon evil for men to be so set upon the enjoyment of this world’s comforts, as to forget almost or altogether that higher world for which they are bound to live, and that future life on which all soon must enter.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Another danger indicated is that of undue tolerance of the idolatries which were round about them (Deu 6:14<\/span>). One effect of prosperity is easy-goingness; and that, unless checked and guarded, will degenerate into a looseness of principle, whereby, under cover of suavity and amiability, respect for the convictions of others may come to be substituted by our having no very strong ones of our own. Nothing is more common than to see worldly aggrandizement attended by deterioration of moral sensibility.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> A third danger specified is that of “tempting the Lord” when prosperity meets with a check. This seems to be the danger indicated in Deu 6:16<\/span>, by a reference to “Massah” (see Exo 17:2-7<\/span>). At this place of sojourn there was a lack of water. The people murmured. They tempted the Lord and said, “Is the Lord among us or not?” As if they ceased to believe in God’s presence with them, the moment he made them thus feel their dependence upon him! Strange perversity! Yet how like ourselves! The course of worldly prosperity scarcely ever runs with absolute smoothness for many years together. And the self-will engendered and strengthened in times of ease leads men to repine and complain bitterly the moment that ease receives a check. In times of prosperity men forget God, and then when adversity comes they often complain as if God had forgotten them. How much does God see, even in the people he takes for his own special care, to tax his patience, and to try his long-suffering love!<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> BY<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GUARDING<\/strong> THEM<\/strong> BEFOREHAND<\/strong> AGAINST<\/strong> THESE<\/strong> PERILS<\/strong>, MOSES<\/strong> SHOWS<\/strong> ISRAEL<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTIES<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> THEY<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> DILIGENTLY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> OBSERVE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> They are to fear the Lord only (Deu 6:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> They are to swear by him only (see LXX<\/strong>. and Mat 4:10<\/span>), i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>to cherish a profound reverence for him as the Author of all mercies, and as the sole Regulator of their lives. The honor of his Name is to be supreme.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> They are to give the supreme affection of the heart to God, so that they may not provoke his jealousy (Deu 6:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> They are to serve him by constant obedience (Deu 6:18<\/span>). By the constant recognition of these four duties, they will do much to guard themselves from yielding to the perils attendant on their growing wealth and ease. Evil is most successfully counteracted by the positive and earnest pursuit of the opposite good.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> IF<\/strong> THESE<\/strong> DUTIES<\/strong> WERE<\/strong> LOYALLY<\/strong> DISCHARGED<\/strong>, EARTHLY<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> WEALTH<\/strong> WOULD<\/strong> GO<\/strong> TOGETHER<\/strong>. Deu 6:18<\/span>, “That it may be well with thee,” etc. Whether our earthly circumstances are helps or hindrances to us Godward, will depend much more on what we bring to them than on what they bring to us. And however, on the side of this life, things may favor us and circumstances befriend, it is only as they help us to serve God better that they are really blessings to us: it is “well” with us only when God is well pleased with us. So much stress did Moses attach to the maintenance of unswerving loyalty to God, that he intimates that the possession of the land is secured to them only so far as they are true to their Great Deliverer (Deu 6:18<\/span>, Deu 6:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> SINCE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TIME<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong>, THIS<\/strong> PARAGRAPH<\/strong> HAS<\/strong> BECOME<\/strong> FAR<\/strong> MORE<\/strong> SACRED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> US<\/strong>, BY<\/strong> THE<\/strong> USE<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> SAVIOR<\/strong> MADE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> A TIME<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SORE<\/strong> TEMPTATION<\/strong>. It is never to be forgotten, that our Lord repelled the tempter by the words, “It is written,” etc. Of the three passages used as weapons for the discomfiture of the evil one, two are taken from this very paragraph (see Mat 4:7<\/span>, Mat 4:10<\/span>). So that we are warranted in using it as our armory from whence we may fetch the darts which shall make the tempter flee. These precepts cannot be needed by us less than they were by the Son of man. From him let us learn a use of the Divine Word that may serve us in a thousand assaults of the destroyer. For not until we do this can we discover the varied uses to which we may put the Word of God in the actual struggle of life. We, like our Master, have to be made perfect through suffering. Now we may suffer from want, hunger, and privation; and at another time all the kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time, may be set before us, to dazzle by their glare. We need to take to us the whole armor of God, that we may be able to stand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Go wheresoever we may, let our surroundings be easy and prosperous as they may, dangers will attend us everywhere, till we cross the pearly gate across whose threshold sin never comes. At one time it may be that adversity makes us fretful and apt to tempt the Lord, and then at another prosperity may make us slothful, and a sinful indifference may lull us to sleep. Our chief dangers are from within. But here in this holy Book are promises to cheer us when drooping, and warnings to quicken us when sluggish. Here is an arsenal from whence we may fetch our weapons, and a storehouse whence we may draw our supplies. Yea, in this wondrous quiver there are arrows which will be sharp in the hearts of the King’s enemies, which shall pierce them to their fall!<\/p>\n

Deu 6:20-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The value of history in parental teaching.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Bible is preeminently a family Book. Israel’s national life was supposed to find its centers of strength and permanence in godly homes. It would not be easy to find words which should overrate the importance of such a principle as this. That a young nation should at the outset of its existence have this laid down as a first law of its life: “The land will be as its homes are;” is an indication of the Divine guidance which was vouchsafed to him on whom, under God, the foundation of its national life depended. In the paragraph before us there are seven lines of thought suggested.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> AS<\/strong> YOUNG<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> COMES<\/strong> NEWLY<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> BEING<\/strong>, IT<\/strong> FINDS<\/strong> ARRANGEMENTS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> AND<\/strong> PRECEPT<\/strong> READY<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HAND<\/strong>. Parental life holds a great trust in charge, to be committed to those who shall come after; that though one generation passeth away and another cometh, there may be no break in the continuity of holy thinking and living, from age to age. The Hebrews had their Law, which, as a revelation from God, was in advance of aught possessed by the rest of the world, and in which was couched the germ of larger truth that was to follow. There might be more light thrown upon it; there was never to be a forfeiture of it. Hence there were special reasons why parents should guard it intact for all the ages that were to follow. <\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> YOUNG<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> SUPPOSED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INQUIRING<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>. (Deu 6:20<\/span>.) It is not supposed that the children will lend themselves to either of two extremes: they will neither wildly tear up and obliterate “the old paths,” nor will they walk in them heedlessly and without inquiry. The course here indicated is that which any sensible, well-disposed youth would naturally follow. He would ask,” What mean,” etc. However a spurious priesthood may demand a blind and uninquiring faith, the Word of God never does anything of the kind. Reason is made for reverent inquiry, but it may be neither deified nor stultified. And what can be more charming than the honest, eager inquisitiveness of the young, asking for the reasons which govern the faith and worship that they find at work before their eyes? Specially delightful is such inquiry, when the parent is well able to give his answer.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> AWAITING<\/strong> THE<\/strong> YOUNG<\/strong> INQUIRER<\/strong> THE<\/strong> STORY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A GREAT<\/strong> DELIVERANCE<\/strong>. (Deu 6:21<\/span>, Deu 6:22<\/span>.) The rescue from Egypt always formed the grand historic background of Israel’s life. Here was a disclosure of Divine love and care, the like of which had never been known. The great institution of sacrifice revealed provision for pardoning love. The precepts for the individual, the family, the nation, told what sort of a people God would have them be; while the oft-recurring strains, “I gave Egypt for thy ransom,” “I brought thee up out of the land of bondage,” would evoke all their national ardor, and create and foster an historic pride. The life-histories, too, of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would tell of the blessedness of having God as their God: and these, instilled into the heart with all the sweetness of fond parental love, would lead the young Israelite, when the teaching was sanctified by God’s grace, to say right joyously, “This God shall be my God forever and ever!” Yes! the young life ever coming on earth is not to be left to grope its way. The light from the past is to be handed down for the ages to come, that sire and son and son’s son may rejoice in the same God, and ensure a blessed continuity of holy faith and consecrated life.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GREAT<\/strong> DELIVERANCE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> EFFECTED<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RESCUED<\/strong> PEOPLE<\/strong> MIGHT<\/strong> RE<\/strong> A NEW<\/strong> NATION<\/strong> WORTHY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. Deu 6:23<\/span>, “That he might bring us in, to give us the land which he swore unto our fathers.” And in this new relation they were to be witnesses for God (Isa 43:10<\/span>). They were to be a distinct, compact people, with faith, laws, and polity, higher than the rest of the world, holding in trust for mankind, till the fullness of times, much precious truth which was to find its outcome in a great, world-wide deliverance which should overshadow all; while the Israel of God was to merge into a spiritual Israel, made up of all who are Christ’s, known as a “peculiar people, zealous of good works.”<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> CONTINUED<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>, WORTHY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>, WOULD<\/strong> THE<\/strong> JUSTIFICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ISRAEL<\/strong>‘S FAITH<\/strong> AND<\/strong> OBSERVANCES<\/strong> BE<\/strong> FOUND<\/strong>. “It shall be our righteousness,” etc. (Deu 6:25<\/span>). It is scarcely possible to regard these words as having reference to any doctrine of justification by faith; for though, even as far back as Abraham’s days, that was a <\/em>doctrine, yet it was not formulated till the times of the gospel, by Paul. The meaning of the phrase seems to be: “This will be our justification of our position and claims; we claim to be a people of God, above all the nations that are on the face of the earth, and we shall vindicate that claim, not by words only, but by being what we profess to be.” Thus would the parent quicken his child, and stimulate and inspire him to be all <\/em>that his glorious faith bade him be<\/em>“holy unto the Lord his God!”<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> ARRANGEMENT<\/strong>, THE<\/strong> DIVINE<\/strong> BENEVOLENCE<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> AS<\/strong> MANIFEST<\/strong> AS<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S REGARD<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> OWN<\/strong> HONOR<\/strong>. Deu 6:24<\/span>, “To fear the Lord our God<\/em>, <\/em>for our good always.” The glory of God and the good of man are in harmony. So has God constructed the universe, so cloth he carry on his government, as to ensure that” they that honor him, he will honor.” “All things work together for good to them that love God.” “Great peace have they which love God’s Law; and nothing shall offend them.” “Godliness is profitable unto all things.” “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”<\/p>\n

VII.<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> ONLY<\/strong> WOULD<\/strong> ISRAEL<\/strong>, BY<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong>, ENSURE<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> OWN<\/strong> GOOD<\/strong>, BUT<\/strong> ALSO<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> CONTINUANCE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAND<\/strong>. Deu 6:24<\/span>, “That he might preserve us alive.” Repeatedly do we read that the prolongation of Israel’s days in the land depended on their loyalty to God. The land was given them, not for their own sakes merely, but for God’s. If they continued there, faithfully witnessing for him, the land would be continued to them; if not, they would have to quit, and give up the possession thereof to strangers. This is precisely the principle on which God governs the nations now. No nation can preserve itself in being by any other policy than that of obedience to God. Disloyalty to God and the right is the surest possible policy of decomposition. Even attempts at self-preservation which violate God’s laws will fail of their end. And is it not of vast significance that these are the principles by which the young life of a nation is to be molded? Whatever allowance must be made for changing circumstances, however true it may be that no nation now holds exactly the same place in the world that Israel did, yet it is also true that all the more substantial part of the seven lines of thought here indicated is unchanged and unchangeable. Christian parents are inheritors of the truth of God: they hold it in trust for their children: they, as they grow up, will inquire concerning it: its historic basis is the great deliverance effected by the Lord Jesus: Christians are now God’s peculiar people: they are redeemed that they may be holy, and that in holiness they may train succeeding generations: and just in proportion as through them loyalty to the truth and to God is leavening their posterity, are they bringing honor to the cause they espouse. Hebrews were to be conservative. Christians are to be also aggressive. We are to be “the <\/em>light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth.” By the light of God’s love we are to scatter men’s darkness, and by the salt of God’s truth are we to stay its corruption. And just so far as our nation is imbued with righteousness and truth, will it have within it the guarantee of its own perpetuation. The best defense is the armor of light. Without righteousness and the fear of God, not all the pretence and bragnot all the fleets or armies at command, can ever guard a nation from decay. “If the salt have lost his savor it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 6:1-3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Obedience the end of Law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

All the machinery of law is abortive, unless obedience be the result. As a mother teaches her children, giving them “line <\/em>upon line,” frequent repetition and variation, so Moses patiently taught Israel. He was “faithful in all his house.”<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> SEE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> INTERNAL<\/strong> EXCELLENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S LAW<\/strong>. It has so many qualities of merit, that no one word in human language can express them all. They are “commandments,” which word indicates the just authority from which they emanate. They are “statutes,” implying their fixed and permanent character. They are “judgments,” a description which denotes thoughtful deliberation, patient forethought, and sagacious decision. No greater benefactor can men have than a wise legislator. These Laws, if reverently observed, would have been “health to the marrow,” and life to the nation.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DESIGN<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S COVENANT<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> HEARTY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> COMPLETE<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong>. It was unprofitable for God to command, or for Moses to teach, unless the people obeyed; just as it is futile for the husbandman to plough his land, pulverize the clods, sow the seed, water his crops, if no harvest ensue. The end which God had clearly in viewthe only end worthy of him, was not Israel’s possession of Canaan, nor prosperity there; the final end <\/em>was obedience. The land was selected to be a theatre for practical righteousness. The land would be forfeited if righteous obedience did not abound. And obedience, to be acceptable, must be real. External conformity to law would not suffice. The whole soul must yield compliance. There must be harmony between man’s will and God’s. Obedience would foster reverence, and reverence would strengthen love. There is action and reaction amid the forces of the soul.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> PIOUS<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> ENTAILED<\/strong>. It is a moral inheritance passing from father to son. Formal and superficial obedience will not reproduce itself in others, will not bear seed of the true kind. But genuine, vital piety is contagious. If bad qualities are communicated, surely good qualities are also. Else truth would be feebler than error, virtue feebler than vice. Thorough, straightforward, transparent, cheerful piety is the greatest power in the world. For our children’s sake, and for our children’s children, let reverent obedience brighten and beautify our life!<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> PIOUS<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> PRODUCES<\/strong> PRESENT<\/strong> FRUITS<\/strong>. Its rewards are not wholly reserved for the future. On earth some advantages are reaped.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Length of days is a result<\/em>. <\/em>“Thy days may be prolonged.” A green old age is a beautiful thing. “The wicked shall not live out half their days.”<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Numerous progeny is a result<\/em>. <\/em>“Ye may increase mightily.” A growing population is universally regarded as a token of material prosperity. “They of the city shall flourish as grass of the earth.” Success in all enterprise is announced as an effect<\/em>. <\/em>“It shall be well with thee.”<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Robust health, domestic comfort, national peace, prolific harvests, security, contentment,<\/em> honor<\/em>,<\/em>these <\/em>are among the fruits to be anticipated. Obedience is an investment of moral capital, which brings largest and safest results.D.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:4-9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Love, the root-principle of obedience.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Attention is summoned for the reception of central truth, viz. the unity of the Godhead. At that period, this doctrine was in great peril. All the Orientals believed in “lords <\/em>many and gods many.” Science here confirms Scripture. The unity of design, running through all natural law and force, indicates clearly unity of the Creator. To know the true God is, for honest minds, to love him. But rebellion of heart has engendered repugnance towards Goddislike, hatred, enmity.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SOURCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ALL<\/strong> AUTHORITY<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A BEING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ESSENTIAL<\/strong> GOODNESS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> He<\/em> is<\/em> sole Monarch<\/em>, incomparable and unapproachable<\/em>. <\/em>He dwells alone, higher than the highest creature. The disparity between him and an archangel is immeasurable,<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> He is absolutely perfect<\/em>. <\/em>Every attribute and quality that is essential to perfection is found in him. “He is light,” having no dark shade anywhere.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> He<\/em> is the Source of life<\/em>: <\/em>Jehovahthe Livingthe Life-giving. All we have, and are, and hope to be, is derived from him.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> He<\/em> has deigned to come into intimate relation with us<\/em>. <\/em>He has made a voluntary compact with us. He calls us his people. He allows us to call Lira our God<\/em>. <\/em>We have a proprietorship in him.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> DESERVES<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CENTRAL<\/strong> PLACE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> HEARTS<\/strong>. Because of the moral beauty and essential goodness of our God, he is incomparably most worthy of human love. To give to any other a higher place in our affection than we give to God, would be an outrage against righteousness, fitness, and self-interest. For all these faculties and susceptibilities of the human heart have been fashioned by God himself, and have been fashioned for this very <\/em>purpose, viz. that we should bestow our worthiest love on him. If this eternal design be frustrated, there is violence, disharmony, misery within. Such love is commanded. It is a duty as well as a privilege. Though we cannot instantly and summarily command our love, we can indirectly<\/em>. <\/em>We can fix our thought on the worthiest object of love. We can contemplate his charms. We can appreciate his goodness. We can assure ourselves of his love. It is to be an intelligent, reasonable, practical love.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAWGIVER<\/strong> PRODUCES<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> LAW<\/strong>. Law is a projection of God’s thought, a mirror of his mind, an overt act of love. The true child will highly esteem every known wish of its father. To have practical direction from an unseen father will be treasured as a choice token of that father’s regard. If children, we shall hide every word of our father in our memory and in our love. Every wish of his <\/em>heart will be a visible feature in our <\/em>life. It may be painful to the flesh, but it will be pleasant to the soul. To the dutiful child, obedience is a luxury, a banquet of joy. “Oh!<\/em> how I love thy Law!” exclaims the pious Psalmist. “Thy Law is within my heart.” Thy Word is to me as honey, as the droppings of the honeycomb.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MOTIVE<\/strong>–POWER<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SPEECH<\/strong>. The tongue is the servant of the heart. We speak freely and fluently of that which is dear to our hearts. The child will speak freely of its toys anti games, the farmer of his crops, the artist of his works. If men esteemed and valued God’s Word, they would spontaneously converse of it, morning, noon, and night. It would be a painful restraint upon our desire if we withheld our speech. This precept of Moses need not be an external law imposed upon us from without; it may become the living law within, “the law of the Spirit of life.”<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> CONSTRUCTS<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MODEL<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S LAW<\/strong>. The hand <\/em>will become the instrument of righteousness. On it <\/em>will be written God’s Word, viz. industry, honesty, restraint, generous kindness, helpfulness. God’s Word will be our ornament. Instead of gold and jewels upon the forehead, “our adornment will be” modesty, chastity, cheerfulness, moral beauty. God’s Name will be indelibly inscribed upon our foreheads. Oar domestic affairs will be ordered by the Divine will. We shall write his Word on the posts of our houses. Every home in which love dwells will be a temple. Order, active piety, frugality, peace, mutual service, will be the principles conspicuous in godly homes. And our municipal and political life will be conducted on the same line of obedience. Legislation, justice, taxation, commerce, literature, art, will all be consecrated to God’s glory. As the flowers of earth send their fragrance heavenward, so from every act of ours a fragrance of homage should ascend to God.D.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:10-19<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The peril of prosperity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Secular prosperity is hazardous. Unless the ship have ample ballast in the hold, a strong gale, however favorable, will be likely to capsize the ship and bury her in the caverns of the sea. The greater our earthly abundance, the greater our need of religious principle.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WISE<\/strong> MEN<\/strong> INHERIT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FRUIT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OTHERS<\/strong>‘ LABORS<\/strong>. Under the leadership of God, the Hebrews inherited cities which the Canaanites had built, and vineyards which the Amorites had planted. If we knew all <\/em>the facts of the case, we should admire this as an act of righteous wisdom. We do <\/em>know that the iniquity of the Amorites was a cup full to the brim. The Hebrews, with all their faults, were a superior race. Similar displacements have gone on in all the lands of the world. It is an instance of the “survival <\/em>of the fittest.” Redeemed men are destined to be the lords of the earth. The Church shall possess and rule the world. “All <\/em>things are ours.” This inheritance of Canaan, with its cities and cattle and wealth, ought to have produced a deep sense of gratitude. All the Hebrews enjoyed they owed to the bountiful hand of God.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> SUDDEN<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A SEVERE<\/strong> STRAIN<\/strong> ON<\/strong> PIETY<\/strong>. The sense of daily and hourly dependence upon God for material food is an advantage; it is a constant incentive to gratitude and faith. Poor human nature cannot bear much indulgence. Poverty is more conducive to piety than wealth has ever been. Hence our Lord chose a state of poverty as most suited to his mission. “How <\/em>hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven!” So long as men continue in the flesh, they prefer a visible <\/em>God to an invisible. So they say to gold, “Thou art my god.” To be singular in religious belief and practice is always an arduous effort. The example of others has always been a sore temptation. Unless we can persuade them <\/em>by the three of our superior faith, they are sure to bias us injuriously. Our safety lies in a stalwart and fearless piety.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> TO<\/strong> FALL<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FAVOR<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FROWN<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> IS<\/strong> IMMEASURABLE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> COMPLETE<\/strong>. It would have been better for their peace and their reputation not to have inherited the land, than to be ejected from it again. It is a tremendous calamity, having been lifted high, to be thrown down. The effect of disloyalty among the Hebrews would not simply be a replacement in their former state; it would be destruction from the face of the earth. In the realm of morals, we cannot descend to a station we had occupied aforetime. If there is declension, retrogression, fall, it must be to a lower level than float <\/em>we formerly held. The penalties imposed by righteousness are complete and remediless. We may well “stand in awe and sin not.” It is perilous in the extreme to “try” God’s patienceto make experiments on the long-suffering of God. Suddenly<\/em>, <\/em>he “whets his glittering sword, and his hand takes hold on judgment.”<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> HOPE<\/strong> IS<\/strong> AN<\/strong> INSPIRATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> STRENGTH<\/strong>. Although Moses has addressed to them these cautions, and pointed out these perils, he will not think so meanly of them as to forecast their fall. He will cherish in his own breast the bright hope of their loyalty. He will call into exercise their own best principles and aspirations. He confidently predicts their wise and upward course, and sketches before their eyes their future greatness and security. Herein is wise generalship. If hope kindles her lamp in the human breast, all is not lost. This is Heaven’s cordial for a fainting soul.D.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:20-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The parental office.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Mosaic economy, the parental office is made prominent, and parental influence is pressed into service. All God’s arrangements for training mankind dovetail into one another.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A PARENT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> PROVOKE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong> INQUIRY<\/strong>. No greater folly can be perpetrated than the attempt to repress inquiry. Inquiry is the king’s highway to wisdom, and who dare block it up? God loves to hear honest inquiry. To afford instruction is the delight of the Divine Spirit, but what instruction will be valued if no spirit of inquiry is awake? Some questions which we ask can never be solved; they are beyond the range of the human mind. Some questions God will <\/em>not answer, because they are vain and useless. But honest questions, with a view to practical obedience, God delights to hear. You can do the young no better service than encourage their minds to inquire after religious facts. “What mean these things?”<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A PARENT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ANSWER<\/strong> FULLY<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>‘S QUESTIONS<\/strong>. It is childish folly to attempt to conceal our lowly origin. There is no real disgrace in an obscure parentage. To have been formerly enslaved, or imprisoned, or oppressed, through man’s injustice, is an honor, not a stigma of reproach. There is no real shame, except such as proceeds from wrong-doing. It will do us <\/em>good, it will do our children good, to see the “rock whence we were hewn, the hole of the pit from which we were digged.” It will foster humility, gratitude, contentment, trust. It will lead us afresh to adore the Divine goodness, and to count ourselves and our children the servants of this mighty God. Never let true Israelites forget that all they have they owe to God! Unto this state of happy privilege a Divine hand has brought us.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A PARENT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> OPEN<\/strong> UP<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S BENEFICENT<\/strong> INTENTION<\/strong>. If any man is too indolent to investigate truth for his own sake, he may be provoked to do it for his children’s sake. We should have such a firm conviction that every arrangement and command of God was “for our good always,” that we can demonstrate it to our children. Our knowledge of God and of his practical dealings should be so broad and clear that we might see and feel that his care for our good was paramount. This is the first and loftiest end he seeksnot our enjoyment, but our good<\/em>. Not to demonstrate his power, or his consistency, or his determination to conquer,these are not his foremost aims, but “our good always.” His costliest deed of condescension was the yielding of his Son to death. And where shall we seek the moving principle? In his own future glory merely? No! In his love for the world! Yet his glory, and man’s real good, are but the separate threads that make one cord.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A PARENT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> PROMOTE<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>‘S RIGHTEOUSNESS<\/strong>. “It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments.” No more conclusive argument can parents use; no loftier end can they contemplate. To become righteous<\/em>this is to be the lofty ideal we set before our children. But commensurate with the grand acquisition must be the care that we promote it by proper and practicable methods. It is impossible for guilty men to regain righteousness by their own efforts or merits. But real righteousness is provided for us by the bounty of God, and is offered to us in Christ as a free gift. “He hath brought in everlasting righteousness, which is for all and upon all that believe.” Our ambition for our children must be the highestnot that they be richly dowered, or learned, or placed in earthly rank, but that they may be internally and thoroughly righteous.D.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY J. ORR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 6:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Descending obligations.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> THEIR<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> INCLUDED<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong>. This has been a general principle in God’s dealings with his servants. We have it affirmed, both in the covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:7-15<\/span>) and in the later covenant with Israel (Deu 29:10-12<\/span>). It was signified in the rite of circumcision. The Israelitish child was regarded as within the covenant, a genuine member of the theocracy, till by a personal act of apostasyif unfortunately it should be sohe severed himself from its blessings. Similar language is used of the children of Christian believers (Act 2:39<\/span>; 1Co 8:1-13 :14). Received into the Church by baptism, they are recognized with their parents as interested in the promise; they are expected, on coming to years of discretion, freely to appropriate the obligations of the Christian life; and they are, in case of refusal, justly regarded as apostates from Christ.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> STANDING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong> ENTAILS<\/strong> SERIOUS<\/strong> OBLIGATIONS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Religious instruction <\/em>(Deu 6:6<\/span>, Deu 6:7<\/span>, Deu 6:20<\/span>; Exo 13:8<\/span>, Exo 13:14<\/span>, etc.). The children had not been personally at Horeb. They had not seen the mighty works of God in Egypt and the desert. It was the duty cf. parents to acquaint them with the history, and to instruct them in their duties.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Religious training<\/em>, <\/em>which is education in act, as instruction is education in word (Gen 18:19<\/span>; Deu 21:18<\/span>; Pro 29:15<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Religious example<\/em>. <\/em>The parent is to be one who loves the Lord for himself (Deu 6:5<\/span>). The Word is to be in his own heart (Deu 6:6<\/span>). Only thus will he teach with effect. All this has its counterpart in the duties of Christian parents (Eph 4:4; 1Ti 3:4<\/span>; 2Ti 3:15<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> STANDING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COVENANT<\/strong> ENTAILS<\/strong> SERIOUS<\/strong> OBLIGATIONS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong>. Where parental duties had been fulfilled, the Israelitish child was under the most sacred obligations to choose and adhere to the God of his fathers, and to serve him in the way prescribed. There was in this no interference with freedom, for when God proposes covenant relations to a human being, while it is his privilege, it can never be aught else than his duty to accept them. In the Christian Church, a like obligation rests on the children of believers. The baptized child is bound to serve God, and, if properly instructed (Mat 28:19<\/span>), it cannot evade the responsibilities thus laid upon it. Great is the guilt of a child brought up in a Christian home if wantonly it apostatizes.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:4<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 6:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The great commandment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GROUND<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong>. A just view of God. The view given in Deu 6:4<\/span> is as comprehensive as it is sublime. It embraces two parts mutually complementary.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> God<\/em>‘s absoluteness and unity<\/em>“Jehovah one.”<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> God<\/em>‘s personal relation to Israel<\/em>“Your <\/em>God.” The two are combined:<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In the covenant name<\/em>“Jehovah.”<\/p>\n

This, on the one hand, denotes God as the Eternalthe ever-living, the self-existent<\/em>, <\/em>and therefore self-consistent <\/em>One. On the other, it gathers into its rich significance the love, and truth, and faithfulness of centuries of gracious revelation. It will not awaken love to God to think of him merely as absolute Deity. It is the discovery of what else is contained in the Divine essence; above all, the revelation of his love, grace, and covenant-keeping faithfulness, which attracts affection. While, without <\/em>the revelation of God as one and absoluteexclusive, self-subsisting Deityit would be impossible to raise the demand for love to the requisite moral height. In Jesus Christ the revelation of God reaches its highest point. Only the Son could reveal him in the fullness of his glory and love.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HEIGHT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong>. It requires not merely that God should be loved, but loved with all the powers of our being, and with all the energy of these powers.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> With clear intelligence<\/em>“mind”. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> With undivided affection<\/em> “heart.” <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> With entire self-surrender<\/em>“soul.” <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> With strenuous energy<\/em>“might.”<\/p>\n

The right view of God is obviously presupposed in the command to love him. The command would be unmeaning as addressed to a polytheist, a pantheist, an agnostic, or even to a deist disbelieving in revelation. But this view of God being given, the demand, as obviously, could not be placed lower. God as Creator and Savior cannot accept a place in our affections lower than the supreme one. He will have this or none. It is due to our morally perverted state that this demand should ever be felt by us to be unreasonable. Pure beings would not feel it to be so. They would delight in the exercise of love to God, and find it natural and easy. The angels, Christ, the just made perfect, love the Father thus. Nor ought the height of this demand unduly to discourage us. Love to God is truly begotten, though not yet perfected, in every heart which has made choice of God as its supreme Portion, and cleaves to him with constancy. God has the ruling place in such a heart, and it needs but growth to raise our love to its required purity and vigor. What is left unattained on earth will be attained in heaven.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:6-9<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 6:20-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The religious education of children.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A matter much insisted on in these addresses (cf. Deu 11:18-22<\/span>). We learn<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong> EDUCATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> IS<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S WAY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> PERPETUATING<\/strong> VITAL<\/strong> RELIGION<\/strong>. Without this, religion would soon die out; with it, a holy seed will be kept up in times of greatest declension.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong> EDUCATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> DEVOLVES<\/strong> PRIMARILY<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PARENT<\/strong>. The Church, Sunday schools, etc; may assist, but nothing can relieve the parent from this duty, or compensate for his neglect of it (Eph 6:4<\/span>; 2Ti 1:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong> EDUCATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> CONDUCTED<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> GREAT<\/strong> CARE<\/strong> AND<\/strong> FAITHFULNESS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Very diligently <\/em>(Deu 6:7<\/span>). It is to be gone about most painstakingly and systematically. “In thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” There is need for specific teaching at regular times, but the text indicates a broader view of this part of parental duty. An element pervading the whole life, blending with all occupation, insinuating its pleasant influence in all our intercourse with our children.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Very particularly <\/em>(Deu 6:21-25<\/span>). A specimen is given of the careful instruction parents are to study to impart.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Taking advantage of a child<\/em>‘s natural curiosity <\/em>(Deu 6:21<\/span>). The principle of curiosity is strong in children. It early manifests itself in reference to religion. The Bible, with its delightful variety of story, parable, proverb, etc; is peculiarly adapted for the instruction of the young.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:8<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Deu 6:9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

God’s words to be valued.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The usages to which allusion is made suggest<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DUTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A HIGH<\/strong> VALUATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S COMMANDS<\/strong>. Only precepts highly valued would be treated as described.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NECESSITY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> TAKING<\/strong> MEANS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> SECURE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> KEEPING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S COMMANDMENTS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> REMEMBRANCE<\/strong>. We may keep the injunction in spirit:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> By frequent reading of Scripture (Psa 1:2<\/span>; Psa 119:11-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> By frequent converse with others (Mal 3:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> By frequent recalling of God’s words to our thoughts (Heb 2:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> By the use of such expedients as experience suggestsa privately, marked Bible, etc.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> IMPORTANCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CARRYING<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S COMMANDMENTS<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> EVERY<\/strong> DETAIL<\/strong> OF<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>. Hands, eyes, doorposts, etc.-our working, seeing, home occupations, etc.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:10-16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The creature displacing the Creator.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PRONENESS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HEART<\/strong> TO<\/strong> ADMIT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WORLD<\/strong> INTO<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S PLACE<\/strong>. (Deu 6:12<\/span>.) The tendency is universal. A result of the Fall, in subverting the original constitution of man’s nature. That result twofold:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In giving to the worldly and sensuous principles in the soul an undue predominance; while:<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Destroying that love of God, and sense of dependence on him, which would counteract their operation. There may be no “going after other gods” in the sense of Deu 6:14<\/span>, yet the first commandment may be broken by making the world itself our godgiving it the place of the true God in our affections. The principle of worldliness usually operates secretly. The heart is “secretly enticed,” does not perceive the progress of its declensions (Hos 7:9<\/span>), fights against the admission of it (Re Deu 3:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PECULIAR<\/strong> CONNECTION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> TEMPTATION<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong>, (Deu 6:10<\/span>, Deu 6:11<\/span>.) Not, indeed, so peculiarly connected with it, but that the poor man may fall into the same snare. But riches unquestionably constitute a temptation which few succeed in resisting (cf. Deu 8:11-19<\/span>; Pro 30:8<\/span>, Pro 30:9<\/span>; Mat 19:22-27<\/span>; 1Ti 6:9<\/span>, 1Ti 6:10<\/span>, 1Ti 6:17<\/span>, etc.). The temptation is the greater:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> If worldly possessions are very abundant <\/em>(Deu 6:11<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> If the prosperity, is sudden <\/em>(Deu 6:10<\/span>, Deu 6:11<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> If it is freely enjoyed <\/em>(Deu 6:11<\/span>)”hast eaten, and art full” (Deu 8:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SAFEGUARDS<\/strong> AGAINST<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> TEMPTATION<\/strong>. There are <\/em>safeguards. Bible examples show that riches may <\/em>be used with glory to God, happiness to self, and good to mankind (Abraham, Joseph, Job, Daniel, etc.). Among the foremost we would place the cultivation of a thankful spirit (cf. Deu 8:10<\/span>)the remembrance of God as the Giver of what we have; also the remembrance of God’s past mercies to us (Deu 6:12<\/span>, Deu 6:13<\/span>). Other safeguards are:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Serving God with our possessions <\/em>(Deu 6:13<\/span>). The serving will include serving with our wealth, using what he has given for his glory, as good stewards, and not luxuriously and wastefully spending all on self (Luk 12:15-21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Making public acknowledgment of God <\/em>(Deu 6:13<\/span>). The spirit of this command is kept by being willing, on all proper occasions, boldly and without shame to avow God to be our God. The man of wealth who will do this is carried at one stroke above half the dangers of his position.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Non-conformity to the world<\/em>‘s ways <\/em>(Deu 6:14<\/span>). It is not easy to avoid being led away by fashion, love of appearance, social custom, etc. The good man will beware of the snare, and keep aloof (Rom 12:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PENALTY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> YIELDING<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> TEMPTATION<\/strong>. (Deu 6:15<\/span>.) God’s wrath is kindled and destroys the transgressor.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> He is destroyed spiritually<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> He may be temporally <\/em>(Psa 37:35<\/span>; Psa 73:18<\/span>, Psa 73:19<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> He will be eternally<\/em>.J<\/em>.O<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Tempting God.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wealth has its temptations; so has poverty. It incites to unbelieving murmurs, and to a spirit called here “tempting the Lord.” <\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> NATURE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> SIN<\/strong>. The peculiarity of it deserves to be carefully studied. It is apt to be taken for granted that “tempting God” means simply provoking him to anger. This, however, is a sense of tempting scarcely applicable to the Divine. God can be provoked to wrath, but he is not “tempted” thereby (Jas 1:13<\/span>). “Tempting,” in the sense of the text, means “putting to the proof,” “imposing tests.” Professor Tyndall’s famous proposal of a prayer test would have fallen under this description. That this is the right view of the sin is plain from the narrative, and from allusions in the Psalms. “They tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exo 17:7<\/span>). “They tempted God in their hearts they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?” (Psa 78:18-20<\/span>). In this view of it the appositeness of the Savior’s quotation of the passage becomes more obvious (Mat 4:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> OCCASION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SIS<\/strong>. A result of the want of food and water. Poverty suggests this class of doubts, and inspires the thought of putting God to some test of his faithfulness. But the temptation may originate in other causesin intellectual doubt, in a sign-seeking spirit (Mat 16:1<\/span>), in downright presumptuousness.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EVIL<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> SIN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Its root of unbelief<\/em>. <\/em>It is a “limiting of the Holy One of Israel” (Psa 78:41<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Its querulous impatience<\/em>. <\/em>Instead of trusting God, waiting upon him, and seeking light and help in a proper spirit, it flies in God’s face, accuses him of unkindness, and complains of his injustice.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Its<\/em> daring presumption <\/em>in presuming to lay down rules to the Almighty, to which he is required to conform. God brings us into situations of trial, not that we may apply tests to him<\/em>, <\/em>but that he may test ustest our faith, our patience, our humility. For those who come successfully through the trial there is the great reward of having dark things at length cleared up, and of being purified and strengthened by the struggle. Failure, on the other hand, exposes to severe chastisements.J.O.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our righteousness.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As contrasted with Pauline sayings, the text is an illustration of the maxim, “On the outside of things look for differences, on the inside for likenesses” (Hare). The form is that of the Law, the spirit is that of Christ, whose gospel is the key to the Law’s utterances.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> A REQUIREMENT<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> ONE<\/strong> ONLY<\/strong>, VIZ<\/strong>. CHRIST<\/strong>, HAS<\/strong> PERFECTLY<\/strong> FULFILLED<\/strong>. “This is the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness” (Jer 23:6<\/span>). He “is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom 10:4<\/span>). How? In the strictly legal, as in the strict ideal sense, righteousness requires an absolutely perfect fulfillment of every one of God’s commandments. The Jewish covenant required no less. The Jews were to live in their righteousness, i<\/em>.e<\/em>. <\/em>in perfect keeping of the whole Law. But in point of fact, no Jew ever rendered perfect obedience. In many things, like others, he offended, and the covenant footing was only maintained through daily pardon of daily offences. Christ is our Redeemer from the curse thus entailed by transgression (Gal 3:13<\/span>). As the Lord’s righteous Servant, and Fulfiller of the Law, he has implemented the condition of acceptance in such a way that his obedience carries with it results to others as well as to himself (Rom 5:17-21<\/span>). In him the believer is justified. He claims him as the Lord his <\/em>Righteousness. Christ has for him at once fulfilled the Law’s precept, and abolished its penalty. Sinful in himself, in Christ his sins are covered, and justification is obtained (Rom 3:22-27<\/span>; Rom 8:1-4<\/span>; 1Co 1:30<\/span>; 2Co 5:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A REQUIREMENT<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> BELIEVERS<\/strong> IS<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> ENABLED<\/strong> TO<\/strong> FULFILL<\/strong>, THOUGH<\/strong> IMPERFECTLY<\/strong>, YET<\/strong> ACCEPTABLY<\/strong>. The utmost that the Jew could render was that imperfect but sincere obedience which is still the mark of the true believer. The believer’s duty <\/em>is to render a perfect obedience; his privilege <\/em>is that, falling short of this, his sincere though faulty obedience will be graciously accepted for the sake of Christ. In harmony with his calling, it was to be the Jew’s aim to realize the righteousness which the Law set before him. But in his inability to do this the weakness of the Law revealed itself, and in contrast with this weakness (Rom 8:3<\/span>) is the power of the gospel, enabling the believer to triumph, and to bring forth fruit unto holiness, the end of which is everlasting life (Rom 6:22<\/span>). This also is a “righteousness of faith,” as springing from faith, and rendered possible through it. It is his <\/em>righteousness, yet in a deeper sense not his, but Christ’s, for it is the work of Christ living in him (Gal 2:20<\/span>). It is not the ground of acceptance, but a result of it; not a title to heaven, but meetness for it. It is itself a gift of grace, part of Christ’s salvation (Mat 5:6<\/span>; Eph 5:9<\/span>, Eph 5:10<\/span>; Php 2:12<\/span>, Php 2:13<\/span>; 1Pe 2:24; 1Jn 3:7-10<\/span>; with Rom 6:1-23<\/span>; Rom 7:1-25<\/span>; Rom 8:1-39<\/span>.).J.O.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 6:1-5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The essence of the Decalogue is love.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moses here applies the Decalogue to their present circumstances. He wishes them to enter Canaan in an obedient spirit. He knows that the well-being of the commonwealth depends upon it. To assist them in the understanding of the Law, he sums it up in one all-embracing principle of love. God as the supreme object is to receive the homage of the entire nature of man.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> MOSES<\/strong> INSISTS<\/strong> ON<\/strong> THE<\/strong> <\/em>UNITY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> ABSOLUTE<\/strong> CHARACTER<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. This would distinguish Israel from the polytheists around them. “Jehovah our Mighty One is one Jehovah”the uncaused, self-existent One in his absolute unity and strength. All perfection <\/em>is thus briefly attributed to him.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> CAN<\/strong> BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> OBJECT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong>. His unity is not an unsocial thing. Within his being there are social qualities demanding, and from all eternity receiving<\/em>, <\/em>satisfaction. Hence we believe in what Jon. Edwards called a “social Trinity.” Our social nature is the reflection of God, since we were made in his image. His unity does not <\/em>imply that in the by-past eternity, before anything was made, he was alone. It was the fellowship of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”three Persons in the one Godhead. The Trinity makes God lovable, for it is the condition of the satisfaction from all eternity of his social qualities.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> DESERVES<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> WHOLE<\/strong> BEING<\/strong>. Heart, soul, and might are to be enlisted in this service<\/em>. <\/em>Our love to him should be intellectual <\/em>and also emotional; it should be passionate and strong; an all-embracing energy of our nature.<\/p>\n

All our faculties are appealed to by the Divine nature.<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Our understanding <\/em>is enlisted by God as the Infinite Mind<\/em>. <\/em>All our intellectuality finds its counterpart and culmination in the infinite intellectual powers which God possesses and exercises. We rest upon his superior intellectual <\/em>power.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Our affections <\/em>are enlisted by God as the Fountain of affection<\/em>. <\/em>God is a Heart of unspeakable tenderness as well as a Mind of infinite grasp. And so he elicits the love of the heart as well as of the mind.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Our will <\/em>is swayed into passionate devotion by God as the Infinite Will<\/em>. <\/em>If the spectacle of will in resistless benevolence commands the homage of our powers, then God entrances <\/em>our whole will-power into passionate devotion.<\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Our strength <\/em>is enlisted by God as the embodiment of vital energies and powers in their highest form. So that as a matter of fact, God fits into every fold of human nature and elicits its loving and adoring homage.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> LOVE<\/strong> MAKES<\/strong> LAWKEEPING<\/strong> DELIGHTFUL<\/strong>. The Law is not a pain to any who love the Lawgiver. Love is the essence <\/em>of true loyalty. It makes service freedom. It is this which we must cultivate daily, and then life becomes delightful.R.M.E.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:6-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Family training is to propagate the Law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Law has as its essence love. In the family, love’s home and circle, this Law is to be propagated. And here we are to notice<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> IDENTIFY<\/strong> THEMSELVES<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>‘S CAUSE<\/strong>. The Jews were directed to wear portions of the Law upon their persons. This is the sign of identification with it in a rude age. The idea is parental profession<\/em>, <\/em>a glad identification of themselves with the Lord’s cause.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HOME<\/strong> IS<\/strong> ALSO<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> CONSECRATED<\/strong> AS<\/strong> A GODLY<\/strong> HOME<\/strong>. God’s Law was to be written on the posts of the house and on their gates. This, like the last, meant the identification of the house with God’s cause. Now, there is as much difference between an ungodly home and a godly one as between an unconverted person and a converted one (cf. Pressense’s ‘La Famille Chrenenne,’ a most admirable course of sermons).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CHILDREN<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> MANIFESTLY<\/strong> MEANT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> COMPANIONS<\/strong> OF<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PARENTS<\/strong>. The little ones are to have their parents’ society at home and abroad, at morning and night (Deu 6:7<\/span>). The mistake made by many parents is not making themselves sufficiently companionable. It is companionship that after all determines the bent of children. <\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HOME<\/strong> TRAINING<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> RELIGIOUS<\/strong>. God’s Law is to be brought, in, morning, noon, and night, as the great interest. Of course, if parents are to do this as God intends, his Law must be a great personal interest to themselves. They must delight in it and love it, and make it a matter of study continually.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> AMID<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SECULARITIES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> EDUCATION<\/strong> THE<\/strong> HOME<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> BE<\/strong> THE<\/strong> MAINSTAY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> RELIGION<\/strong>. With the parent the responsibility of training and interesting the children in religion eventually rests. To the well-ordering of Christian homes, Church and State must alike look as the last refuge. The adjustment of rival interests in education is well-nigh impossible, and so it becomes all the more needful that the home should be made to supply the religious element, whatever course educational arrangements and legislation may take.<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> PROSPERITY<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> ENGENDER<\/strong> ATHEISM<\/strong>. This is the warning here given to Israel. God might be forgotten amid the success and prosperity of Canaan. For it is prosperity, not adversity, which as a rule engenders atheism. The prosperity of the prodigal led him away to the far-off land of forgetfulness of God, while his adversity brought him back (Luk 15:11-32<\/span>).R.M.E.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

II. THE SECOND DISCOURSE<\/p>\n

Deuteronomy 5-26<\/p>\n

The text-the decalogue, the foundation of the covenant, the kernel of the whole law, and the fundamental condition of all salvation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1<\/span> to Deu 6:3<\/span><\/p>\n

1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in [before] your ears this day, that ye may learn 2[and learn] them, and keep,1<\/span> and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even<\/em> us, who are<\/em> all of us here alive [living] this day. 4The Lord talked with 5you face to face in the mount, out of the midst of the fire. (I stood [was standing] between the Lord and you at that time, to shew [announce to] you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of [before]2<\/span> the fire, and went not up into the 6mount,) saying, I am<\/em> the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of3<\/span> bondage. 7Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8Thou shalt not make thee any<\/em> graven [idol] image, or<\/em> any likeness of anything<\/em> that is<\/em> in heaven above, or that is<\/em> in the earth beneath, or that is<\/em> in the waters beneath the earth: 9Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am<\/em> a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto [and upon] the third and [upon] fourth generation<\/em> of them that hate me, 10And shewing mercy unto thousands [the thousandth] of them that love [loving] me, and keep [and keeping] my commandments. 11Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain4<\/span> [to a nonentity, falsehood]: for the Lord will not hold him<\/em> guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. 13Six days thou shalt labour, and do 14all thy work; But [and] the seventh day is<\/em> the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it<\/em> thou shalt not do any work, thou nor [and] thy son, nor [and] thy daughter, nor [and] thy man-servant, nor [and] thy maid-servant, nor [and] thine ox, nor [and] thine ass, nor [and] any of thy cattle, nor [and] thy stranger that is<\/em> within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. 15And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that<\/em> [om.<\/em> that] the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through [with] a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day. 16Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, 17, 18in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Neither 19shalt thou commit adultery. 20Neither shalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 21Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbours wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbours house, his field, or [and] his man-servant, or [and] his maid-servant, his ox, or [and] his ass, or [and] any thing<\/em> that is<\/em> thy neighbours. 22These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more5<\/span> and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. 23And it came to pass, when [as] ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for [and] the mountain did burn [was burning] with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even<\/em> all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; 24And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory, and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25Now [And now] therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: 26if we6<\/span> hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of<\/em> all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have<\/em>, and lived? 27Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee;7<\/span> and we will hear it<\/em> [thee], and do it<\/em>. 28And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. 29O that there were [who will give] such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their [sons] children for ever! 30Go say to them, Get you into your tents again. 31But as for thee [and thou] stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them<\/em> in the land which I give them to possess it. 32Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be<\/em> well with you, and that<\/em> ye may prolong your<\/em> days [live a long time] in the land which ye shall possess.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:1<\/span> Now these are<\/em> the commandments, [And this is the commandment]8<\/span> the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them<\/em> in the land whither ye go [pass over] to possess it: 2That thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy sons son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. 3Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it;<\/em> that it maybe well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised [spake to] thee, in [om<\/em>. in] the [a] land that floweth with milk and honey.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Deu 5:1-5<\/span>. In distinction from spake<\/strong>, Deu 1:1<\/span>, here not to show the public nature of his discourses (Schultz) for that was already sufficiently clear, through all Israel<\/strong>, but the loud voice, with which Moses sought to reach all as far as possible. Gen 49:1<\/span>; Joh 7:37<\/span>. Comp. upon Deu 4:1<\/span>. There , because as yet introductory, but here where the substance of the law is to be repeated, and accordingly instead of here , in both cases the participle indicating the condition: as ye see and hear. , to keep<\/strong>, is necessary both for its own conduct, and for the office of Israel among the nations (Deu 4:2<\/span>; Deu 4:6<\/span>). [Bib. Com. The recapitulation of the law upon which Moses now enters was suggested by the fact that the generation to which it was originally given was now dead, by the change about to take place in the circumstances of Israel, through their actual settlement in the land of promise, and by the approaching decease of the great law-giver.A. G.]. Deu 5:2<\/span>. The peculiar character of the covenant as of God with Israel, has appeared already in a similar connection, Deu 4:1<\/span> (Doct. and Eth. 13). The law as an intermediate step in the development of the covenant, does not essentially modify the latter (Gal 3:17<\/span>) since the law is at the same time pedagogically a promise (Gal 3:24<\/span> sq.). The time of the promise also is not without law, the Noachic and Abrahamic preformations of the law being simply overshadowed by the promise. Deu 5:3<\/span>. That which is new and peculiar in this covenant<\/strong>, not with the fathers<\/strong> (i.e.<\/em>, the patriarchs) but with Israel, the characteristic of the historical development is merely the greater prominence of the law, and indeed as a national code, and as a preparatory step toward the salvation of all nations. Israel now has the same significance for the whole race which the fathers had for Israel (Deu 4:37<\/span>). But although the negative statement throws light upon the character of the covenant, it contains much more, which the positive statement expresses, as to its direct relation to the present generation, who are thus distinguished from the fathers. There may be a reference also to the fathers in Egypt, (Calvin) in so far as they represent the first step in the development of Israel to a nation, whose actual existence as a nation is here prominent. And since the present Israel has escaped the judgments which overwhelmed the former Israel in death, so we seem to see the forms of the fathers, whose bones lie bleaching in the wilderness. But Moses intends to say, not the fathers, whoever they may be, but we are the people, whom it concerns, whose faith and obedience come into view (Deu 4:4<\/span>). [But with us<\/strong>.The original is very emphatic: with us, even us, all of us<\/strong> living.A. G.] This direct relation of the covenant unto them is further shown by the manner of its conclusion: face to face<\/strong> ( instead of ). If it is not indicated in the words used, there is in fact a great difference between the manner in which the revelation spoken of here, and that made to Moses (Deu 34:10<\/span>; Exo 33:11<\/span>) was effected, and Deu 5:5<\/span> states concisely the mediatory position which Moses in forming the covenant occupied (Exo 19:19<\/span> sq.) on account of the fear of the people. [Moses was in the mount while the ten commandments were spoken. Although they were not addressed to him in distinction from the people, yet he even then occupied a mediatory position, which became more conspicuous after the terror and request of the people.A. G.]Upon the word of the Lord<\/strong> (not the ten commandments), comp. Deu 5:24<\/span> sq.; Exo 19:21<\/span> sq.; Deu 20:19<\/span> sq. refers remotely to , Deu 5:4<\/span>, and more nearly to , Deu 5:5<\/span>, which takes up again the thought of .<\/p>\n

2. Deu 5:6-21<\/span>. After the parenthesis, Deu 5:5<\/span>, follows the decalogue as the foundation of the covenant, Exodus 20<\/span>. The law, the determination for man, can only come from Him who alone and over all is self-determined, i.e.<\/em> from God, and from God as Jehovah, Deu 5:6<\/span> (the entire moral code of the decalogue roots itself in the name of Jehovah. Baumgarten). The eternally unchangeable, because He demands the obedience of faith (not simply the moral imperative), must not merely reveal Himself, but in His revelation to Israel must show Himself as the true and faithful God.Thy God<\/strong>.With this initiatory statement, which concentrates within itself the life-thought of the Israelitish nation, is closely connected the historical statement of the redemptive work already accomplished: which brought thee out<\/strong>, sq.All that follows naturally addresses itself to Israel. Deu 5:7<\/span>. The form of a prohibition, because with the allusion to Egypt, the apostate heathen world comes into view over against Israel, and Israel must say in its heart, not<\/strong>, sq., to which my heart is all too much inclined. [As the law is not alone for Israel, but universal, the prohibitory form has a deeper ground than any enactments growing out of the relations of Israel to the heathen worlda ground in the perverse inclinations of the heart as fallen, to go wrong.A. G.] Since denotes the only or self-existent being, and this being is the God of Israel, there cannot be<\/strong> ( ) for Israel any other God, either in His stead (substitution in the gross forms of idolatry), or even () in addition to, by the side of, or over and above Him (the co-ordination in the more refined systems of idolatry), Isa 42:8; 1Co 8:4-5<\/span>. Heidel. Catechism, Question 95. It is ever another<\/strong> than the only true God in His revelation (), Deu 5:4<\/span>. denotes a second one, following, whence in the plural form, thus polytheistically ( ), contradicts the unity and exclusiveness of Jehovah; but then also as implying a being other than the being, namely, a not-being, a nonentity. Heathenism is thus pointed out as an apostacy from the primitive monotheism, or as a sickly form of the God-consciousness, Romans 1<\/span>. Comp. J. Grimm, German Myth. I.:<\/em> All mythologies show this relation. Upon Deu 5:8<\/span> () comp. Deu 4:16<\/span>; Deu 4:15<\/span>; Deu 4:12<\/span>.In the heavens<\/strong> (Deu 4:17<\/span>), i.e.<\/em> of birds, although also (Deu 4:19<\/span>) of the stars. The way to idolatry is marked out and enclosed instructively in the ever-deepening shades of heathenism, i.e.<\/em> of the human heart left to itself. First comes the falling away from the true God; then the falling into the service of false gods. If Jehovah in the first relation is the only living God, He is also in this second reference the one who is only and purely spirit. Idolatry in one aspect is an improper multiplication of, or addition to, the idea of God, and in another an equally improper division or subtraction from it. We pass in Deu 5:9<\/span> from the idol-makers to the idol-worshippers; (the believing reverence and worship), (the practical obedience of the cultus), Deu 4:19<\/span>; Deu 4:28<\/span>. The transition to Deu 5:11<\/span> is thus, as becomes the living Spirit or God, from the innermost spiritual life of men to its closest and most natural expession in words through language. And the reason also: For I the Lord<\/strong>, sq., is spiritual and moral in its nature. So likewise the introductory representation of Jehovah (comp. upon Deu 4:24<\/span>) which precludes all nature-necessity, fate, and the like. And so also, although the iniquity of the fathers<\/strong> is said to come upon the children of the third, and even the fourth generation, still physical relations are perhaps mainly thought of in the iniquity<\/strong> in which they became sharers through the personal sins, and the punishment cleaves to the iniquity. Comp. Deu 24:16<\/span>.To visit upon<\/strong> is to punish. , those hating me<\/strong>, by which this feeling is designated as the adhering quality, the enduring condition of those in question. The resumes again certainly the genitive ; but at the same time the repeated binds the different generations with the fathers into one organic form in their hatred against Jehovah. Indeed the parallel, (1Jn 5:3<\/span>), will not admit any other interpretation (comp. Lev 26:39-40<\/span>). As this regard to the subjective character of men does not veil the righteousness, in the holy energy of God (Gen 18:25<\/span>), so Deu 5:10<\/span> unveils the abundant, overflowing richness of the love-energy of God (Exo 34:6<\/span> sq.). Jeremiah and Ezekiel simply correct the heathenish interpretation of the truth. Jer 32:18<\/span> sq.; Ezekiel 18<\/span>. The word of the mouth to which we now pass is the most spiritual expression of the man; and thus the name of the Lord<\/strong>, Deu 5:11<\/span>, is moreover the true self-revelation of the divine life (Joh 20:31<\/span>), as this is for man, and offered to him, the word of God with respect to Himself, by which He legitimates Himself (Exo 3:13<\/span> sq.: Isa 52:6<\/span>), and through which He will be sought and found (Deu 4:7<\/span>; Joe 2:32<\/span>). , to take, to raise up, with or , the direction whither, to lift up, to aim at, desire, used of the purpose of the soul, Psa 24:4<\/span>, here of the tendency of the tongue, thus to take upon the lips, to bear in the mouth, in order to utter the name to , nothingness, vanity, thus useless, thoughtless, then morally evil, wickedness, and thus shamefully, falsely. If the acknowledgment of Jehovah is here indicated, the sanctification of the Sabbath is the actual acknowledgment. , Deu 5:12<\/span> is not more specific than , Exo 20:8<\/span> (as Schultz holds), but rather the reverse, since the latter points out specifically how the former may be secured. While in Deu 5:8<\/span>, compared with Exo 20:4<\/span>, the is wanting before , and is found in Deu 5:9<\/span> before , though not occurring in Exo 20:5<\/span>, changes of little importance, the change here from to , bringing out the keeping in opposition to the profaning and secularizing of the name of Jehovah, corresponds significantly to the national character of Israel, and to the design of Deuteronomy. The sanctification of the Sabbath is indeed a national confession. Over against the several nonentities with which the name of Jehovah might be mingled, Israel was bound to the time (), which precisely points out this manifoldness as a nothingness, because temporary and fleeting. , the one who rests, keeps festival. The day is what Israel should be at the day. Thus the day is sanctified<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em> set apart, separated from the other days.As the Lord thy God commanded thee<\/strong> refers to the institution, as it is recorded Exodus 20<\/span>, for as to the rest Deu 5:13<\/span> sq. accords with Exo 20:9<\/span> sq.: so that the farther carrying out of the command does not come into view here. But since Exo 20:11<\/span> is here presupposed, Deu 5:15<\/span> still once more emphasizes has commanded thee<\/strong>. Deu 5:13<\/span>. from (Gen 2:2<\/span>), whatever one undertakes and completes. Deu 5:14<\/span>. , to whom it is separated and sanctified.And thy son<\/strong>, sq.The state grows out of the household, the people from the family, and thus the national confession of Israel is laid open at its very roots and sources.Nor thy ox<\/strong>, sq.Particularizing, and then at last, summing up that which is generally referred to in nor thy cattle<\/strong>, Exo 20:10<\/span>. For comp. Deu 1:16<\/span> and Doct. and Eth. 3<\/span>. As to the connection of master and man-servant and maid-servant under the idea of rest: that they may rest as well as thou<\/strong>, this similar position in reference to the enjoyment of the Sabbath already intimated, Exo 23:11<\/span>, is still more expressly stated in Deu 5:15<\/span>, since the remember<\/strong>, Exo 20:8<\/span> (which does not call for a recollection of the Sabbath-rest of God (Genesis 2<\/span>), but an inward keeping of the Sabbath-day to the very end of its sanctification, so that it shall be sanctified as commanded whenever it returns), gives at the same time a coloring and completion to the thought. The redemption of Israel from Egypt is brought to consciousness again just as in Exo 13:3<\/span>; Deu 4:34<\/span>. This demand here does not entirely coincide with Exo 20:11<\/span>, for there the declares why Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it, because He rested on the seventh day, while here on the contrary it teaches why Israel, is commanded to keep the Sabbath day instituted by God upon this ground, and rest, the man and maid-servant with their master. To the reason for the institution on the part of God there is added now a special reason for its observance on the part of the people, who therein confess that they are redeemed, and thus distinguished above all nations (Deu 4:34<\/span>; Deu 4:37<\/span> sq., 20). A genuine deuteronomic application of the more objective command in Exodus 20<\/span>.[So far from there being any inconsistency in the sacred writer here, the variety in the statements, confirms the genuine Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. No later writer, designing to palm off his work as that of Moses, would have ventured upon this freedom. The appropriateness of these references to the previous condition of Israel, as motives to the observance of the Sabbath, is obvious, since the exodus was really one entrance into rest.A. G.]If the acknowledgment to Jehovah in fact appears here to be limited to the solemnity of a single day, Deu 5:16<\/span> removes any such limitation, and makes the whole life of the Israelite from the first father and mother down to the last, an actual and real acknowledgment of Jehovah. If designates the brightness of the divine majesty (), (Piel) puts this glory upon parents, and this is to honor them, and this with an express extension of the command to the mother usually elsewhere included in the personal service of the house (Beck). Parents stand nearest to us (without considering them here merely as men by our side, our neighbors, although in this sense they are truly nearest to us among men, and hence the transition from the first to the second table), and represent the glory of God the Creator, Preserver and Ruler, with which last idea all the remaining representations of the divine glory through men are connected, e.g.<\/em>Exo 22:27<\/span>.Hath commanded thee<\/strong>, as in Deu 5:12<\/span>, and thus calls attention to its connection with the Sabbath commandment. They are two aspects of the actual sanctification, as Jehovah is holy, and thus a confession to Him in act or deed, Lev 19:2-3<\/span>. That it may go well with thee<\/strong>.An addition of Moses, who, since he has so repeatedly referred to the first lawgiving, here allows himself this freedom. Long life, without well-being, would be a long calamity, and hence this filling up of the word of promise. is the earth as fruitful; (, the earth in distinction from water), perhaps in reference to the individual, as in reference to the people as a whole. After the structure of human society is thus presented not only as leaning (Baumgarten) upon the divine sanctuary, but through that is raised to the heights of honor, even to a Sabbath state, that Israel may lead a quiet life in all propriety and honesty, Deu 5:17<\/span>, now turns against those things which in worldly policy and irreligion have been partly and by degrees endured, and partly in a certain way held as privileged destroyers of the social life, murder, adultery, theft (Baumgarten). The thought that the divine image in man introduces the transition (Keil), cannot be drawn from the text. It says simply: Thou shalt not<\/strong>, sq., with the energetic brevity and sharpness of the commanding law-giver, judge, and avenger of every assault upon the personal life, wedded life, and property. The first, roots or plants itself in the second, and has its individual well-being in the third, so that the common thought of these three prohibitions is the personal life, as is also the idea of deeds, from which we now pass to words. The is rhetorical. Exo 20:16<\/span>; a false witness, through a deceitful testimony (, the testimony or the witness), here as Deu 5:11<\/span>. Correspondence between the tongue commands in the two tables! , according to the primary sense of the word, is the ally, associate, companion, friend. The command directs itself against the fretting poison of falsehood in report and witness-bearing, in public fame and courts of justice, so destructive of any quiet possession and enjoyment of those goods, (i.e.<\/em>, those of the foregoing commands); and not content with crossing the serpent path of falsehood, as it in the affairs of life worms itself even into the halls of justice, the divine law goes still further, enters the secret workshop of the heart, and aims its blows at that selfish enjoyment and greed of gain (), which in it are ever weaving their plots against other persons and interests, in which indeed not only every outrage against our neighbor, but even the ungodliness and idolatry, standing at the beginning of the decalogue, have their ground and existence (Col 3:5<\/span>; Eph 5:3<\/span>). (Baumgarten). The twice-repeated , Exo 20:14<\/span>, expresses the more comprehensive idea, in connection with the delight in the attractive features of the object, and hence Deu 5:18<\/span>, used only in reference to the wife<\/strong>, rhetorically interchanged with in hithpael: more subjective desire. The personal life of our neighbor is passed over, since it offers nothing to the sinful lust, but rather the contrary, while on the other hand the wife<\/strong> (Exo 20:17<\/span>) comes before house<\/strong>, as the prohibition of adultery follows that of murder. To the house<\/strong>, especially in its reference to Canaan, is added in a fitting way, the field, as a parenthesis. What follows is here, as in Exodus 20<\/span>, the specifying of the household state. [The diversities in the form of this command here, from that in Exo 20:17<\/span>, are all due to the peculiar character of this passage, or to the special object in view in Deuteronomy, when Israel was about to enter upon its possession.A. G.].<\/p>\n

3. Deu 5:22-33<\/span>. <\/span>Deu 5:22<\/span> sq. as Exo 20:19<\/span> sq. Comp. upon Deu 4:11-12<\/span>. accusative of the instrument, or member through which the act in performed. Gesenius. Eze 11:13<\/span>. (Num 11:25<\/span>) and he added no more<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, not to speak in this way, he did it this once and not again. The decalogue is spoken directly to Israel, all the rest through Moses.[Wordsworth: The perpetuity, universality, and supremacy of the law, were marked by the circumstances of the delivery of the decalogue.A. G.]. Comp. Deu 4:13<\/span>; Exo 31:18<\/span><\/p>\n

Deu 5:24<\/span> : Comp. Exo 20:19<\/span>; Deu 3:24<\/span>; Deu 4:33<\/span>; Deu 4:42<\/span>. We have lived to see that which has never been heard of, but not again! Thus the no more on the part of Jehovah, Deu 5:22<\/span>, receives its explanation, though the desire for a mediator on the part of the people. Deu 5:25<\/span>, Exo 20:19<\/span>; Deu 4:24<\/span>, (Heb 10:31<\/span>). For if we hear<\/strong> [lit. add to hear] see upon Deu 5:22<\/span>. : The people, in distinction from Moses, set forth the necessity for a mediator. The serves to strengthen the declaration that the one occurrence was enough. Deu 5:26<\/span> : designates man as on account of his sinful nature, weak and frail, all his lifetime subject to fear, ever apprehending the execution of the sentence of death. On the contrary, God as the eternal, and His everlasting life that of the righteous and holy. As Israel is conscious that He is flesh<\/strong>, so God comes before him in this aspect as the living God, and thus Israel knows himself in opposition to Him. In order to hold fast hereafter this once experienced, which they recognize, Deu 5:24<\/span>, truly (with gratitude Knobel?) but with fear, with anxiety for the future, with wonder, and indeed that they remained alive, they needed a mediation of this uttered opposition between themselves and God, which they found in the person of Moses; one through whom the living God becomes to them the source of life, and is still hidden from their sight (Heb 12:18<\/span> sq.). The love, mercy, and grace of God, is included for the time in Moses. Deu 5:27<\/span>. They bind themselves to obedience to that mediated revelation of God, with even greater zeal and devotion wrought by their fear (Schultz). Exo 19:8<\/span>; Exo 24:3<\/span>; Exo 20:19<\/span>. Since now, Deu 5:28<\/span>, the desire of the people meets the divine approval, in which the utterance of the desire is made prominent (the voice of your words<\/strong>), which they at the very least had so uttered, Deuteronomy in which Moses so speaks the law of God to the people in his name, wins the special sanction of God. Moses had already, Deu 1:18<\/span>; Deu 4:13<\/span>, intimated the same, but now, as the mediator so solemnly demanded by the people, he first becomes truly and legally the speaker of the divine laws. All that follows, although not spoken as the decalogue directly by God to Israel, has still the same authority, as the people indeed expressly recognized the words of Moses as binding. To fix and settle this position beyond any doubt, is the special object and import of this paragraph. [Bib. Com.: The reply of God to the request of the people, Deu 5:28-31<\/span>, is omitted altogether in the historical summary of Exodus. Here it is important to the speakers purpose to call attention to the fact that it was on their own entreaty that he had taken on him to be the channel of communication between God and them. The terrors of Sinai had done their work. They had awakened the consciousness of sin.A. G.].They have well said<\/strong> [lit. done good] all that<\/strong>, sq. For the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and Moses as mediator is the forerunner of the Messiah. In Heb 12:21<\/span> the mediator himself shares in the fear of the people. Deu 5:29<\/span>. Emphasizes the fear of God in the people, in connection with the promise of obedience. O that, who will give<\/strong>, sq., may your heart, (your innermost life) be such as your words, viz.<\/em>, that you will have<\/strong>, sq. Or as Jer 17:9<\/span>, they have it not, and no one but I the Lord can give it to them, Jer 32:39<\/span>. It belongs to uprightness that the words and heart should agree; they speak right who have also right hearts.The voice of the words (Deu 4:12<\/span>) is there a form also behind the words? i.e.<\/em>, a habitus, (Schultz). Yes, but it does not first obtain a place in this connection. Comp. Deu 4:10<\/span>; Deu 4:40<\/span> (Luk 1:75<\/span>). Deu 5:30<\/span>. How different from Deu 1:40<\/span>! Deu 5:31<\/span>. Moses authorization as a mediator singular, all that is commanded. Comp. Deu 4:1<\/span>; Deu 4:5<\/span>. <\/span>Deu 5:32<\/span> sq. Corresponding to the following transitional exhortation. The figure of a path or way lies at the basis (Deu 2:27<\/span>). The law a way of life, Deu 6:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4. Deu 6:1-3<\/span>. Since now according to Deu 5:31<\/span> Moses is to teach, he makes known at once (Deu 5:1<\/span>) that he has in mind and will hold fast the whole, whatever he may dwell upon singly, and by itself hereafter. Thus the method of his exhortation connects itself with what precedes, and Deu 5:4<\/span> is without question the beginning of a new paragraph. Deu 5:1<\/span>. Now these are the commandments<\/strong>, lit., and this is the commandment<\/strong>, just as the law, (Deu 4:44<\/span>), and then also as Deu 4:1<\/span>. Deu 5:2<\/span>. Comp. Deu 5:29<\/span>. The fear of the Lord is the higher inward life of Israel, and long life and prosperity follow faithfulness to the law, and thus the law is both as to heart and conduct the way of life, Deu 5:32<\/span> sq. Deu 5:3<\/span> makes clear already the new section, through the Hear therefore O Israel, thou and thy son, and thy sons sons<\/strong>. Deu 5:2<\/span> intimates the great increase of the people, just as all the days of thy life<\/strong> intimates the lengthening of their days, so that the grandfather is regarded not only as living in the grandchild, but at the same time as with him. Comp. Deu 1:11<\/span>. The land<\/strong> sq. Either in the land<\/strong> (Keil) where they should multiply, or what is more probable, connected withas He hath promised<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, as Schultz holds as Jehovah hath promised thee, when He promised a land, or as we may say now simply, as Jehovah has promised thee a land sq., [so essentially the Bib. Com.,A. G.], in which all shall come to pass, since it is fitted to secure such prosperity through its own happy condition. The proverbial description of Canaan (Exo 3:8<\/span>; Exo 3:17<\/span>) in its fruitfulness and beauty, rests upon its rich, broad pastures, and its blooming gardens for the bees, combining the utile<\/em> with the dulce<\/em>: Milk and honey<\/strong> (Son 4:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The distinction between the covenant of God with the fathers, and at Sinai with Israel, is evident even in the signs of the covenant; there circumcision, here the passover. As the revelation to the fathers, Exo 6:3<\/span>, is described as that of El-Shaddai, so circumcision has its fundamental genetic character. The sign touches the origin of natural life; and it is the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, who has laid the elements, sources of Israel in the fathers. The legal character or element in circumcision is evident, Genesis 17<\/span>, but not only is it closely connected with the promise, but the sign of the covenant itself is pre-eminently full of promise. On the other hand, the passover has the character of development, the historical character of Jehovah. As a meal, truly, it belongs to the continuance, the recruitings of life. The praises of the redeemer-God were therein celebrated out of the past, for every present time of Israel. There was, therefore, a continuous promise in the passover. But this element of promise recedes behind the preponderating element of the law, and the law in its practical result, working the knowledge of sin, comes out prominently both in the sacrificial transaction in the passover, and still more in the fact that the lintel and door-posts must be sprinkled with its blood. Sin is thus in various ways presented or set forth and at the same time Israels need of reconciliation in the judgment. Thus circumcision still holds its prevailing tone of promise in Christian baptism, Mar 16:16<\/span>, while the predominant legal tone of the passover appears in the Lords Supper, since the law reaches its end, is fulfilled in His sacrifice, and we have to remember it in an uninterrupted appropriation. Luk 22:19<\/span>; 1Co 11:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2. For the division of the commandments in the decalogue, and the progress in the thought, see Exodus 20<\/span>. Here we remark only, 1) that the symbolical form, and the words of our Lord, Mat 22:27<\/span> sq., are both in favor of the arrangement of five commands in one table; 2) that the division of the reformed church has in its favor not only that it is the oldest (Josephus, Philo, the Greek Church) that it is the New Testament division (Schultz, p. 252), but also that in it the history of Israel, and the spirit and letter of the text receive their rights (Schultz, p. 273); 3) and this division is in accordance with the progress in the thought, both from within outward, and then from without inward, (comp. Exeget. and Crit.) by which the beginning and the end of the whole, and the central command also form an unquestionable parallelism. (Hengstenberg, Beit.<\/em> III., 604). [Also Fairbairns Typology<\/em>, which has a full discussion of this question.A. G.].<\/p>\n

3. As to the deviations in the deuteronomic text of the decalogue, V. Gerlach says: It is remarkable that in the repetition of the ten commandments, especially of the fourth and second, we find some alterations and additions, as a proof that as in similar repetitions of the words in the word of God itself, the Spirit of the Lord works with new creative energy. Baumgarten: That Moses does not feel himself strictly hampered, in the setting of the decalogue, engraved upon stone by the finger of God, shows clearly the great freedom of his spirit, and puts shame upon all mere honoring of the sacred letter, which is still under the new covenant, burdened with somewhat of constraint. Ranke: The introductory words, Deu 5:1-5<\/span>, show that the law is not first given in this passage, but that it is the repetition of an earlier given, to which however a very great importance is attributed. Was not the author of Deuteronomy, who, it is conceded, had the earlier books before him, in a condition to re-issue the ten commandments, which he places at the beginning of his lawgiving, correctly, or would he not take the pains to do so? We observe in the command in regard to the Sabbath, great freedom of treatment. But from this command the manner of the discourse changes, Jehovah no longer speaks, but Moses exhorts and refers to the commands of Jehovah. (Exo 20:7<\/span> sq. may have given encouragement to this mode of statement). Thus he turns himself to that aspect of the command which is directed to man, to the very least among the people. The Sabbath law includes in itself good for those serving (Exo 23:12<\/span>) and this is still further unfolded in the law for the Sabbatic and jubilee year, and this element Moses raises into prominence. As he thus demands rest for the very least, he secures this result, that the Sabbath solemnity should be a copy of the creative Sabbath. The recollection of the bondage in Egypt only serves to impress the foregoing statutes which demand rest for the servant, male and female. So also in the fifth command Moses is the speaker, and at the close the speaker makes prominent that which is the more important.<\/p>\n

4. The pre-supposed monotheism of the first table points to that glory of God which rests upon the cradle of humanity (Naville, the heavenly Father<\/em>). Polytheism is not the point of departure of a continuous progressive culture, but an apostasy which makes a restoration necessary. But the Grecian philosophy, nobly as it has served humanity, has not restored in itself the idea of God. God remains to the masses, after all the toil of the philosophic spirit an unknown God; even the salvation of monotheism, the only light in the night-shadows of the old world, is of the Jews.<\/p>\n

5. The Sabbath solemnity (Schultz) is peculiar among the nations of antiquity to the Hebrews, who are called precisely Sabbatarii<\/em> (Martial), which is all the more remarkable in the universality of the reckoning by weeks. The monument of the completed creation becomes in Deuteronomy the monument of redemption begun, as further the Sabbath remains the sign (Exo 31:13<\/span>) of the eternal saving purpose of Jehovah with respect to His people (comp. upon Deu 4:30<\/span> and Deu 5:19<\/span> sq.), Heb 4:9<\/span>. By so much more is it fitted to be the confession of the people of God among the nations.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-4<\/span>. The covenant with the fathers, and that at Sinai (Deu 5:2<\/span>. Calvin: He commends in these words the law of God to them, because it is the greatest benefit and the highest honor to be taken into covenant by God).What Moses demands for the law of the Lord: 1) a universal hearing (each one by all); 2) not barely hearing, but obedience, learn, keep and do (Deu 5:1<\/span>).The Covenant at Horeb: the persons (Deu 5:2-3<\/span>), the way in which it is closed (Deu 5:4<\/span>), the Mediator of this covenant (Deu 5:5<\/span>). Deu 5:4<\/span>. Calvin: The certainty of the law, from its divine origin. Richter: Moses as a type and counterpart of Christ was a Mediator (Deu 5:5<\/span>; Deu 5:23<\/span> sq.), but a mediator of the law for a few (Gal 3:19<\/span> sq), while Christ is the mediator of a better, more general and eternal Covenant of Grace, Heb 8:6<\/span>; Heb 9:15<\/span>; Heb 12:24<\/span>; 1Ti 2:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:6-21<\/span>. The ten commands in their form and contents. Deu 5:6<\/span>. Schultz: Faith, which is the basis of the life, cannot be required, but only awakened. Before God commands He gives; before He demands faith, He discloses or reveals Himself to it. J. dEspagne: The cornerstone of the law of God, the fundamental position upon which it is reared, the soul of the first command, without which it cannot be understood, is this: Thy Saviour, the gospel at the entrance of the law. Starke: Is God thine? then also all, whatever He is and possesses, all His blessedness. Thus must thou also be for God, present to Him body, soul, and all that thou art and hast, for His service and possession. Deu 5:12<\/span> sq. Tub. Bib: Yes, every day, hour, minute and second thou shouldst with pure heart-devotion sacrifice to thy God, raise thy heart to Him without intermission, and especially guard thyself against every work of sin.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22<\/span>. Wurth Bib.: The law is perfect, and embraces all that man should do and leave undone in the service of God and of his neighbor. Jam 1:25<\/span>; 2Ti 3:17<\/span>. Deu 5:25<\/span>. Cramer: Through the law comes the knowledge of sin, Rom 3:20<\/span>; it works wrath, Deu 4:15<\/span>; Deu 7:11<\/span> sq., and has the office of the letter Which killeth, 2Co 3:6<\/span>. Deu 5:27<\/span>. Osiander: When the heart of man is terrified by the wrath of God, he promises him much more than he can perform in his life-time. Starke: See here the nature and effect of the law. It drives us from the face of God. We look around us for the true Mediator, and find refuge in Him, Deu 18:15-16<\/span>. Calvin: This history shows how well God has cared for His Church through the preaching of the word, that it might be divinely ruled by it. We also should hear Moses and the prophets, especially the only Son of God (Joh 5:45-46<\/span>). Deu 5:28<\/span>. Berl. Bib.: It were better to do as had been said. The tongue promises largely; but the heart is reluctant to perform. Deu 5:29<\/span>. Berl. Bib.: God looks upon the heart and all the depths of the soul. Hence we are never to satisfy ourselves with rendering to Him acts of devotion, prayers, songs or attendance at church. Deu 5:32<\/span>. Calvin: It is only half obedience to receive what God has commanded, unless we go further, and see that we add nothing. We shall not desire to be righteous, unless we are taught in the law.<\/p>\n

Deu 6:1<\/span>. Starke: So is it with our sluggish nature; we need ever to be warned and urged. The motives which Moses used are more evangelical than legal. Deu 5:2<\/span>. Berl. Bib.: God commands nothing more than what is useful to man, and tends to his blessedness. Fear connecting itself so closely with danger pre-supposes the higher and more mighty, whom we have to fear; and thus the knowledge of God and our own weakness, the two factors in our spiritual life. Deu 5:3<\/span>. Berl. Bib.: Observe that thou do! Who wonders not that although this runs through the whole Scripture upon every page, there is still no truth more spoken against by all sects of Christians. Moses grieves not to repeat the same command again and again. Comp. Php 3:1<\/span> (Act 20:20<\/span>; Act 20:31<\/span>). Berl. Bib.: In truth it is never well with any one who does not stand well with God. [Bib. Com.: Thus the glory of God and the welfare of men are seen to be the grand ends he has in view. They are the ends in the law and of all obedience to it.A. G.]<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span>[Deu 5:1<\/span>. Mar. more lit., keep to do them.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span>[Deu 5:5<\/span>. Lit., from the face of.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span>[Deu 5:6<\/span>. Margin and lit., servants.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span>[Deu 5:11<\/span>. Thou shalt not lift up (take) the name of Jehovah thy God to a falsehood.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span>[Deu 5:22<\/span>. Lit., did not add.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span>[Deu 5:15<\/span>. Lit., margin, and so Schroeder, we are adding to hearhear further.A. G.].<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span>[Deu 5:27<\/span>. Our version here observes carefully and properly the distinction between and .A. G.].<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span>[Deu 6:1<\/span>. is singular. The commandment is a whole and includes statutes and judgments.A. G.].<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CONTENTS<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In this Chapter, Moses reassumes the subject of his Sermon. He brings to the remembrance of Israel that great event, of the giving of the law at Horeb, when Moses acted as a Mediator between GOD and Israel. He repeats the ten commandments, and subjoins his observations upon them; reminds them of what they had said at that time, and takes occasion, once more, to enforce the great duty of obedience.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5<\/span><\/p>\n

Luther wrote from Coburg on 30 June, 1530, to Justus Jonas: ‘I have gone to school again here to the Decalogue. As if I were a boy once more, I learn it word for word, and I see how true it is that “His understanding is infinite” (Psa 147:5<\/span> ). [et video verum esse, quod sapientiae ejus non est numerus.]’ Enders, Luther’s Briefwechsel,<\/em> vol. VIII. p. 48.<\/p>\n

The People of the Covenant<\/p>\n

Deu 5:2<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The idea of covenant runs through the Bible. It was a very natural figure to use to express the relationship between God and His people. Men, even in the most primitive conditions, understood a covenant to be a mutual compact of some kind. The compact need not be between equals, but applied often to the mercy extended by a conqueror to a vanquished foe, as when Ahab, after his great victory over the Syrians, made a covenant with the King Ben-hadad to let him live. With a word of such wide and elastic meaning, we can see how appropriate it was to represent the relationship in which Israel believed herself to stand towards God. Indeed all religions are more or less in the form of a covenant. The most typical of all the covenants, the one which became the very centre of the religious life of Israel, was this one at Sinai, when God entered into relationship with the whole people as a people.<\/p>\n

I. The essential features of the thought are ( a<\/em> ) That God of His grace condescends to enter into this relationship. Every Divine covenant is of grace, the lovingkindness of a Father.<\/p>\n

( b<\/em> ) The two parties to a covenant are free moral agents. If it is of the free grace of God, it is also of the free will of man.<\/p>\n

( c<\/em> ) Since a covenant need not be between equals, and may be (as it must be when God is one of the parties to it) all giving on the one side, and all taking on the other, and yet nevertheless implies mutual freedom, it therefore implies obligation on both sides. Each party to the bargain has rights.<\/p>\n

II. On the other side of the bargain were the conditions on which they received the Divine favours. These conditions are stated in the Ten Commandments, the words of the covenant. The people are to be separated, dedicated, consecrated. Their lives are to belong to God. It is this ethical aspect of the covenant relationship which saved it from the arrogance and national pride, and empty presuming on favour, which otherwise would soon have killed religion. Israel’s privilege (the spiritual teachers never ceased to remind them) was Israel’s penalty. Every right, every favour, meant a duty.<\/p>\n

III. The fact of covenant is the very heart of religion. The Bible is the record of Divine covenant. This great figure has been too often stated merely forensically, as a legal contract. Because of this it has repelled men. But it is an eternal truth nevertheless; and you must in some way restate it spiritually to yourself before religion has its birth in you.<\/p>\n

IV. What did this covenant relationship do for Israel? Without it there would have been no Israel. The assurance of a covenant with God brought strength to the national life. This assurance made them a nation, welded them into one, and carried them victoriously over difficulties.<\/p>\n

V. The very real temptation which this sense of Divine favour engendered was the temptation to presumption. It overtook the Jews more than once in their later history. But that was the defect of the quality, or rather the natural temptation of the privilege. This state of presumption was common at the time of our Lord. Against this much of our Lord’s teaching was directed. But He did not deny the fact upon which the presumption fed itself. He attacked the vain deduction which was drawn from the fact.<\/p>\n

VI. Of the reality of fellowship with God every religious man is assured. Religion implies such a relationship of love and grace on the part of God. How such a consciousness brings strength and comfort to a human heart let every one who knows the power of salvation attest. Even in debased and vicious forms it can be seen to be powerful, making a man strong in a blatant land. It is seen in its debased form in such a man as Napoleon, with bis faith in his own star, feeling himself to be the man of destiny. The faith, such as it was, carried him far.<\/p>\n

Hugh Black, Christ’s Service of Love,<\/em> p. 292<\/p>\n

The Terms of the Covenant<\/p>\n

Deu 5:6-7<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the figure of covenant, which colours the whole Bible language of the relationship between God and man, there are three elements common to the idea. The first essential feature of the thought is that God of His free grace enters into this covenant relationship; and the second is that the two parties to the compact are free moral agents, that it is of the free will of man as well as of the free grace of God. The third feature which follows from that is that there is implied obligation on both sides. It is the last of these that specially concerns us in our text. In this covenant at Horeb, which is the typical covenant of the Old Testament, the covenant to which all the prophets appealed in the warnings and pleadings and threatenings, we have the two sides, the two contracting parties, the obligations which rest upon both God and His people the terms of the covenant.<\/p>\n

I. The Divine Side of the Covenant.<\/strong> The terms of the compact are these: On God’s side He promises to be to them the same gracious loving Providence which they and their fathers have known, ‘I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage’. This is more than the statement of a fact, more than a succinct resume of history. It is a statement of what God engages Himself to be and to do. It is a promise based first of all on His very nature, on what He has revealed Himself to be. The other side of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, takes its force from this, making an exclusive and almost stern appeal to fulfil the conditions implied in the covenant. Religion is absolutely determined by the character of the God worshipped.<\/p>\n

II. The Human Side of the Covenant.<\/strong> We see at once how the first commandment exactly balances that, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before Me’. That is the terms of the covenant on the human side. From that all the other commandments flow, of worship of God and of duty to men. The Divine promise is balanced by human obligation. This obligation is set forth in the Ten Commandments. But they are not arbitrary conditions imposed as tests of faith; they follow essentially from the revelation of the character of God made to them. Thus the Decalogue, which expresses the fundamental relationship between God and man, is grounded on a moral basis.<\/p>\n

III. The History of Revelation<\/strong> is the history of the relationship between God and man, fitly pictured under the figure of a covenant; and so the relation of God in Christ is spoken of as the new covenant, a nearer, sweeter relationship. The terms of the covenant are the same as those of the covenant at Horeb, only of richer content. He is the Lord our Redeemer who delivered us from the house of bondage, who has shown Himself in the face of Jesus Christ as our Heavenly Father condescending to men, displaying the miracle of Divine sacrifice, redeeming us at the jeopardy of blood, loving us with an everlasting love.<\/p>\n

Hugh Black, Christ’s Service of Love,<\/em> p. 304.<\/p>\n

References. V. 6, 7 J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words,<\/em> p. 19. V. 12. J. Budgen, Parochial Sermons,<\/em> vol. i. p. 12. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The School of Christ,<\/em> p. 94. V. 12-15. J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words,<\/em> p. 87. V. 16. Ibid.<\/em> p. 105.<\/p>\n

The Finality of the Ten Commandments<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

These words may be very sad or they may be very joyous. We cannot tell what they are merely from reading them it is needful to go a little into the circumstances in order that we may catch their precise significance. Moses has first copied down the commandments as they were given to him by the Lord, and having gone through the whole Ten Words, as these commandments were anciently called, he says: ‘He,’ that is ‘God,’ ‘added no more’. He did not give eleven commandments; He gave ten. Man must stop where God stops as he must begin where God began. The words would be sad if the Lord had turned away in anger, saying, ‘I will not speak again to you’; but they may be very joyous, yea, musical after a heavenly sort, when God has said just enough to meet the necessity and the weakness of man, and when He forbears to add one word that would overtax his strength and throw his dying hope into melancholy and despair.<\/p>\n

I. You have something like completeness of law in these Ten Commandments a completeness adapted to the time in which they were delivered. God Himself puts the full stop to the legal literature which He has written on the two tables of stone. His delight is, as little as may be needful for proper discipline, and to secure loyal, loving and sufficient obedience. Has He written all the universe over with commandments? He has written the universe over with promises and blessings, and here and there His commanding word is written for too many benedictions and promises, untempered by these severer words, might lead us into presumption, and might end in making us molluscous instead of strong and grand. This is a kind of authority which begets love and thankfulness. God never shows me His power merely for the sake of inspiring me with awe. When I see the universe I see the suppression of His almightiness, not its extent, not its abundance. God has given me a memory short and shadowed. He could have turned it into a daily plague by the multitude of His commandments and requirements; He gives me ten, it is enough; by and by He will shorten them to one. Here is the authority of gentleness, authority limited to my condition, stooping to my capacity.<\/p>\n

II. What marvellous commandments these are when looked at in their simplicity. They are ten speeches to little children. These are not commandments for the manhood of the world, but for its child-age. ‘He added no more.’ It was beautiful in its tenderness, it was Divine in its pathos. The commandments are not abolished, they are fulfilled, glorified, carried up their highest interpretation and most beneficent meanings. Jesus Christ said, ‘Think not that I am come to destroy, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it,’ to carry it on to its higher meanings. Now how does He deliver the Ten Commandments? ‘Thou shalt not steal’ becomes ‘If you would like to steal, you have stolen’. He digs down the outer wall and searches into the chambers of imagery and there, on the walls around, are seen symbols and images and faces and pantomimes of evil that the heart does and that the life would like to do. So we who are in Christ are not under the law, and yet we are under the law as Israel never was. Jesus Christ has given one commandment will it be easier to keep one than ten. ‘A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another,’ and we must all confess ‘I count not myself to have attained, but press towards the mark’.<\/p>\n

III. How easy for Christ to lay down the law. No, He did not lay it down; He did it. He became obedient unto death, even the Cross-death, that He might redeem us. ‘By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples,’ not if you utter the same theological Shibboleth, but by this ‘if ye have love one to another’. Love is the highest exposition, love is the profoundest criticism, of Christianity. Love repeats the cross and sets the crown above its bleeding head.<\/p>\n

J. Pulsford, The Clerical Library,<\/em> vol. 11. p. 49.<\/p>\n

Reference. V. 22. J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words,<\/em> p. 1.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:22-33<\/span><\/p>\n

‘This representation of Moses,’ says Prof. Harper, ‘is not accidental. It is in complete accord with a characteristic of Israelite literature from beginning to end. In the earliest historical records we find that the chief heroes of the nation are mediators, standing for God in the face of evil men, and pleading with God for men when they are broken and penitent, or even when they are only terrified and restrained by the terror of the Lord. At the beginning of the national history we see the noble figure of Abraham in an agony of supplication and entreaty before God on behalf of the cities of the plain. At the end of it, we see the Christ, the Supreme Mediator between God and man, pouring out His soul unto death for men “while they were yet sinners,” dying, the just fur the unjust, taking upon Himself the responsibility for the sin of man, and refusing to let him wander away into permanent separation from God.’<\/p>\n

Hearing for Others<\/p>\n

Deu 5:27<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

‘Go thou near, and hear for us.’ That is an old and still abiding plea. It is born of an old and still abiding necessity. It has been the cry of the human heart in all ages in its endeavours to find God and worship Him and learn His will. As we look at Moses standing in the lurid shadow of the mountain that might not be touched, standing and listening in the place of thunder whilst the people waited afar off not daring to draw nigh, we can see, if we will, not an incident of ancient history about which certain critical minds can grow brilliantly sceptical, but a great fact, too deeply grounded in human experience for any wise soul to doubt it. I mean the ever personal and persistent need for mediation.<\/p>\n

God speaks to men through men. We are in this world, all resonant with His voice, to hear not only for ourselves but also for other people. Now hearing for other people suggests a task which some find by no means unpleasant or difficult, indeed a task to which they address themselves with enthusiasm and delight. ‘Hearing for other people’ sometimes means dodging the truth with a fervent hope that it will hit some one else. It means becoming an expert in so receiving the shafts of rebuke or warning coming straight for your own conscience that they glance harmlessly aside and bury themselves in your neighbour’s conscience. It is the subtle art of misapplication. And it is essentially unprofitable. The gains thereof are a heart of pride and a starved soul. There is not one of us but can ill afford to miss one of those life-enriching pains God sends to teachable and listening souls.<\/p>\n

I. But there is a way of hearing for other people that is wholly meet and right, and that plays a necessary part in the religious education of the race. Think for a moment of music. It is a mediated treasure. There are a few great names, and we call them the masters. I think we might call them the listeners. They heard for duller ears the choral harmony that is wherever God is. Did the great poets fashion their poems out of their own vibrant and sensitive souls? If we could ask them I think they would say ‘No, we heard these things’. The musician and the poet have been men with ears to hear. The music of the ‘Messiah’ was waiting for Handel, the message of the hills and vales of Cumberland was waiting for Wordsworth. And through them he may hear who will.<\/p>\n

II. Most people consider originality a very desirable thing. Strange to say, however, people often think that the short cut to originality is found by copying some one else. The attempt to be original invariably defeats itself. Yet originality is a very precious thing. It is worth a great deal to the world. And the one thing that truly develops and safeguards it in human life is the worshipping and the listening spirit. The most original man is the most devout man. The freshest thing any man can give to the world the one thing the world can never have unless he does give it is the word of God spoken in his own soul the transcript of his personal experience of divinity. The hardest task a man can have in this world is to find himself. Indeed no man can make that all-important discovery unless God guides him to it.<\/p>\n

III. The word that is given to a man thus is an authoritative word. The children of Israel said to Moses, Tell us what God shall say to you; and we will hear it, and do it. How did they know it would be God’s word he would bring back to them, since they would not be present at that awful communion? Whence this readiness of theirs to obey a word not yet spoken? They knew that in this matter deception was impossible. A man can fashion many deceits, but he cannot speak God’s word until he has heard it. It does not take a spiritual expert to detect a sham divinity. There is an instinct in the human heart that can always tell how far a word has travelled. Men can always tell whether your life message is an echo of the temporalities a word picked up in the valley of time or whether it has come through your hearts listening to the voice of the Eternal.<\/p>\n

P. Ainsworth, The Pilgrim Church.<\/em> p. 117.<\/p>\n

References. V. 29. R. D. B. Rawnsley, A Course of Sermons for the Christian Year,<\/em> p. 209. V. 31. J. Keble, Sermons for Easter to Ascension Day,<\/em> p. 182.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

XII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

FIRST AND SECOND ORATION, PART I<\/p>\n

Deu 1:6-11:32<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

FIRST ORATION<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The occasion is great and awe inspiring. Death is just ahead of the speaker, about one month off, and yet the old man stands before us in the vigor of youth. He does not die from decay of either mental or physical power but simply because God is going to take him. He has carried these people in his heart eighty years and has borne them in fact for forty marvelous years of eventful history; has suffered unspeakably in their behalf, and now is burdened with the spirit of prophecy which unfolds to his eagle eye their disastrous future for thousands of years, brightened for a time by the coming of the Prophet, like himself but infinitely greater, and the prospect of their final restoration. He starts out with a reference to Horeb where they entered into covenant relations with God, and where he himself sat, with the chiefs of the tribes, of thousands, of hundreds, of tens, to hear all minor causes, appealing to him only in great matters. The qualifications of these judges are set forth in Exo 18:21<\/span> , and “they were able men such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” and here, as “wise men, well-known chiefs of the tribes, full of understanding.” He rehearses his original charge to these judges: they must fairly hear all cases, must judge righteously, must be impartial, must fear no face of man, must remember that the judgment is Jehovah’s. The object of the reference is to show that they left Sinai thoroughly organized and equipped; left there in numbers more than the stars shown to Abraham and with their leader praying, “The Lord of your fathers make you a thousand times as many more as ye are, and bless you as he hath promised you.”<\/p>\n

They left there at God’s command to go at once to take possession of their long promised country. But alas, on account of their sins they lost thirty-seven days in getting to Kadesh-barnea and then with the imperative command ringing in their ears, the Lord said as before, “Come and take possession”; they again are delayed forty days in order to get a report from spies, and after that report and an awful breach of the covenant they lost thirty-eight years more of weary wandering, then when again assembled at Kadesh-barnea sinned again and caused Moses himself to sin, and so debarred him from the Promised Land. Then, through unbelief in God, through fear of man, through presumption toward God, through fleshly lusts, they had utterly failed to enter in.<\/p>\n

Moreover, they had lied in attributing their attitude of rebellion to parental concern for their children, which God rebuked by showing that he could lead those helpless children into the Promised Land without the loss of one, while the bones of the parents whitened in the wilderness. And now, though at Kadesh-barnea again, when entrance was no more than stepping over a line drawn in the sand, they must turn down toward the Red Sea, and by a long, weary and circuitous march approach the country on the other side; a path must compass Mountain Seir, skirt Edom, Moab, and Ammon and bring them into deadly conflict with Sihon, king of the Amorites, Og, king of Bashan, and all the hosts of Midian. That circuitous march was marked by some great sins and made memorable by some great deliverances. Aaron died at Mountain Hor. Moses is about to die, without passing over into the Promised Land.<\/p>\n

Now, this oration, having thus briefly reviewed the legislation, makes that survey the basis of his exhortation by way of application. Learn from this model, O preachers, how to revive the lost art of exhortation. That used to be the custom for men that were called to exhort who could not preach. They could not preach a sermon but they could sit down and listen to a preacher preach and then move people mightily by exhortation. I have heard men, ignorant as they were in books, give exhortations that would make the stars sparkle.<\/p>\n

Dr. Burleson preached a sermon at Huntsville and at the close of the sermon J. W. D. Creath got up and commenced by slapping his thigh and you could have heard him a hundred yards. He said, “The spirit of God is here, and the devil is fighting hard.” The people were converted by the hundreds and the biggest man was Sam Houston. A Negro boy on the outside was convicted of sin and came to the front, not understanding but feeling the power of God, he knelt at Sam Houston’s feet saying, “Massa Houston, save me.” Sam Houston said to the boy, “Ask the clergy, I am just a poor lost sinner myself.” We bad Deacon Pruitt; he never preached but Judge Baylor never held a meeting but he got Brother Pruitt to help him. He always wanted him to exhort after he preached. Moses determined to exhort these people, and in order to exhort them, he takes up the survery. They keep forgetting the times of his exhortation. The points are stated thus:<\/p>\n

(1) Hearken unto God’s word and do it.<\/p>\n

(2) Do not add to his law nor diminish it. “Heaven and earth,” says our Lord, “must pass away, but my word shall not pass away.”<\/p>\n

(3) Be warned by your own history. History teaches lessons and imposes obligations. Preachers especially should be students of history in order to understand God’s government over nations and the way of his providence.<\/p>\n

(4) In view of its impression on other nations obedience will be your highest wisdom. They will thereby recognize your relations with Jehovah and marvel at your prosperity and fear your power.<\/p>\n

(5) Do not forget. Teach this law diligently to your children.<\/p>\n

(6) Remember that you yourselves and your nation alone heard God’s own awful voice pronounce your Decalogue and that you have his autograph copy preserved as a witness.<\/p>\n

(7) Remember that when you heard his voice you saw no likeness of him and beware that you make no graven image of anything that is in heaven above, nor earth below; do not fall down and worship it. We should all become iconoclasts, breakers of images. “Icon,” the image; “Iconoclast,” the breaker of images.<\/p>\n

(8) Remember that Jehovah is a jealous God and will look upon sin with no degree of allowance, and be sure that he will find out your sins and be sure that he will punish your sins. Don’t you become so sweetly sentimental that you will think it impolite to say the word “hell.” Let us remember the awful words of our Lord, greater than Moses, who said, “Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” who said, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” So this is the first exhortation of Moses.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

SECOND ORATION, PART I<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The scripture of this part is Deu 4:44<\/span> , to the end of the eleventh chapter. Like the first oration, the second has an introduction giving the time, place, and circumstances of delivery. The closing: paragraph of Deu 4<\/span> gives this introduction in verses Deu 4:44-49<\/span> . There is nothing in it calling for additional comment beyond the fact that it marks an interval of undetermined time between the two Orations.<\/p>\n

This part of the oration consists of a rehearsal of the whole Decalogue, stated in an offhand, oratorical form, without attempting the exact verbal quotations, and of an exposition of the first table, that is, the four commandments embodying our relation to God) and then an earnest exhortation by way of application. Note the verbal differences between this offhand rehearsal of the Decalogue by Moses and the Exodus record of it as spoken in the very words of Jehovah himself, and written by him on tablets of stone. From Revised Version, read Exo 20:2-17<\/span> , and then read the corresponding Commandments in the same version from Deu 5:6-21<\/span> . You must consider the Exodus form as the true original, and the Deuteronomy form as a substantial restatement by a public speaker, and note that Deu 5:15<\/span> , is not an attempt to quote the Fourth Commandment as originally given, but merely a passing exhortation, assigning an additional motive for remembering the sabbath day. The reader will also note that Romanists combine the first and the second according to our division, to make their first, and then divide our tenth to make their ninth and tenth. This does not affect the matter, only the numbering of the parts.<\/p>\n

I asked you to read the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy alternately because enemies of the Bible have made so much of the fact that there is not an exact verbal agreement, and hence they have denied the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. The reply to it is that the divine original in God’s own handwriting is the Commandments as they were delivered; second, in this case there is an inspired substantial restatement of the original in oratorical form and this restatement is just as much inspired as the original. Remember the sabbath because God rested on that day and it is prophetic, in an indirect way, of the New Testament sabbath. As God rested from creation when he had finished the work and the day commemorated an historical fact, so Jesus, having accomplished the great redemption (so that the Jewish sabbath is nailed to the cross of Christ), rested from his work and there remaineth a sabbath-keeping to the people of God. Jesus entered into this rest, as God did his.<\/p>\n

Here I pause to commend, first, the exposition of the Decalogue in the Catechism of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. This catechetical exposition has been taught to more children than perhaps any other in the world. Let us always commend the Presbyterians for their fidelity in family instruction, and always confess and lament Baptist delinquency on this line until we repent and do better. Second, it now gratifies me to be able to commend a Baptist exposition of the Decalogue, which, in my judgment, is the best in all literature. Not very long ago, a venerable man, soon to pass away, was helped upon the platform and introduced at the Southern Baptist Convention, and he received the Chautauqua salute. It was George Dana Boardman of missionary fame. He is the author of University Lectures on the Ten Commandments. The lectures were delivered before the students of Pennsylvania University, and the book was issued by the American Baptist Publication Society. Study it carefully and assimilate it into your very life. On the Fourth Commandment, perhaps without immodesty, I may ask you to read the three sermons on the sabbath in my first published volume of sermons.<\/p>\n

My reason for speaking of these books is that Moses himself is now to devote eight chapters to an exposition of the Decalogue in the oration under consideration. You will make special note that Moses emphasizes the fact that the Decalogue was the only part of the covenant actually voiced by Jehovah, and that this divine autograph was then filed away in the ark as an eternal witness. The fact is also emphasized that no other people had even heard God’s voice or possessed his autograph. Thousands of the younger generation now addressed by Moses were present that awful day when Sinai smoked and trembled and was crested with fire, and the loud and ever louder trumpet smote their ears as no other trumpet will smite the ears of men until the great judgment day. They might well recall their terror when from the fires of Sinai this awful penetrating voice solemnly pronounced in thunder tones those Commandments one after another. They themselves could recall how they begged not to hear that voice any more and implored Moses to hear for them as mediator and to repeat to them in human voice any other words of God. I have already sought to impress you that Deuteronomy is an exposition of the law rather than a giving of the law. The orator and expositor not only shows that these Commandments of God are exceedingly broad, but he attempts to show their depths and reveal their heights, yea, to lay bare their very heart and spirit.<\/p>\n

This heart and spirit he finds in the word “love.” “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy soul, with all thy might.” He compresses the first four Commandments into “Thou shalt love Jehovah,” as later in this book he compresses the last six into “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” When our Lord answers the question, “Which is the first commandment of the law?” He quotes Deuteronomy in his answer: “This is the first and great commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy mind, and all thy strength, and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”<\/p>\n

And as the second is impossible without the first, a New Testament writer may well say, “All the law is fulfilled in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And another says, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” Or as Paul to Timothy declares its widest scope, “Now the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, out of a good conscience, out of faith unfeigned.” In one word then, that grandest thing in the world, LOVE, Moses expounds the Decalogue. On this matter he founds his exhortation thus:<\/p>\n

(1) “Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes, and thou shalt write them on the posts of thine house, and on thy gates.” What a course of family instruction! What a theme of family conversation! What a safeguard at home, at the gate, at the door, at the hearth, at the bed! As the Jew awoke in the morning, the Law greeted him; as he passed the door, it saluted him; as he passed through the gate, it hailed him; in all his walking beyond the gate it accompanied him. It governed the words of his tongue; it remained between his eyes to regulate sight; it dwelt in his heart to regulate emotion; and remained in his mind to prescribe and proscribe thought, purpose and scheme. Its hand of authority touched the scales and yardstick and restrained within its bounds all his business. His fruit, his grain, his flock, and all other treasures acknowledged its supremacy. It provoked the questions of children by its object lessons and supplied the answers to the questions.<\/p>\n

(2) When prosperity comes with its fulness of blessings) do not forget God, (Deu 6:10-15<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

(3) When adversity and trial overtake you do not tempt God as you tempted him at Massah, saying, “Is God among us?” (Deu 6:16<\/span> ). Just here the psalmist says, “My feet had well nigh slipped, for I was envious of the prosperity of the wicked and said, In vain have I washed my hands in innocency and compassed thine altars, O Lord of Hosts.” How often have we been bitter in heart and counted God our adversary and ourselves the target of his arrows and lightning.<\/p>\n

(4) “Remember that the destruction of the Canaanites is essential to your fidelity to this law. They will corrupt you if you spare them. You shall not pity them, for the measure of their iniquity is full.” You are God’s sheriff executing his will, not yours, mercilessly as a pestilence, a cyclone, an earthquake, or a flood, indiscriminatingly obey his will. Make no covenant with these doomed and incorrigible nations. Do not intermarry with them. Covet none of their possessions devoted to God’s curse. Ah, if only Achan later had remembered this and had not brought defeat upon his people and ruin to himself and house!<\/p>\n

(5) Remember the bearing of this law on Self:<\/p>\n

(a) When walls crumble before you and the sun and moon stand still to complete your victory, beware lest you attribute your victories to your own strength.<\/p>\n

(b) Or to your numbers.<\/p>\n

(c) And especially beware of self-righteousness. All your history avouches you to be a stiff-necked and rebellious people. There was no good in your origin. “A Syrian ready to perish was your father.” At the Red Sea, at the waters of Marah, when you thirsted, when you hungered, in all the wilderness, and at Kadesh-barnea, through the cunning of Balaam even until now you have sinned and kept sinning, and will continue to sin, existing as monuments of grace and mercy. Who are you, to be puffed up with conceit and pride of selfrighteousness?<\/p>\n

(6) Consider how reasonable all of Jehovah’s commandments are: “And now, Israel, what doth Jehovah thy God require of thee but to fear Jehovah thy God, to walk in all his ways and to love him, and to serve Jehovah thy God with all thy soul, with all thy heart, to keep the commandments of Jehovah and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?” (Deu 10:12<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

A later prophet shall re-echo the thought: “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee but to do justly and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God.”<\/p>\n

(7) Finally, blessings crown your obedience and curses follow your disobedience. The inexorable alternative is set forth before you. Obey and live; disobey and die. And ye yourselves, over yonder, shall stand on opposing mountains while this law is read in a valley between, and those on Gerizirn shall call out the blessings, and those on Ebal shall pronounce the curses. And you will in one loud Bounding voice say, “Amen, so let it be.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. What briefly the occasion of the first oration?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2. What the substance, appeal and application of the first oration?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. What lost art here referred to, and what examples of this art cited?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. What the several points of his exhortation?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. Where do you find introduction to the second oration and what the time, place and circumstances of its delivery?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. Of what does Part 2 of the second oration consist?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. What are the verbal differences between the Exodus form and the Deuteronomy form of the Decalogue and how account for them?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. Which is the true, original form?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. What of Moses’ statement here of the Fourth Commandment?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. How do the Romanists number the commandments?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. What charge is sometimes brought against the Bible because of these verbal differences and the reply thereto?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. What books on the Ten Commandments commended?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. What facts in connection with the giving of the Ten Commandments especially emphasized by Moses?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

14. What was Moses’ summary of the Ten Commandments and what Christ’s use of it?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

15. Kame the points of his exhortation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

16. How was the importance of teaching the law emphasized?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

17. What exhortation relating to prosperity?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

18. What one relating to adversity?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

19. What charge concerning the Canaanites, and why?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

20. What the bearing of this Law on self?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

21. How does he show the reasonableness of God’s law?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

22. What alternative set before them, and what prophecy concerning blessings and curses here given by Moses?<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.<\/p>\n

Ver. l. And keep, and do them.<\/strong> ] The difference between divinity and other sciences, is, that it is not enough to learn, but we must keep and do it; as lessons of music must be practised, and a copy not read only, but acted. “Man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until the evening.” Psa 104:23 He must arise from the bed of sin, and go forth out of himself, as out of his house to his work and to his labour; “working out his salvation with fear and trembling,” Php 2:12 until the evening, till the sun of his llfe be set.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 5:1-5<\/p>\n

1Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. 2The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. 4The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, 5while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,<\/p>\n

Deu 5:1 all Israel The Law was for everyone (not an elite group), but Moses probably spoke to the elders who then told his words to all the people (i.e., tribes, clans). For Israel, see Special Topic: Israel (the name) .<\/p>\n

Hear See note at Deu 4:1.<\/p>\n

the statutes and the ordinances See note at Deu 4:1.<\/p>\n

learn them and observe them carefully This phrase has three VERBALS:<\/p>\n

1. learn them (BDB 540, KB 531, Qal PERFECT, cf. Deu 4:10; Deu 5:1; Deu 14:23; Deu 17:19; Deu 18:9; Deu 31:12-13<\/p>\n

2. observe them (BDB 1036, KB 1581, Qal PERFECT, cf. Deu 4:2; Deu 4:6; Deu 4:9; Deu 4:40; Deu 5:10; Deu 5:12; Deu 5:29; Deu 5:32; Deu 6:2-3; Deu 6:17[twice],25; Deu 7:8-9[twice],11,12[twice], etc.<\/p>\n

3. carefully – literally do (BDB 793, KB 889, Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT)<\/p>\n

These three VERBALS summarize the meaning of shema (BDB 1033, KB 1570, e.g., Deu 4:1; Deu 5:1; Deu 5:23-27[twice], 28[twice]; Deu 6:3-4; Deu 9:1; Deu 20:3; Deu 27:9), which means hear so as to do!<\/p>\n

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God See Special Topic: NAMES FOR DEITY .<\/p>\n

made This is literally cut (BDB 503, KB 500, Qal PERFECT [twice]). This was a method of OT covenant ratification (i.e., to cut a covenant, cf. Gen 15:18; Gen 21:27; Gen 21:32; Gen 31:44; Exo 34:27; Deu 5:3; Deu 29:12; Deu 31:16). Abraham took a goat, a bull, and other animals, cut them in half, laid the halves on each side, and walked through the middle of those halves as a sign of covenant. It possibly implies a curse on those who break the covenant (cf. Gen 15:9-18; Jer 34:18) or even a meal to seal the covenant.<\/p>\n

covenant with us See note at Deu 4:13.<\/p>\n

at Horeb Horeb is the Hebrew word for Mt. Sinai. See Special Topic: Location of Mt Sinai .<\/p>\n

Deu 5:3 our fathers Some scholars see this phrase referring to the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but others see it referring to the parents, the evil generation who died in the wilderness (cf. Num 26:63-65). The next phrase seems to confirm the second option.<\/p>\n

with all those of us alive here today This refers to the children (i.e., under twenty years) of the evil generation. This clearly shows that the words of YHWH had relevance to this generation and every generation, including today.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:4 face to face This refers to a personal encounter (not literally) at Mt. Horeb\/Sinai in Exodus 19. It is a recurrent idiom (cf. Gen 32:30; Exo 33:11; Deu 5:4; Deu 34:10; Jdg 6:22; Eze 20:35).<\/p>\n

from the midst of the fire This is a repeated reference to Exodus 19 (cf. Deu 4:12; Deu 4:15; Deu 4:33; Deu 4:36; Deu 5:4; Deu 5:22; Deu 5:24; Deu 5:26; Deu 9:10; Deu 10:4).<\/p>\n

Deu 5:5 while I was standing between the LORD and you. . .for you were afraid The people were afraid of YHWH so Moses was a mediator between YHWH and the Israelites (cf. Exo 19:16).<\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Moses called. Here begins his second address. See note on Deu 1:1. <\/p>\n

statutes and judgments. See note on Deu 4:1. <\/p>\n

this day. See note on Deu 4:26. <\/p>\n

keep, and do = observe to do. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Now to chapter 5.<\/p>\n

AND Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the judgments, that you may learn them, and keep them, and do them ( Deu 5:1 ).<\/p>\n

So these three things; you’re to learn them, you’re to do them and to keep them.<\/p>\n

The LORD made a covenant with you ( Deu 5:2 )<\/p>\n

A conditional covenant. They’re keeping His law; they’re doing His commandments.<\/p>\n

The LORD talked with you face to face. (and I stood between the LORD and you at the time, to show you the word of the LORD: for you were afraid;) And God said, I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me ( Deu 5:4-7 ).<\/p>\n

And now again the Ten Commandments are reiterated for us here in Deuteronomy. As they were given in Exodus. This is a repetition of the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n

And he said, God wrote them in the two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. And it came to pass, that when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain burned with fire,) that you came unto me, all of the heads of the tribes. And you said, Behold, the LORD God has shown his glory, his greatness, we heard his voice: but no man can talk with God and still live. Therefore, why should we die? and this fire consume us ( Deu 5:22-25 );<\/p>\n

And so they commanded Moses to go and listen to the voice of the Lord and come back and tell them, and whatever God said they promised that they would do.<\/p>\n

Verse twenty-nine:<\/p>\n

O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever ( Deu 5:29 )!<\/p>\n

This is God’s cry; this is God’s lamentation. “Oh that the people would hear Me and obey Me that they might be able to enjoy My blessings forever.” I’m sure that God laments over us. “Oh, if you would only follow me completely so that I can do for you all that I’m wanting to do.” We so limit that which God wants to do because He loves you so much. He is wanting to do so much for you.<\/p>\n

Jude says, “Keep yourself in the love of God” ( Jud 1:21 ). What does he mean? He means keep yourself in that place where God can demonstrate His love for you. God loves you so much. He wants to demonstrate that love but you got to be in harmony with Him. “Oh, that you would obey his voice. Oh, that you would be in harmony with the plan and purposes of God”. “For the eyes of the Lord go to and fro throughout the entire earth to show himself strong on behalf of those whose hearts are perfect towards him”( 2Ch 16:9 ). If your heart is really completely towards God, Oh, what he wants to do in your life. Things that God longs to do for you. And so God cries over the failure of the people, and thus, His inability to bless them the way He is desiring to bless them. <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Continuing the introductory part of the great discourse, Moses called on all Israel to attend to “statutes and judgments.” In addition to these words, he later employed the word “testimonies.” The three words occur together later (Deu 6:20). “Testimonies” are the actual words of the law given. “Statutes” are the provisions for worship and the conduct that harmonizes therewith. “Judgments” deal with the arrangements for the administration of justice.<\/p>\n

Moses first repeated the ten words of the Decalogue. In doing this it is arresting to observe that concerning the Sabbath the ground of the appeal is no longer God’s resting during creation but the people’s position as redeemed from Egypt’s bondage.<\/p>\n

The discourse proceeded in solemn and stately language to recall to the memory of the people the occasion and the method of the giving of the Law. One brief declaration in this connection marked the sufficiency of the Law as given, “He added no more.” On the basis of all this he urged them to “observe to do, not turn aside”; but “walk in all the way . . . that it may be well. . . .”<\/p>\n

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the Decalogue Repeated<\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-21<\/p>\n

The Law of God is for all Israel. None are exempt. Not with our fathers means not with them only; Moses also uses the expression because many of the references of the Decalogue were to the settled life of Canaan. Face to face, not in dark visions, but clearly and lucidly, Job 4:12-13. Our face-to-face vision is yet to come, 1Co 13:12; Rev 22:4. Notice in Deu 5:5 the ideal mediator, Gal 3:19; 1Ti 2:5.<\/p>\n

Every soul has two givings of the Law. First, we stand under Sinai to be judged, condemned, and shut up to Christ as our only hope; then we come to it a second time, asking that the Holy Spirit should write it in our hearts, and make us to walk in obedience to its precepts, Gal 3:23; Rom 8:4.<\/p>\n

Adolphe Monod, on his death-bed, said: Sin has two divisions; the evil that we have done and the good that we have left undone. As to the first, there is not a single command that I have not transgressed in letter or spirit; as to the second, it weighs on me even more than the first.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:16<\/p>\n

We find throughout the law that this commandment was put forth as the great foundation on which others were built. On him “that setteth light by his father or his mother” was one of the curses pronounced on Mount Ebal; and it was commanded, “He that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”<\/p>\n

I. The keeping of this commandment implies and produces a certain temper of mind which we call meekness. So far as anything like peace can be obtained in this world, it can only be obtained by keeping this commandment, by obedience, obedience to God; and this cannot be shown but by obedience to those whom He has set over us.<\/p>\n

II. The temper of obedience being, therefore, the very foundation of all true piety, God has so appointed it that men should be all their lives in conditions of life to exercise and practise this habit of mind, first of all as children under parents, then as servants under masters, as subjects under kings, as all under spiritual pastors, and spiritual pastors under their superiors.<\/p>\n

III. It is in this temper of meekness, above all, that Christ has set Himself before us as our Pattern. Christ was willingly subject to a poor carpenter in an obscure village, so much so as even to have worked with him, it is supposed, at his trade. He, alone without sin, was subject to sinful parents.<\/p>\n

IV. The more difficult it is for children to pay this honour and obedience to parents who may be unworthy, the more sure they may be that it is the narrow way to life and the strait and difficult gate by which they must enter. True love will cover and turn away its eyes from sins and infirmities. For this reason there is a blessing even unto this day on the children of Shem and Japheth, and a curse on the descendants of Ham.<\/p>\n

Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. ix., p. 277.<\/p>\n

References: Deu 5:16.-J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 105. Deu 5:17-21.-Ibid., pp. 123, 139, 155, 171, 189. Deu 5:22.-Old Testament Outlines, p. 49; J. Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words, p. 1. Deu 5:24.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 201. Deu 5:24-26.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. x., p. 203. Deu 5:29.-R. D. B. Rawnsley, A Course of Sermons for the Christian Year, p. 209. Deu 5:31.-J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year: Easter to Ascension Day, p. 182.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:33<\/p>\n

I. One of these clauses is commonly said to enjoin a duty, the other to promise the blessings which those might confidently look for who performed it. This is not a satisfactory definition. Moses teaches his countrymen that God has conferred upon them the highest prize which man can conceive, freely and without any merit on their part. Was the knowledge of the living and unseen God nothing in itself, but only valuable in virtue of some results that were to come of it? Moses tells his countrymen that it was everything. To hold it fast was to be a nation; to lose it was to sink back into that condition out of which they had been raised.<\/p>\n

II. Is there no duty then assigned in the text? Certainly when it is said, “Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you,” it must be meant that there is something required on the part of the creature as well as something bestowed by the Creator. We cannot understand what is required unless we understand what is bestowed. If we believe that a way has been made for us, and that we have been put in that way, we can apprehend the force of the precept to walk in it, we can feel what is meant by transgression and revolt.<\/p>\n

III. It is here signified in very simple, clear language that a people in a right, orderly, godly state shall be a well-doing people, a people with all the signs and tokens of strength, growth, triumph, a people marked for permanence and indefinite expansion.<\/p>\n

IV. It cannot be true that the blessings of adversity were unknown to the Jews, were reserved for a later period. The more strong their feeling was that God had chosen their nation and made a covenant with it, the greater was their struggle with their individual selfishness, their desire of great things for themselves, the more need had they of God’s fires to purify them. No men could be more taught than the Jewish seers were that punishments are necessary for individuals and nations, and that “whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.”<\/p>\n

V. It is a perilous and an almost fatal notion that Christian men have less to do with the present than the Jews had, that their minds and their religion are to be projected into a region after death, because there only the Divine Presence is dwelling.<\/p>\n

The alternative is between a faith which shall belong to men as men, which shall concern all their ordinary pursuits, toils, relations-the alternative is between such a faith and absolute atheism.<\/p>\n

F. D. Maurice, Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament, p. 241.<\/p>\n

References: Deu 6:1-12.-Parker, vol. iv., p. 136. Deu 6:1-25.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 217.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Sermon Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

all Israel: Deu 1:1, Deu 29:2, Deu 29:10 <\/p>\n

Hear: Deu 4:1 <\/p>\n

keep, and: Heb. keep to, Mat 23:3 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Exo 18:16 – make Exo 18:20 – teach Exo 21:1 – the judgments Exo 24:3 – all the judgments Lev 19:37 – General Lev 20:22 – judgments Deu 4:13 – And he Deu 5:31 – General 1Ki 2:3 – statutes 2Ki 23:3 – made a covenant 2Ch 33:8 – to do all Neh 1:7 – the commandments Neh 10:29 – to observe Eze 18:9 – walked Eze 20:19 – walk Joh 1:17 – the law Rom 2:13 – For not Phi 4:9 – do<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:1. Moses called all Israel Moses having in his first discourse, by a general recapitulation of the mercies and providences which had attended them, prepared the minds of the Israelites for further impressions, summons them by their elders and representatives to a second meeting, in which, after repeating to the new generation the several laws which God had enjoined, he earnestly exhorts them to lay them to heart, and make them the rule of their spirit and conduct.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:4. The Lord talked with you face to face. That is, as the Chaldaic reads, talked to us, without a mediator; but literally, they saw no similitude. His voice was loud, for all the nation heard; at least, if they did not distinctly hear the words, they heard the thunder, and saw the appearance of devouring flames. How mild is the aspect of the gospel compared with the terrors of the law! Exo 19:20.<\/p>\n

Deu 5:29. Oh that there were such a heart in them. No father can be so solicitous for the reformation of a prodigal, as God is for the conversion of sinners. The church has sustained many long and unavailing controversies on the doctrines of grace, on liberty and necessity; but it is better to adore than dispute. Oh the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God. We are saved indeed by grace, but grace harmonized with the full consent of the heart, which at last yields, and sinks all helpless into the arms of God. On this head, Augustine has a wise saying: God who made thee without thee, will not save thee without thee.<\/p>\n

REFLECTIONS.<\/p>\n

Moses having again called the congregation, opens his ministry by painting the awful scenes of mount Sinai, at the promulgation of the law; for that covenant was binding to the children, as to their fathers. To what else can ministers appeal; the covenant is the same through all succeeding ages; and if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do!<\/p>\n

He repeated the ten commandments nearly as in Exodus, and with such new motives as the Holy Spirit thought proper to add. The Israelites are required to give rest to their servants on the sabbathday, not merely because it was so from the beginning; but because they had all been servants in Egypt, and severely oppressed by the taskmasters; a most humane and worthy consideration. Filial homage and affection are farther enforced, not only by the length, but also by the blessings of life; that it may go well with thee. This has also been noticed by St. Paul, when applying the precept to christian children.<\/p>\n

Moses reminds the people, that while terrified with the awful appearance of the fire, and with the sanctity of the divine voice, they had requested him to be a mediator, and to receive the law from the Lord. This proposition was pleasing to God. Hence we learn, what homage and reverence are due to the sacred ministry, when delivered in conformity to the word of God. Man may rely upon its declarations, as though God himself pronounced them from his holy place. Heaven and earth shall pass away; but his word shall not pass away. He surely will realize all the promises, and all the threatenings his servants shall pronounce.<\/p>\n

The Lord, on accepting the mediation of Moses, uttered all the good wishes of a father and the compassion of a God for the peoples happiness. Oh that there were such a heart in them: Deu 5:29. As much as to say, I have now given them my covenant presence. I have given them laws and statutes superior to those of all other nations. I have provided atonement for their sins, and enlarged the promises of the Messiah, and of his kingdom. I have called them into a high state of favour and fellowship with myself. I have set before them a blessing and a curse. More I cannot do, without invading the original laws and liberty of man. If I withdraw or diminish my grace, then they are left to follow the corruption of their heart, and to perish. If I enlarge the grace of the covenant, or of initial salvation, then I force their will, and all their obedience and love are acts of necessity, not of choice. Sin in them, so circumstanced, would be no longer sin, and virtue would be no longer virtue: or rather all their crimes would belong to me, which cannot possibly be. Oh my Israel, then, thy destruction is of thyself: but in me is thy help. I give thee a covenant abounding with alsufficient grace; and Moses will superadd his intercession that thou mayest fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it may be well with thee, and well with thy children for ever. See Eze 33:11. Luk 19:41. See also on this text Dr. S. Clarkes Sermons. Dr. Doddridges Lectures, first edition, pp. 36, 38, 571, 572. My translation of Ostervalds Exercise of the Ministry, 12mo. edition, p. 113. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deuteronomy 5<\/p>\n

“And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgements which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.”<\/p>\n

Let us carefully note these four words, so specially characteristic of the book of Deuteronomy, and so seasonable for the Lord’s people, at all times and in all places – “Hear” – “Learn” – “Keep” – “Do.” These are words of unspeakable preciousness to every truly pious soul – to every one who honestly desires to walk in that narrow path of practical righteousness so pleasing to God, and so safe and so happy for us.<\/p>\n

The first of these word’s places the soul in the most blessed attitude in which any one can be found, namely, that of hearing. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” “I will hear what God the Lord will speak.” “Hear; and your soul shall live.” The hearing ear lies at the very foundation of all true, practical Christian life. It places the soul in the only true and proper attitude for the creature. It is the real secret of all peace and blessedness.<\/p>\n

It can scarcely be needful to remind the reader that, when we speak of the soul in the attitude of hearing, it is assumed that what is heard is simply the word of God. Israel had to hearken to “the statutes and judgements” of Jehovah, and to nothing else. It was not to the commandments, traditions, and doctrines of men they were to give ear; but to the very words of the living God who had redeemed and delivered them from the land of Egypt, the place of bondage, darkness and death.<\/p>\n

It is well to bear this in mind. It will preserve the soul from many a snare, many a difficulty. We hear a good deal, in certain quarters, about obedience; and about the moral fitness of surrendering our own will, and submitting ourselves to authority. All this sounds very well; and has great weight with a large class of very religious and morally excellent people. But when men speak to us about obedience, we must ask The question, “Obedience to what?” When they speak to us about surrendering our own will, we must inquire of them, “To whom are we to surrender it?” When they speak to us about submitting to authority, we must insist upon their telling us the source or foundation of the authority.<\/p>\n

This is of the deepest possible moment to every member of the household of faith. There are many very sincere and very earnest, people who deem it very delightful to be saved the trouble of thinking for themselves, and to have their sphere of action and line of service laid out for them by wiser heads than their own. It seems a very restful and very pleasing thing to have each day’s work laid out for us by some master hand. It relieves the heart of a great load of responsibility, and it looks like humility and self-distrust to submit ourselves to some authority.<\/p>\n

But we are bound, before God, to look well to the basis of the authority to which we surrender ourselves, else we may find ourselves in an utterly false position. Take for example, a monk, or a nun, or a member of a sisterhood. A monk obeys his abbot; a nun obeys her mother abbess; “a sister” obeys her “lady superior.” But the position and relationship of each is utterly false. There is not a shadow of authority in the New Testament for monasteries, convents, or sisterhoods; on the contrary, the teaching of holy scripture, as well as the voice of nature, is utterly opposed to every one of them, inasmuch as they take men and women out of the place and out of the relationship in which God has set them, and in which they are designed and fitted to move, and form them into societies which are utterly destructive of natural affection, and subversive of all true Christian obedience.<\/p>\n

We feel it right to call the attention of the Christian reader to this subject just now, seeing that the enemy is making a vigorous effort to revive the monastic system, in our midst, under various forms. Indeed some have had the temerity to tell us, that monastic life is the only true form of Christianity. Surely, when such monstrous statements are made and listened to, it becomes us to look at the whole subject in the light of scripture, and to call upon the advocates and adherents of monasticism to show us the foundations of the system in the word of God. Where, within the covers of the New Testament, is there anything, in the most remote degree, like a monastery, a convent, or a sisterhood? where can we find an authority for any such office as that of an abbot, an abbess, or a lady superior? There is absolutely no such thing, nor a shadow of it; and hence, we have no hesitation in pronouncing the whole system, from foundation to topstone, a fabric of superstition, alike opposed to the voice of nature and the voice of God; nor can we understand how any one, in his sober senses, could presume to tell us that a monk or a nun is the only true exponent of Christian life. Yet there are those who thus speak, and there are those who listen to them, and that, too, in this day when the full, clear light of our glorious Christianity is shining upon us from the pages of the New Testament.* <\/p>\n

{*We must accurately distinguish between “nature” and “flesh.” The former is recognised in scripture; the latter is condemned and set aside. “Doth not even nature itself teach you?” says the apostle. (1 Cor. 11: 14.) Jesus beholding the young ruler, in Mark 10, “loved him” although there was nothing but nature. To be without natural affection, is one of the marks of the apostasy. Scripture teaches that we are dead to sin; not to nature, else what becomes of our natural relationships?}<\/p>\n

But, blessed be God, we are called to obedience. We are called to “hear” – called to bow down, in holy and reverent submission, to authority. And here we join issue with infidelity and its lofty pretensions. The path of the devout and lowly Christian is alike removed from superstition on the one hand, and from infidelity on the other. Peter’s noble reply to the council, in Acts 5, embodies, in its brief compass, a complete answer to both. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We meet infidelity, in all its phases, in all its stages, and in its very deepest roots, with this one weighty sentence, “We ought to obey” And we meet superstition, in every garb in which it clothes itself, with the all-important clause, “We ought to obey God.”<\/p>\n

Here we have set forth, in the most simple form, the duty of every true Christian. He is to obey God. The infidel may smile, contemptuously, at a monk or a nun, and marvel how any rational being can so completely surrender his reason and his understanding to the authority of a fellow mortal, or submit himself to rules and practices so absurd, so degrading and so contrary to nature. The infidel glories in his fancied intellectual freedom, and imagines that his own reason is quite a sufficient guide for him. He does not see that he is further from God than the poor monk or nun whom he so despises. He does not know that, while priding himself in his self-will, he is really led captive by Satan, the prince and God of this world. Man is formed to obey – formed to look up to some one above him. The Christian is sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ that is, to the very same character of obedience as that which was rendered by our adorable Lord and Saviour Himself.<\/p>\n

This is of the deepest possible moment to every one who really desires to know what true Christian obedience is. To understand this is the real secret of deliverance from the self-will of the infidel, and the false obedience of superstition. It can never be right to do our own will. It may be quite wrong to do the will of our fellow. It must always be right to do the will of God. This was what Jesus came to do; and what He always did. ” Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.”<\/p>\n

Now, we are called and set apart to this blessed character of obedience, as we learn from the inspired apostle Peter, in the opening of his first epistle, where he speaks of believers as “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”<\/p>\n

This is an immense privilege; and, at the same time, a most holy and solemn responsibility. We must never forget, for a moment, that God has elected us, and the Holy Spirit has set us apart, not only to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, but also to His obedience. Such is the obvious meaning and moral force of the words just quoted – words of unspeakable preciousness to every lover of holiness – words which effectually deliver us from self-will, from legality, and from superstition. Blessed deliverance!<\/p>\n

But it may be the pious reader feels disposed to call our attention to the exhortation in Hebrews 13. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account; that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.”<\/p>\n

A deeply important word, most surely, with which we should also connect a passage in 1 Thessalonians, “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” (1 Thess. 5: 12, 13) And again, in 1 Cor 16: 15, 16, “I beseech you, Brethren – ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry [or service] of the saints – that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth.” To all these we must add another very lovely passage from the first epistle of Peter. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of Glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Thess. 5: 1-4.)<\/p>\n

We may be asked, “Do not the above passages set forth the principle of obedience to certain men? And, if so, why object to human authority?” The answer is very simple. Wherever Christ imparts a spiritual gift, whether it be the gift of teaching, the gift of rule, or the gift of pastorship, it is the bounden duty and privilege of Christians to recognise and appreciate such gifts. Not to do so, would be to forsake our own mercies. But then we must bear in mind that, in all such cases, the gift must be a reality – a Plain, palpable, bona fide, divinely given thing. It is not a man assuming a certain place or position, or being appointed by his fellow to any so-called ministry. All this is perfectly worthless and worse than worthless; it is a daring intrusion upon a sacred domain which must, sooner or later, bring down the judgement of God.<\/p>\n

All true ministry is of God, and is based upon the possession of a positive gift from the Head of the church; so that we may truly say, No gift, no ministry. In all the passages quoted above, we see positive gift possessed, and actual work done. Moreover, we see a true heart for the lambs and sheep of the flock of Christ; we see divine grace and power. The word in Hebrews 13 is “Obey them that guide you” (hegoumenois). Now, it is essential to a true guide that he should go before you in the way. It would be the height of folly for any one to assume the title of guide, if he were ignorant of the way, and neither able nor willing to go in it. Who would think of obeying such?<\/p>\n

So also when the apostle exhorts the Thessalonians to “know” and “esteem” certain persons, on what does he found his exhortation? Is it upon the mere assumption of a title, an office or a position Nothing of the kind. He grounds his appeal upon the actual, well-known fact that these persons were “over them, in the Lord,” and that they admonished them. And why were they to “esteem them very highly in love”? Was it for their office or their title? No; but “for their work’s sake.” And why were the Corinthians exhorted to submit themselves to the household of Stephanas? Was it because of an empty title or assumed office? By no means; but because “They addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” They were actually in the work. They had received gift and grace from Christ, and they had a heart for His people. They were not boasting of their office or insisting upon their title, but giving themselves devotedly to the service of Christ, in the persons of His dear people.<\/p>\n

Now this is the true principle of ministry. It is not human authority at all, but divine gift and spiritual power communicated by Christ to His servants; exercised by them, in responsibility to Him; and thankfully recognised by His saints. A man may set up to be a teacher or a pastor, or he may be appointed by his fellows to the office or title of a pastor; but unless he possessed a positive gift from the Head of the church, it is all the merest sham, a hollow assumption, an empty conceit; and his voice will be the voice of a stranger which the true sheep of Christ do not know and ought not to recognise.* <\/p>\n

{*The reader will do well to ponder the fact that there is no such thing in the New Testament as human appointment to preach the gospel, teach in the assembly of God, or feed the flock of Christ. Elders and deacons were ordained by the apostles or their delegates Timothy and Titus; but evangelists, pastors and teachers were never so ordained. We must distinguish between gift and local charge. Elders and deacons might possess a special gift or not; it had nothing to do with their local charge. If the reader would understand the subject of ministry, let him study 1 Corinthians 12-14. and Ephesians 4: 8-13. In the former we have first, the base of all true ministry in the church of God, namely, divine appointment: “God hath set the members,” &c. Secondly, the motive spring, “love.” Thirdly, The object, “that the church may receive edifying.” In Ephesians 4 we have the source of all ministry, a risen and ascended Lord. The design, “To perfect the saints for the work of the ministry.” The duration “Till we all come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” In a word, ministry, in all its departments, is entirely a divine institution. It is not of man or by man, but of God. The Master must, in every case, fit, fill and appoint the vessel. There is no authority in scripture for the notion that every man has a right to minister in the church of God. Liberty for men is radicalism and not scripture. Liberty for the Holy Ghost to minister by whom He will is what we are taught in the New Testament. May we learn it!}<\/p>\n

But, on the other hand, where there is the divinely gifted teacher, the true, loving, wise, faithful, laborious pastor, watching for souls, weeping over them waiting upon them, like a gentle, tender nurse, able to say to them, “Now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord” – where these things are found, there will not be much difficulty in recognising and appreciating them. How do we know a good dentist? Is it by seeing his name on a brass plate? No; but by his work. A man may call himself a dentist ten thousand times over, but if he be only an unskilful operator who would think of employing him?<\/p>\n

Thus it is in all human affairs, and thus it is in the matter of ministry. If a man has a gift, he is a minister; if he has not, all the appointment, authority and ordination in the world could not make him a minister of Christ. It may make him a minister of religion; but a minister of religion and a minister of Christ – a minister in Christendom and a minister in the church of God, are two totally different things. All true ministry has its source in God; it rests on divine authority, and its object is to bring the soul into His presence, and link it on to Him. False ministry, on the contrary, has its source in man; it rests on human authority, and its object is to link the soul on to itself. This marks the immense difference between the two. The former leads to God; the latter leads away from Him; that feeds, nourishes and strengthens the new life; this hinders its progress, in every way, and plunges it in doubt and darkness. In a word, we may say, true ministry is of God, through Him, and to Him. False ministry is of man, through him and to him. The former we prize more than we can say; the latter we reject with all the energy of our moral being. We trust sufficient has been said to satisfy the mind of the reader in reference to the matter of obedience to those whom the Lord may see fit to call to the work of the ministry. We are bound, in every case, to judge by the word of God, and to be assured that it is a divine reality and not a human sham – a positive gift from the Head of the church, and not an empty title conferred by men. In all cases where there is real gift and grace, it is a sweet privilege to obey and submit ourselves, inasmuch as we discern Christ in the person and ministry of His beloved servants.<\/p>\n

There is no difficulty, to a spiritual mind, in owning real grace and power. We can easily tell whether a man is seeking, in true love, to feed our souls with the bread of life, and lead us on in the ways of God; or whether he is seeking to exalt himself, and promote his own interests. Those who are living near the Lord can readily discern between true power and hollow assumption. Moreover, we never find Christ’s true ministers parading their authority, or vaunting themselves of their office; they do the work and leave it to speak for itself. In the case of the blessed apostle Paul, we and him referring, again and again, to the plain proofs of his ministry – the unquestionable evidence afforded in the conversion and blessing of souls. He could say to the poor misguided Corinthians when, under the influence of some self-exalting pretender, they foolishly called in question his apostleship, “Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me….examine yourselves.”<\/p>\n

This was close, pointed dealing with them. They themselves were the living proofs of his ministry. If his ministry was not of God, what and where were they? But it was of God, and this was his joy, his comfort and his strength. He was “an apostle, not of man, nor by men; but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” He gloried in the source of his ministry; and, as to its character, he had but to appeal to a body of evidence quite sufficient to carry conviction to any right mind. In his case, it could be truly said, it was not the speech, but the power.<\/p>\n

Thus it must be, in measure, in every case. We must look for the power. We must have reality. Mere titles are nothing. Men may undertake to confer titles and appoint to offices; but they have no more authority to do so than they have to appoint; admirals in her Majesty’s fleet, or generals in her army. If we were to see a man assuming the style and title of an admiral or a general, without her Majesty’s commission, we should pronounce him an idiot or a lunatic. This is but a feeble illustration to set forth the folly of men taking upon them the title of ministers of Christ without one atom of spiritual gift, or divine authority.<\/p>\n

Shall we be told, we must not judge! We are bound to judge. “Beware of false prophets.” How can we beware if we are not to judge? But how are we to judge “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Can the Lord’s people not tell the difference between a man who comes to them, in the power of the Spirit, gifted by the Head of the church, full of love to their souls, earnestly desiring their true blessing seeking not theirs but them, a holy, gracious, humble, self emptied servant of Christ; and a man who comes with a self-assumed or a humanly conferred title, without a single trace of anything divine or heavenly, either in his ministry or in his life? Of course they can; no one in his senses would think of calling in question a fact so obvious.<\/p>\n

But, further, we may ask, what mean those words of the venerable apostle John? “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” How are we to try the spirits, or how are we to discern between the true and the false, if we are not to judge? Again, the same apostle writing to “the elect lady,” gives her the following most solemn admonition, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Was she not responsible to act on this admonition Assuredly. But how could she, if we are not to judge And what had she to judge! Was it as to whether those who came to her house were ordained, authorised, or licensed by any man or body of men? Nothing of the kind. The one great and all-important question for her was as to the doctrine. If they brought the true, the divine doctrine of Christ the doctrine of Jesus Christ come in the flesh, she was to receive them; if not, she was to shut her door, with a firm hand, against them, no matter who they were, or where they came from. If they had all the credentials that man could bestow upon them, yet if they brought not the truth, she was to reject them with stern decision. This might seem very harsh, very narrow minded, very bigoted; but with this she had nothing whatever to do. She had just to be as broad and as narrow as the truth. Her door and her heart were to be wide enough to admit all who brought Christ, and no wider. Was she to pay compliments at the expense of her Lord? Was she to seek a name for largeness of heart or breadth of mind by receiving to her house and to her table the teachers of a false Christ? The very thought is absolutely horrible.<\/p>\n

But, finally, in the second chapter of Revelation, we find the church at Ephesus commended for having tried those who said they were apostles and were not. How could this be if we are not to judge? Is it not most evident to the reader that an utterly false use is made of our Lord’s words in Matthew 7: 1, “Judge not that ye be not judged;” and also of the apostle’s words in? Corinthians 4: 5, “Therefore judge nothing before the time”! It is impossible that scripture can contradict itself; and, hence, whatever be the true meaning of our Lord’s “judge not,” or the apostle’s “judge nothing,” it is perfectly certain that they do not, in the most remote way, interfere with the solemn responsibility of all Christians, to judge the gift, the doctrine, and the life of all who take the place of preachers, teachers and pastors in the church of God.<\/p>\n

And, then, if we be asked, as to the meaning of “judge not,” and “judge nothing,” we believe the words simply forbid our judging motives, or hidden springs of action. With these we have nothing whatever to do. We cannot penetrate below the surface; and, thanks be to God, we are not asked to do so; yea, we are positively forbidden. We cannot read the counsels of the heart; it is the province and prerogative of God alone to do this. But to say that we are not to judge the doctrine, the gift or the manner of life of those who take the place of preachers, teachers and pastors in the church of God, is simply to fly in the face of holy scripture, and to ignore the very instincts of the divine nature implanted in us by the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

Hence, therefore, we can return, with increased clearness and decision, to our thesis of Christian obedience. It seems perfectly plain that the fullest recognition of all true ministry in the church, and the most gracious submission of ourselves to all those whom our Lord Christ may see fit to raise up as pastors, teachers and guides, in our midst, can never, in the smallest degree, interfere with the grand fundamental principle set forth in Peter’s magnificent reply to the council, “We ought to obey God, rather than men.”<\/p>\n

It will ever be the aim and object of all true ministers of Christ to lead those, to whom they minister, in the true path of obedience to the word of God. The chapter which lies open before us, as indeed the entire book of Deuteronomy, shows us, very plainly, how Moses, that eminent servant of God, ever sought and diligently laboured to press upon the congregation of Israel, the urgent necessity of the most implicit obedience to all the statutes and judgements of God. He did not seek any place of authority for himself. He never lorded it over God’s heritage. His one grand theme, from first to last, was obedience. This was the burden of all his discourses – obedience, not to him, but to his and their Lord. He rightly judged that this was the true secret of their happiness, their moral security, their dignity and their strength. He knew that an obedient people must also, of necessity, be an invincible and innumerable people. No weapon formed against them could prosper, so long as they were governed by the word of God. In a word, he knew and believed that Israel’s province was to obey Jehovah; as it was Jehovah’s province to bless Israel. It was their one simple business to “hear” – “learn” “keep” – and “do” the revealed will of God; and, so doing, they might count on Him, with all possible confidence, to be their shield, their strength, their safeguard, their refuge, their resource, their all in all. The only true and proper path for the Israel of God, is that narrow path of obedience on which the light of God’s approving countenance ever shines; and all who, through grace, tread that path will find Him “a guide, a glory, a defence, to save from every fear.”<\/p>\n

This, surely, is quite enough. We have nothing to do with consequences. These we may, in simple confidence, leave to Him whose we are and whom we are responsible to serve. “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.” If we are doing His will, we shall ever find His Name a strong tower. But, on the other hand, if we are not walking in a path of practical righteousness; if we are doing our own will; if we are living in the habitual neglect of the plain word of God, then verily it is utterly vain for us to think that the Name of the Lord will be a strong tower to us; rather would His Name be a reproof to us, leading us to judge our ways, and to return to the path of righteousness from which we have wandered.<\/p>\n

Blessed be His Name, His grace will ever meet us, in all its precious fullness and freeness, in the place of self-judgement and confession, however we may have failed and wandered; but this is a totally different thin. We may have to say, with the psalmist, “Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice; let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications. If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.” But then, a soul crying to God from the depths, and getting forgiveness, is one thing; and a soul looking to Him in the path of practical righteousness is quite another. We must carefully distinguish between these two things. Confessing our sins and finding pardon must never be confounded with walking uprightly and counting on God. Both are blessedly true; but they are not the same thing.<\/p>\n

We shall now proceed with our chapter.<\/p>\n

At the second verse, Moses reminds the people of their covenant relationship with Jehovah; He says, “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. The Lord talked with you face to face, in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount) saying,” &c.<\/p>\n

The reader must distinguish, and thoroughly understand the difference between the covenant made at Horeb, and the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are essentially different. The former was a covenant of works, in which the people undertook to do all that the Lord had spoken. The latter was a covenant of pure grace, in which God pledged Himself with an oath to do all which He promised. Human language would utterly fail us to set forth the immense difference, in every respect, between these two covenants. In their basis, in their character, in their accompaniments, and in their practical result, they are as different as any two things could possibly be. The Horeb covenant rested upon human competency for the fulfilment of its terms; and this one fact is quite sufficient to account for the total failure of the whole thing. The Abrahamic covenant rested upon divine competency for the fulfilment of its terms, and hence the utter impossibility of its failure in a single jot or tittle.<\/p>\n

Having, in our “Notes on the Book of Exodus,” gone, somewhat fully, into the subject of the law, and endeavoured to set forth the divine object in giving it; and, further, the utter impossibility of any one Setting life or righteousness by keeping it, we must refer the reader to what we have there advanced on this profoundly interesting subject.<\/p>\n

It seems strange to one taught exclusively by scripture, that such confusion of thought should prevail amongst professing Christians, in reference to a question so distinctly and definitively settled by the Holy Ghost. Were it merely a question of the divine authority of Exodus 20. or Deuteronomy 5 as inspired portions of the Bible, we should not have a Word to say. We most fully believe that these chapters are as much inspired as John 17 or Romans 8.<\/p>\n

But this is not the point. All true Christians receive, with devout thankfulness, the precious statement that, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” And, further, they rejoice in the assurance that “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” And, finally, they believe that the morality of the law is of abiding and universal application. Murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness, are wrong – always wrong – everywhere wrong. To honour our parents is right, always and everywhere right. We read, in Ephesians 4, “Let him that stole, steal no more.” and, again, in Eph. 6, we read, “Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”<\/p>\n

All this is so divinely plain and settled that discussion is definitively closed. But when we come to look at the law as a ground of relationship with God, we get into an entirely different region of thought. Scripture, in manifold places, and in the clearest Possible manner, teaches as that, as Christians, as children of God, we are not on that ground at all. The Jew was on that ground, but he could not stand there with God. It was death and condemnation. They could not endure that which was commanded. and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned or thrust through with a dart. And so terrible was the sight that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake.” The Jew found the law to be a bed on which he could not stretch himself, and a covering in which he could not wrap himself.<\/p>\n

As to the Gentile, he was never, by any one branch of the divine economy, placed under law. His condition is expressly declared, in the opening of the epistle to the Romans, to be “without law” (anomos). “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,” etc. had, “As many as have sinned without law shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”<\/p>\n

Here the two classes are brought into sharp and vivid contrast, in the matter of their dispensational position. The Jew, under law; the Gentile, without law. Nothing can be more distinct. The Gentile was placed under government, in the person of Noah; but never under law. Should any one feel disposed to call this in question, let him produce a single line of scripture to prove that God ever placed the Gentiles under the law. Let him search and see. It is of no possible use to argue and reason and object. It is utterly vain to say, “We think” this or that. The question is, “What saith the scripture?” If it says that the Gentiles were put under the law, let the passage be produced. We solemnly declare it says nothing of the kind, but the very reverse. It describes the condition and the position of the Gentile as “without law” – ” having not the law”<\/p>\n

In Acts 10, we see God opening the kingdom of heaven to the Gentile. In Acts 14: 27, we see Him opening “the door of faith” to the Gentile. In Acts 28: 28, we see Him sending His salvation to the Gentile. But we search in vain, from cover to cover of the blessed Book, for a passage in which He places the Gentile under the law.<\/p>\n

We would, very earnestly, entreat the Christian reader to give this deeply interesting and important question his calm attention. Let him lay aside all his pre-conceived thoughts, and examine the matter simply in the light of holy scripture. We are quite aware that our statements on this subject will be regarded by thousands as novel, if not actually heretical; but this does not move us, in the smallest degree. It is our one grand desire to be taught absolutely and exclusively by scripture. The opinions, commandments, and doctrines of men have no weight whatever with us. The dogmas of the various schools of divinity must just go for what they are worth. We demand scripture. A single line of inspiration is amply sufficient to settle this question, and close all discussion, for ever. Let us be shown, from the word of God, that the Gentiles were ever put under the law, and we shall, at once, bow; but, inasmuch as we cannot find it there, we reject the notion altogether, and we would have the reader to do the same. The invariable language of scripture, in describing the position of the Jew, is, “under law;” and, in describing the position of the Gentile, is, “without law.” This is so obvious that we cannot but marvel how any reader of the Bible can fail to see it.* <\/p>\n

{*The reader may perhaps feel disposed to inquire, on what ground will the Gentile be judged, if he is not under the law? Romans 1: 20 teaches us distinctly that the testimony of creation leaves him without excuse. Then, in Rom. 2: 15, he is taken up on the ground of conscience. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,” &c. Finally, as regards those nations that have become professedly Christian, they will be judged on the ground of their profession.}<\/p>\n

If the reader will turn, for a few moments, to Acts 15, he will see how the first attempt to put Gentile converts under the law was met by the apostles and the whole church at Jerusalem. The question was raised at Antioch; and God, in His infinite goodness and wisdom, so ordered that it should not be settled there, but that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem and have the matter fully and freely discussed, and definitively settled by the unanimous voice of the twelve apostles, and the whole church.<\/p>\n

How we can bless our God for this! We can, at once, see that the decision of a local assembly such as Antioch, even though approved by Paul and Barnabas, would not carry the same weight as that of the twelve apostles assembled in council, at Jerusalem. But the Lord, blessed be His Name, took care that the enemy should be completely confounded; and that the law-teachers of that day, and of every other day, should be distinctly and authoritatively taught that it was not according to His mind that Christians should be put under law, for any object whatsoever.<\/p>\n

The subject is so deeply important that we cannot forbear quoting a few passages for the reader. We believe it will refresh both the reader and the writer to refer to the soul-stirring addresses delivered at the most remarkable and interesting council that ever sat.<\/p>\n

“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” How awful! How terribly chilling! What a death knell to ring in the ears of those who had been converted under Paul’s splendid address in the synagogue at Antioch! “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man” – without circumcision or works of law of any kind whatsoever – “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe” – irrespective altogether of circumcision – “are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses….. And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be Preached to them the next Sabbath.”<\/p>\n

Such was the glorious message sent to the Gentiles, by the lips of the Apostle Paul – a message of free, full, immediate and perfect salvation – full remission of sins and perfect justification, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. But, according to the teaching of the “certain men which came down from Judea,” all this was insufficient. Christ was not enough, without circumcision and the law of Moses. Poor Gentiles who had never heard of circumcision or the law of Moses, must add to Christ and His glorious salvation the keeping of the whole law.<\/p>\n

How must Paul’s heart have burned within him to have the beloved Gentile converts brought under such monstrous teaching as this! He saw in it nothing short of the complete surrender of Christianity. If circumcision must be added to the cross of Christ – if the law of Moses must supplement the grace of God, then verily all was gone.<\/p>\n

But, blessed for ever be the God of all grace, He caused a noble stand to be made against such deadly teaching. When the enemy came in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord raised up a standard against him (When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring” – not the circumcision but – “the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.”<\/p>\n

The brethren were in the current of the mind of Christ, and in sweet communion with the heart of God; and hence they rejoiced to hear of the conversion and salvation of the Gentiles. We may rest assured it would have afforded them no joy to hear of the heavy yoke of circumcision and the law of Moses being put upon the necks of those beloved disciples who had just been brought into the glorious liberty of the Gospel. But to hear of their conversion to God, their salvation by Christ, their being sealed by the Holy Ghost, filled their hearts with a joy which was in lovely harmony with the mind of heaven.<\/p>\n

“And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But 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.”<\/p>\n

Who made it “needful”? Not God, surely, inasmuch as He had, in His infinite grace, opened the door of faith to them, without circumcision, or any command to keep the law of Moses. No; it was “certain men” who presumed to speak of such things as needful – men who have troubled the church of God, from that day to the present – men “desiring to be teachers of the law; knowing neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” Law teachers never know what is involved in their dark and dismal teaching. They have not the most distant idea of how thoroughly hateful their teaching is to the God of all grace, the Father of mercies.<\/p>\n

But thanks be to God, the chapter from which we are now quoting affords the very clearest and most forcible evidence that could be given as to the divine mind on the subject. It proved, beyond all question, that it was not of God to put Gentile believers under the law.<\/p>\n

“And the apostles and elders came together, for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing” – alas! how soon it began! – “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” – not the law of Moses or circumcision, but “the word of the gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”<\/p>\n

Mark this, reader. The law had proved an intolerable yoke to those who were under it, that is the Jews; and, further, it was nothing short of tempting God to put that yoke upon the neck of Gentile Christians. Would that all the law-teachers, throughout the length and breadth of Christendom, would but open their eyes to this grand fact! And not only so, but that all the Lord’s beloved people everywhere were given to see that it is in positive opposition to the will of God that they should be put under the law, for any object whatsoever. “But,” adds the blessed apostle of the circumcision, “we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” – and not by law in any shape or form – “we shall be saved, even as they.”<\/p>\n

This is uncommonly fine, coming from the lips of the apostle of the circumcision. He does not say, ” They shall be saved even as we;” but, “We shall be saved even as they.” The Jew is well content to come down from his lofty dispensational position, and be saved after the pattern of the poor uncircumcised Gentile. Surely those noble utterances must have fallen, in stunning force, upon the ears of the law party. They left them, as we say, not a leg to stand upon.<\/p>\n

“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.” The inspiring Spirit has not thought good to tell us what Paul and Barnabas said, on this memorable occasion; and we can see His wisdom in this. It is evidently His object to give prominence to Peter and James as men whose words would, of necessity, have more weight with the law teachers than those of the apostle to the Gentiles and his companion.<\/p>\n

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles” – not to convert them all, but to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets;” – here he brings an overwhelming tide of evidence from the Old Testament to bear down upon the Judaisers – “as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up that the residue of men might seek after the Lord. and all the Gentiles” – without the slightest reference to circumcision, or the law of Moses, but – “upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.”<\/p>\n

Here, then, we have this great question definitively settled, by the Holy Ghost, the twelve apostles, and the whole church; and we cannot but be struck with the fact that, at this most important council, none spoke more emphatically, more distinctly, or more decidedly, than Peter and James – the former, the apostle of the circumcision; and the latter, the one who specially addressed the twelve tribes, and whose position and ministry were calculated to give great weight to his words, in the judgement of all who were still, in any measure, occupying Jewish or legal ground. Both these eminent apostles were clear and decided in their judgement that the Gentile converts were not to be “troubled” or burdened with the law. They proved, in their powerful addresses, that, to place the Gentile Christians under the law, was directly contrary to the word, the will, and the ways of God.<\/p>\n

Who can fail to see the marvellous wisdom of God in this? The words of Paul and Barnabas are not recorded. We are simply told that they rehearsed what things God had wrought among the Gentiles. That they should be utterly opposed to putting the Gentiles under the law was only what might be expected. But, to find Peter and James so decided, would carry great weight with all parties. But if the reader would have a clear view of Paul’s thoughts on the question of the law, he should study the epistle to the Galatians. There this blessed apostle, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, pours out his heart, to the Gentile converts, in words of glowing earnestness and commanding power. It is perfectly amazing how any one can read this wonderful epistle, and yet maintain that Christians are under the law, in any way, or for any purpose. Hardly has the apostle got through his brief opening address, when he plunges, with his characteristic energy, into the subject with which his large, loving, though grieved and troubled heart is full to overflowing. “I marvel,” he says – and well he might – “that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into” – what The law of Moses! Nay, but “the grace of Christ into a different gospel which is not another;” – (heteron euaggelion ho ouk estin allo) – “but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”<\/p>\n

Let all law-teachers ponder these burning words. Do they seem strong and severe? Let us remember that they are the very words of God the Holy Ghost. Yes, reader, God the Holy Ghost hurls His awful anathema at any one who presumes to add the law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ – any one who attempts to place Christians under the law. How is it that men are not afraid, in the face of such words, to contend for the law ? Are they not afraid of coming under the solemn curse of God the Holy Ghost?<\/p>\n

Some, however, seek to meet this question by telling us that they do not take the law for justification, but as a rule of life. But this is neither reasonable nor intelligent, inasmuch as we may very lawfully inquire who gave us authority to decide as to the use we are to make of the law? We are either under the law or we are not. If we are under it at all, it is not a question of how we take it, but how it takes us.<\/p>\n

This makes all the difference. The law knows no such distinctions as those which some theologians contend for. If we are under it, for any object whatsoever, we are under the curse, for it is written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” To say that I am born again, I am a Christian, will not meet the case at all; for what has the law to do with the question of New Birth, or of Christianity? Nothing whatever. The law is addressed to man, as a responsible being. It demands perfect obedience, and pronounces its curse upon every one who fails to render it.<\/p>\n

Moreover, it will not do to say that, though we have failed to keep the law, yet Christ has fulfilled it in our room and stead. The law knows nothing of obedience by proxy. Its language is, “The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Nor is it merely on the man who fails to keep the law that the curse is pronounced; but, as if to put the principle in the clearest possible light before us, we read that “as many as are of works of law are under the curse.” (See Gr.) That is, as many as take their stand on legal ground – as many as are on that principle – in a word, as many as have to do with works of law, are, of necessity, under the curse. Hence, we may see at a glance, the terrible inconsistency of a Christian’s maintaining the idea of being under the law as a rule of life, and yet not being under the curse. It is simply flying in the face of the very plainest statements of holy scripture. Blessed be the God of all grace, the Christian is not under the curse. But why? Is it because the law has lost its power, its majesty, its dignity, its holy stringency? By no means. To say so were to blaspheme the law. To say that any “man” – call him what you please, Christian, Jew, or Heathen – can be under the law, can stand on that ground, and yet not be under the curse, is to say that he perfectly fulfils the law or that the law is abrogated – it is to make it null and void. Who will dare to say this? Woe be to all who do so.<\/p>\n

But how comes it to pass that the Christian is not under the curse? Because he is not under the law. And how has he passed from under the law? Is it by another having fulfilled it in his stead? Nay; we repeat the statement, there is no such idea, throughout the entire legal economy, as obedience by proxy. How is it then? Here it is, in all its moral force, fullness and beauty. “I through law, am dead to law, that I might live to God.”<\/p>\n

{*The omission of the article adds immensely to the force, fullness and clearness of the message. It is dia nomou nomo apethanon. A wonderful clause, surely. Would that it were better understood! It demolishes a vast mass of human theology. It leaves the law in its own proper sphere; but takes the believer completely from under its power, and out of its range, by death. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” – which we never could do, if under the law – “For when we were in the flesh,” – a correlative term with being under the law – “the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death.” Mark the melancholy combination! “Under the law” “In the flesh” – “motions of sins” “Fruit unto death!” Can anything be more strongly marked? But there is another side, thank God, to this question; His own bright and blessed side. Here it is. “But now are we delivered from the law.” How? Is it by another having fulfilled it for us? Nay; but, “having died to that [apothanontes en ho] wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” How perfect and how lovely is the harmony of Romans 7 and Galatians 2. “I through law am dead to law, that I might live unto God.”}<\/p>\n

Now, if it be true, and the apostle says it is, that we are dead to law, how can the law, by any possibility, be a rule of life to us? It proved only a rule of death, curse and condemnation to those who were under it those who had received it by the disposition of angels. Can it prove to be ought else to us? Did the law ever produce a single cluster of living fruit, or of the fruits of righteousness, in the history of any son or daughter of Adam? Hear the apostle’s reply. “when we were in the flesh” – that is, when we were viewed as men in our fallen nature – “the motions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death.” It is very important for the reader to understand the real force of the expression, “in the flesh.” It does not, in this passage, mean, “in the body.” It simply sets forth the condition of unconverted men and women responsible to keep the law. Now, in this condition, all that was or ever could be produced was “fruit unto death” – “motions of sins.” No life, no righteousness, no holiness, nothing for God, nothing right at all.* <\/p>\n

{*It is needful to bear in mind that, although the Gentile was never, by the dispensational dealings of God, put under the law, yet, in point of fact, all baptised professors take that ground. Hence there is a vast difference between Christendom and the heathen, in reference to the question of the law. Thousands of unconverted people, every week, ask God to incline their hearts to keep the law. Surely, such persons stand on very different ground from the heathen who never heard of the law, and never heard of the Bible.}<\/p>\n

But, where are we now as Christians? Hear the reply, “I through law am dead to Law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh” – here it means in the body – “I live” – How? By the law, as a rule of life? Not a hint at such a thing, but “by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”<\/p>\n

This, and nothing else, is Christianity. Do we understand it? Do we enter into it? Are we in the power of it? There are two distinct evils from which we are completely delivered by the precious death of Christ, namely, legality, on the one hand, and licentiousness, on the other. Instead of those terrible evils, it introduces us into the holy liberty of grace-liberty to serve God – liberty to “mortify our members which are upon the earth” – liberty to deny (ungodliness and worldly lusts” – liberty to “live soberly, righteously and godly” – liberty to “keep under the body and bring it into subjection.”<\/p>\n

Yes, beloved Christian reader, let us remember this. Let us deeply ponder the words. “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” The old “I” dead – crucified, buried. The new “I,” alive in Christ. Let us not mistake this. We know of nothing more awful, nothing more dangerous, than for the old “I” to assume the new ground; or, in other words, the glorious doctrines of Christianity taken up in the flesh, unconverted people talking of being free from the law, and turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. We must confess we would rather, a thousand times, have legality than licentiousness. It is this latter that many of us have to watch against, with all possible earnestness. It is growing around us, with appalling rapidity, and paving the way for that dark and desolating tide of infidelity which shall, ere long roll over the length and breadth of Christendom.<\/p>\n

To talk of being free from the law in any way save by being dead to it, and alive to God, is not Christianity, at all, but licentiousness, from which every Pious soul must shrink with holy horror If we are dead to the law, we are dead to sin also; and hence we are not to do our Own Will, which is only another name for sin; but the will of God, which is true practical holiness.<\/p>\n

Further, let us ever bear in mind that if we are dead to the law, we are dead to this present evil world also, and linked with a risen, ascended and glorified Christ, Hence, we are not of the world, even as Christ is not of the world. To contend for position in the world is to deny that we are dead to the law; for we cannot be alive to the one and dead to the other. The death of Christ has delivered as from the law, from the power of sin, from this present evil world, and from the fear of death. But then all these things hang together, and we cannot go delivered from one without being delivered from all. To assert our freedom from the law, while pursuing a course of carnality, self-indulgence and worldliness, is one of the darkest and deadliest evils of the last days.<\/p>\n

The Christian is called to prove, in his daily life, that grace can produce results that law could never reach. It is one of the moral glories of Christianity to enable a man to surrender self and live for others. Law never could do this. It occupied a man with himself. Under its rule, every man had to do the best he could for himself. If he tried to love his neighbour, it was to work out a righteousness for himself. Under grace, all is blessedly and gloriously reversed. Self is set aside as a thing crucified, dead and buried. The old “I” is gone, and the new “I” is before God in all the acceptability and preciousness of Christ. He is our life, our righteousness, our holiness, our object, our model, our all. He is in us and me are in Him; and our daily practical life is to be simply Christ reproduced in us, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence, we are not only called to love our neighbour, but our enemy; and this, not to work out a righteousness, for we have become the righteousness of God in Christ; it is simply the outflow of the life which we possess, which is in us; and this life is Christ. A Christian is a man who should live Christ. He is neither a Jew, “under law;” nor a Gentile “without law;” but “a man in Christ,” standing in grace, called to the same character of obedience as that which was rendered by the Lord Jesus Himself.<\/p>\n

We shall not pursue this subject further here; but we earnestly entreat the Christian reader to study, attentively, the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and the epistle to the Galatians. Let him drink in the blessed teaching of these scriptures; and we feel assured he will arrive at a clear understanding of the great question of the law. He will see that the Christian is not under the law, for any purpose whatsoever; that his life, his righteousness, his holiness are on a different ground or principle altogether; that to place the Christian under law, in any way, is to deny the very foundations of Christianity, and contradict the plainest statements of the word. He will learn, from the third chapter of Galatians, that to put ourselves under the law is to give up Christ; to give up the Holy Ghost; to give up faith; to give up the promises.<\/p>\n

Tremendous consequences! But there they are mainly set forth before our eyes; and truly when we contemplate the state of the professing church, we cannot but see how terribly those consequences are being realised.<\/p>\n

May God the Holy Ghost open the eyes of all Christians to the truth of these things! May He lead them to study the scriptures and to submit themselves to their holy authority, in all things. This is the special need of this our day. We do not study scripture sufficiently. We are not governed by it. We do not see the absolute necessity of testing everything by the light of scripture, and rejecting all that will not stand the test. We go on with a quantity of things that have no foundation whatever in the word; yea, that are positively opposed to it.<\/p>\n

What must be the end of all this? We tremble to think of it. We know, blessed be God, that our Lord Jesus Christ will soon come, and take His own beloved and blood-bought people home to the prepared place in the Father’s house, to be for ever with Himself, in the ineffable blessedness of that bright home. But what of those who shall be left behind? What of that vast mass of baptised worldly profession? These are solemn questions which must be weighed in the immediate presence of God, in order to have the true – the divine answer. Let the reader ponder them there, in all tenderness of heart and teachableness of spirit, and the Holy Ghost will lead him to the true answer.<\/p>\n

Having sought to set forth, from various parts of scripture, the glorious truth that believers are not under law, but under grace, we may now pursue our study of this fifth chapter of Deuteronomy. In it we have the ten commandments; but not exactly as we have them in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. There are some characteristic touches which demand the reader’s attention.<\/p>\n

In Exodus 20 we have history; in Deuteronomy 5 we have not only history but commentary. In the latter, the lawgiver presents moral motives, and makes appeals which would be wholly out of place in the former. In the one, we have naked facts; in the other, facts and comments – facts and their practical application. In a word, there is not the slightest ground for imagining that Deuteronomy 5 is intended to be a literal repetition of Exodus 20; and hence the miserable arguments which infidels ground upon their apparent divergence just crumble into dust beneath our feet. They are simply baseless and utterly contemptible.<\/p>\n

Let us, for instance, compare the two scriptures in reference to the subject of the Sabbath. In Exodus 20 we read, “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 thy 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.”<\/p>\n

In Deuteronomy 5 we read, Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt 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, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 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. (Vers. 12-15.)<\/p>\n

Now, the reader can see, at a glance, the difference between the two passages. In Exodus 20 the command to keep the Sabbath is grounded on creation. In Deuteronomy 5 it is grounded on redemption without any allusion to creation, at all. In short, the points of difference arise out of the distinct character of each book, and are perfectly plain to every spiritual mind.<\/p>\n

With regard to the institution of the Sabbath we must remember that it rests wholly upon the direct authority of the word of God. Other commandments set forth plain moral duties. Every man knows it to be morally wrong to kill or steal; but, as to the observance of the Sabbath, no one could possibly recognise it as a duty had it not been distinctly appointed by divine authority. Hence its immense importance and interest. Both in our chapter, and in Exodus 20, it stands side by side with all those great moral duties which are universally recognised by the human conscience.<\/p>\n

And not only so; but we find, in various other scriptures, that the Sabbath is singled out and presented, with special prominence, as a precious link between Jehovah and Israel; a seal of His covenant with them; and a powerful test of their devotedness to Him. Every one could recognise the moral wrong of theft and murder; only those who loved Jehovah and His word would love and honour His Sabbath.<\/p>\n

Thus, in Exodus 16, in connection with the giving of the manna, we read, “And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you, to be kept until the morning….. And Moses said Eat that to day; for to day is a Sabbath unto the Lord; to day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass,” – so little were they capable of appreciating the high and holy privilege of keeping Jehovah’s Sabbath – “that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. and the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws” Their neglect of the Sabbath proved their moral condition to be all wrong-proved them to be astray as to all the commandments and laws of God. The Sabbath was the great touchstone, the measure and gauge of the real state of their hearts toward Jehovah – “See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.” they found rest and food on the holy Sabbath.<\/p>\n

Again, at the close of chapter 31, we have a very remarkable passage in proof of the importance and interest attaching to the Sabbath, in the mind of Jehovah. A full description of the tabernacle and its furniture had been given to Moses, and he was about to receive the two tables of testimony from the hand of Jehovah; but, as if to prove the prominent place which the holy Sabbath held in the divine mind, we read, “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall 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 for ever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” (Ex. 31: 12-17.)<\/p>\n

Now, this is a very important passage. It proves, very distinctly, the abiding character of the Sabbath. The terms in which it is spoken of are quite sufficient to show that it was no mere temporary institution, “A sign between me and you, throughout your generations” – “A perpetual covenant” – “a sign for ever.”<\/p>\n

Let the reader carefully mark these words. They prove, beyond all question, first, that the Sabbath was for Israel. Secondly, that the Sabbath is, in the mind of God, a permanent institution. It is needful to bear these things in mind, in order to avoid all vagueness of thought, and looseness of expression on this deeply interesting subject.<\/p>\n

The Sabbath was distinctly and exclusively for the Jewish nation. It is spoken of, emphatically, as a sign between Jehovah and His people Israel. There is not the most remote hint of its being intended for the Gentiles. We shall see, further on, that it is a lovely type of the times of the restitution of all thing of which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began; but this, in no wise, touches the fact of its being an exclusively Jewish institution. There is not so much as a single sentence of scripture to show that the Sabbath had any reference whatever to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Some would teach us that, inasmuch as we read of the Sabbath day, in Genesis 2, it must, of necessity, have a wider range than the Jewish But let us turn to the passage, and see what it says. “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”<\/p>\n

This is simple enough. There is no mention here of man, at all. We are not told that man rested on the seventh day. Men may infer, conclude or imagine that he did so; but the second of Genesis says nothing about it. And not only so, but we look in vain for any allusion to the Sabbath throughout the entire book of Genesis. The very first notice we have of the Sabbath, in connection with man, is in Exodus 16, a passage already quoted; and there we see, most distinctly, that it was given to Israel, as a people in recognised covenant relationship with Jehovah. That they did not understand or appreciate it is perfectly plain; that they never entered into it is equally plain, according to Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4. But we are now speaking of what it was in the mind of God; and He tells us it was a sign between Him and His people Israel; and a powerful test of their moral condition, and of the state of their heart as to Him. It was not only an integral part of the law as given by Moses to the congregation of Israel, but it is specially referred to and singled out, again and again, as an institution holding a very peculiar place in the mind of God.<\/p>\n

Thus, in the book of the prophet Isaiah, we read, “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people; neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house, and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger,” – here, of course, viewed in connection with Israel, as in Numbers 15 and other scriptures – “that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer, their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”<\/p>\n

Again, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” (Isaiah 58: 13, 14.)<\/p>\n

The foregoing quotations are amply sufficient to show the place which the Sabbath holds, in the mind of God. It is needless to multiply passages; but there is just one to which we must refer the reader, in connection with our present subject, namely, Leviticus 23. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. Six days shall work be done; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.” (Vers. 1-3.)<\/p>\n

Here it stands at the head of all the feasts given in this marvellous chapter in which we have foreshadowed the entire history of God’s dealings with His people Israel. The Sabbath is the expression of God’s eternal rest into which it is His purpose yet to bring His people, when all their toils and their trials and tribulations shall have passed away – that blessed “Sabbath keeping,” (sabbatismons) which “remaineth for the people of God.” In various ways, He sought to keep this glorious rest before the hearts of His people; the seventh day, the seventh year, the year of jubilee – all these lovely sabbatic seasons were designed to set forth that blessed time when Israel shall be gathered back to their own beloved land, when the Sabbath shall be kept, in all its deep, divine blessedness, as it never has been kept yet.<\/p>\n

And this leads us, naturally, to the second point in connection with the Sabbath, namely, its permanency. This is plainly proved by such expressions as, “perpetual” “a Sign for ever” – “throughout your generations.” Such words would never be applied to any merely temporary institution. Thus it is, alas! that Israel never really kept the Sabbath according to God; they never understood its meaning, never entered into its blessedness, never drank into its spirit. They made it a badge of their own righteousness; they boasted in it as a national institution, and used it for self-exaltation; but they never celebrated it in communion with God.<\/p>\n

We speak of the nation, as a whole. We doubt not there were precious souls who, in secret, enjoyed the Sabbath, and entered into the thoughts of God about it. But, as a nation, Israel never kept the Sabbath according to God. Hear what Isaiah says, “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.” (Chap. 1: 13.)<\/p>\n

Here we see that the precious and beautiful institution of the Sabbath which God had given as a sign of His covenant with His people, had, in their hands, become a positive abomination, perfectly intolerable to Him. And when we open the pages of the New Testament, we find the leaders and heads of the Jewish people continually at issue with our Lord Jesus Christ, in reference to the Sabbath. Look, for example, at the opening verses of Luke 6. “And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days? And Jesus answering them, said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone? And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n

And, again, we read, “It came to pass also on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue, and taught; and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day, that they might find an accusation against him.” – Only conceive an accusation for healing a poor, afflicted fellow mortal! – “But he knew their thoughts,” – yes, He read their hearts, through to their very centre – “and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose, and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he did so; and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.”<\/p>\n

What an insight we have here into the hollowness and worthlessness of man’s Sabbath keeping! Those religious guides would rather let the disciples starve than have their Sabbath interfered with. They would allow the man to carry his withered hand to the grave, rather than have him healed on their Sabbath. Alas! alas! it was indeed their Sabbath, and not God’s. His rest could never comport with hunger and withered hands. They had never read aright the record of David’s act, in eating the showbread. They did not understand that legal institutions must give way in the presence of divine grace meeting human need. Grace rises, in its magnificence, above all legal barriers, and faith rejoices in its lustre; but mere religiousness is offended by the activities of grace and the boldness of faith. The Pharisees did not see that the man with the withered hand was a striking commentary upon the nation’s moral condition, a living proof of the fact that they were far away from God. If they were as they ought to be, there would have been no withered hands to heal; but they were not; and hence their Sabbath was an empty formality, a powerless, worthless ordinance, a hideous anomaly, hateful to God, and utterly inconsistent with the condition of man.<\/p>\n

Take another instance, in Luke 13. “And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath” – Assuredly, the Sabbath was no day of rest to Him – “And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.” Beautiful illustration of the work of grace in the soul, and the practical result, in every case. All on whom Christ lays His blessed hands are “immediately made straight,” and enabled to glorify God.<\/p>\n

But man’s Sabbath was touched. “The ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day.” He was indignant at the gracious work of healing, though quite indifferent as to the humiliating case of infirmity – and he “said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” How little this poor hollow religionist knew that he was in the very presence of the Lord of the true Sabbath! How utterly insensible he was to the moral inconsistency of attempting to keep a, Sabbath while man’s condition called aloud for divine work! “The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite! doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”<\/p>\n

What a withering rebuke! What an opening up of the hollowness and utter wretchedness of their whole system of Judaism! Only think of the glaring incongruity of a Sabbath and a daughter of Abraham bound by the cruel hand of Satan, for eighteen years! There is nothing in all this world so blinding to the mind, so hardening to the heart, so deadening to the conscience, so demoralising to the whole being, as religion without Christ. Its deceiving and degrading power can only be thoroughly judged in the light of the divine presence. For ought that the ruler of the synagogue cared, that poor woman might have gone on to the end of her days, bowed together, and unable to lift up herself. He would have been well content to let her go on as a sad witness of the power of Satan, provided he could keep his Sabbath. His religious indignation was excited, not by the power of Satan as seen in the woman’s condition, but by the power of Christ, as seen in her complete deliverance.<\/p>\n

But the Lord gave him his answer. “And when be had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed;” – as well they might – “and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him.” What a striking contrast! The advocates of a powerless, heartless, worthless religion, unmasked and covered with shame and confusion, on the one band; and, on the other, all the people rejoicing in the glorious actings of the Son of God who had come into their midst to deliver them from the crushing power of Satan, and fill their hearts with the joy of God’s salvation, and their mouths with His praise!<\/p>\n

We must now ask the reader to turn to the gospel of John for further illustration of our subject. We earnestly desire that this vexed question of the Sabbath should be thoroughly examined in the light of scripture. We are convinced that there is very much more involved in it than many professing Christians are aware.<\/p>\n

At the opening of John 5 we are introduced to a scene strikingly indicative of Israel’s condition. We do not here attempt to go fully into the passage; we merely refer to it in connection with the subject before us.<\/p>\n

The pool of Bethesda, or “house of mercy” – while it was, undoubtedly, the expression of the mercy of God toward His people, – afforded abundant evidence of the miserable condition of man, in general, and of Israel, in particular. Its five porches were thronged with “a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.” What a sample of the whole human family, and of the nation of Israel! What a striking illustration of their moral and spiritual condition, as viewed from a divine standpoint. “Blind, halt, withered;” such is man’s real state, if he only knew it.<\/p>\n

But there was one man, in the midst of this impotent throng, so far gone, so feeble and helpless, that the pool of Bethesda could not meet his case. “A certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?” – What grace and power in this question! It went far beyond the utmost stretch of the impotent man’s thoughts. He thought only of human help, or of his own ability to get into the pool. He knew not that the speaker was above and beyond the pool, with its occasional movement; beyond angelic ministry, beyond all human help and efforts the possessor of all power in heaven and on earth. “The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man when the water is troubled, to put, me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.” What a, true picture of all those who are seeking salvation by ordinances! Each one doing the best he could for himself. No care for others. No thought of helping them. “Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n

Here we have man’s Sabbath again. It certainly was not God’s Sabbath. The miserable multitude gathered round the pool proved that God’s full rest had not yet come – that His glorious antitype of the Sabbath had not yet dawned on this sin-stricken earth. When that bright day comes, there will be no blind, halt, and withered folk thronging the porches of the pool of Bethesda. God’s Sabbath and human misery are wholly incompatible.<\/p>\n

But it was man’s Sabbath. It was no longer the seal of Jehovah’s covenant with the seed of Abraham – as it was once, and will be again – but the badge of man’s self-righteousness, “The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.” It was, no doubt, lawful enough for him to lie on that bed, week after week, month after month, year after year, while they were going on with their empty, worthless, hollow attempt at Sabbath keeping. If they had had one ray of spiritual light, they would have seen the flagrant inconsistency of attempting to maintain their traditional notions respecting the Sabbath in the presence of human misery, disease and degradation. But they were utterly blind; and hence when the glorious fruits of Christ’s ministry were being displayed, they had the temerity to pronounce them unlawful.<\/p>\n

Nor this only; but “therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.” What a, spectacle! Religious people, yea the leaders and teachers of religion – the guides of the professed people of God, seeking to slay the Lord of the Sabbath because He had made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day!<\/p>\n

But mark our Lord’s reply. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” This brief but comprehensive statement gives us the root of the whole matter. It opens up to us the real condition of mankind in general, and of Israel in particular; and, in the most affecting manner, presents the grand secret of our Lord’s life and ministry. Blessed be His Name, He had not come into this world to rest. How could He rest – how could He keep a Sabbath, in the midst of human need and misery? Ought not that impotent, blind, halt, and withered multitude which thronged the porches of the pool of Bethesda to have taught ” the Jews” the folly of their notions about the Sabbath? For what was that multitude but a sample of the condition of the nation of Israel, and of the whole human family? And how could divine love rest in the midst of such a condition of things? Utterly impossible. Love can only be a worker in a scene of sin and sorrow. From the moment of man’s fall, the Father had been working. Then the Son appeared to carry on the work. And, now, the Holy Ghost is working. Work, and not rest, is the divine order, in a world like this. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”<\/p>\n

The blessed Lord Jesus went about doing good, on the Sabbath day, as well as every other day; and, finally, having accomplished the glorious work of redemption, He spent the Sabbath in the grave, and rose on the first day of the week, as the First-begotten from the dead, and Head of the new creation, in which all things are of God, and to which, we may surely add, the question of “days and months, and times and years” can have no possible application. No one who thoroughly understands the meaning of death and resurrection could sanction, for a moment, the observance of days. The death of Christ put an end to all that order of things; and His resurrection introduces us into another sphere entirely where it is our high privilege to walk in the light and power of those eternal realities which are ours in Christ, and which stand in vivid contrast with the superstitious observances of a carnal and worldly religiousness.<\/p>\n

But here we approach a very interesting point in our subject, namely, the difference between the Sabbath and the Lord’s day, or first day of the week. These two are often confounded. We frequently hear, from the lips of truly pious people, the phrase, “Christian Sabbath,” an expression nowhere to be found in the New Testament. It may be that some who make use of it mean a right thing; but we should not only mean right, but also seek to express ourselves according to the teaching of holy scripture.<\/p>\n

We are persuaded that the enemy of God and of His Christ has had a great deal more to do with the conventionalisms of Christendom than many of us are aware; and this it is which makes the matter so very serious. The reader may perhaps feel disposed to pronounce it mere! hair-splitting to find any fault with the term “Christian Sabbath.” But he may rest assured it is nothing of the sort; on the contrary, if he will only calmly examine the matter in the light of the New Testament, he will find that it involves questions not only interesting but also weighty and important. It is a common saying, “There is nothing in a name;” but, in the matter now before us, there is much in a name.<\/p>\n

We have already remarked that our Lord spent the Sabbath in the grave. Is not this a telling and deeply significant fact? We cannot doubt it. We read in it, at least, the setting aside of the old condition of things, and the utter impossibility of keeping a Sabbath in a world of sin and death. Love could not rest in a world like this; it could only labour and die. This is the inscription which we read on the tomb where the Lord of the Sabbath lay buried.<\/p>\n

But what of the first day of the week? Is not it the Sabbath on a new footing – the Christian Sabbath? It is never so called in the New Testament. There is not so much as a hint of anything of the kind. If we look through the Acts of the Apostles, we shall find the two days spoken of in the most distinct way. On the Sabbath, we find the Jews assembled in their synagogues for the reading of the law and the prophets. On the first day of the week, we find the Christians assembled to break bread. The two days were as distinct as Judaism and Christianity; nor is there so much as a shadow of scripture foundation for the idea that the Sabbath was merged in the first day of the week. Where is there the slightest authority for the assertion that the Sabbath is changed from the seventh day to the eighth, or first day of the week? Surely, if there be any, nothing is easier than to produce it. But there is absolutely none.<\/p>\n

And, be it remembered, that the Sabbath is not merely a seventh day, but the seventh day. It is well to note this, inasmuch as some entertain the idea that provided a seventh portion of time be given to rest, and the public ordinances of religion, it is quite sufficient, and it does not matter what you call it; and thus different nations and different religious systems have their Sabbath day. But this can never satisfy any one who desires to be taught exclusively by scripture. The Sabbath of Eden was the seventh day. The Sabbath for Israel was the seventh day. But the eighth day leads our thoughts onward into eternity: and, in the New Testament, it is called ‘the first day of the week” as indicating the beginning of that new order of things of which the cross is the imperishable foundation, and a risen Christ the glorious Head and Centre. To call this day the “Christian Sabbath” is simply to confound things earthly and heavenly. It is to bring the Christian down from his elevated position as associated with a risen and glorified Head in the heavens, and occupy him with the superstitious observance of days, the very thing which made the blessed apostle stand in doubt of the assemblies in Galatia.<\/p>\n

In short, the more deeply we ponder the phrase “Christian Sabbath,” the more we are convinced that its tendency is, like many other formularies of Christendom, to rob the Christian of all those grand distinctive truths of the New Testament which mark off the church of God from all that went before, and all that is to follow after. The church, though on the earth, is not of this world, even as Christ is not of this world. It is heavenly in its origin, heavenly in its character, heavenly in its principles, walk and hope. It stands between the cross and the glory. The boundaries of its existence on earth are the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came down to form it, and the coming of Christ to receive it to Himself.<\/p>\n

Nothing can be more strongly marked than this; and, hence, for any one to attempt to enjoin upon the church of God the legal or superstitious observance of “days and months, and times and years,” is to falsify the entire Christian position; mar the integrity of divine revelation, and rob the Christian of the place and portion which belong to him, through the infinite grace of God, and the accomplished atonement of Christ.<\/p>\n

Does the reader deem this statement unwarrantably strong? If so, let him ponder the following splendid passage from Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians – a passage which ought to be written in letters of gold. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil [or make a prey of] you through philosophy and vain deceit” – mark the combination! not very flattering to philosophy – “after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Theotes, deity] bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.” – What more can we possibly want? In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”<\/p>\n

Magnificent victory! A victory gained single handed – gained for us! Universal and eternal homage to His peerless Name! What remains? “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” What can one who is complete and accepted in a risen and glorified Christ have to do with meats, drinks or holy days? What can philosophy, tradition or human religiousness do for him? What can passing shadows add to one who has grasped, by faith, the eternal substance? Surely nothing; and hence the blessed apostle proceeds, “Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore, if we be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances” – such as “touch not;” this “taste not,” – that – “handle not” – the other – which all are to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour, to the satisfying of the flesh.” – That is, not giving the measure of honour to the body which is due to it as God’s vessel, but puffing up the flesh with religious pride, fed by a hollow and worthless sanctimoniousness. (Col. 2: 6-23.)<\/p>\n

We do not dare to offer any apology for this lengthened quotation. An apology for quoting scripture! Far be the thought! It is not possible for any one to understand this marvellous passage and not have a complete settlement, not only of the Sabbath question, but also of that entire system of things with which this question stands connected. The Christian, who understands his position, is done, for ever, with all questions of meats and drinks, days and months and times and years. He knows nothing of holy seasons and holy places. He is dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, and, as such, is delivered from all the ordinances of a traditional religion. He belongs to heaven, where new moons, holy days and Sabbaths have no place. He is in the new creation, where all things are of God; and hence he can see no moral force in such words as ” touch not; taste not; handle not.” They have no possible application to him. He lives in a region where the clouds, vapours and mists of monasticism and asceticism are never seen. He has given up all the worthless forms of mere fleshly pietism, and got, in exchange, the solid realities of Christian life. His ear has been opened to hear, and his heart to understand the powerful exhortation of the inspired apostle, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.”<\/p>\n

Here we have unfolded before our eyes some of the glories of true, practical, vital Christianity, in striking contrast with all the barren and dreary forms of carnal and worldly religiousness. Christian life does not consist in the observance of certain rules, commandments or traditions of men. It is a divine reality. It is Christ in the heart, and Christ reproduced in the daily life, by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is the new man, formed on the model of Christ Himself, and displaying itself in all the most minute details of our daily history, in the family, in the business, in all our intercourse with our fellow men, in our temper, spirit, style, deportment, all. It is not a matter of mere profession, or of dogma, or of opinion, or of sentiment; it is an unmistakable, living reality. It is the kingdom of God, set up in the heart, asserting its blessed sway over the whole moral being, and shedding its genial influence upon the entire sphere in which we are called to move, from day to day. It is the Christian walking in the blessed footsteps of Him who went about doing good; meeting, so far as in him lies, every form of human need; living not for himself but for others; finding his delight in serving and giving; ready to soothe and sympathise wherever he finds a crushed spirit or a bereaved and desolate heart.<\/p>\n

This is Christianity. And oh! how it differs from all the forms in which legality and superstition clothe themselves! How different from the unintelligent and unmeaning observance of days, and months, and times and years, abstaining from meats, forbidding to marry, and such-like! How different from the vapourings of the mystic, the gloom of the ascetic, and the austerities of the monk! How totally different from all these! Yes, reader; and we may add, how different from the unsightly union of high profession and low practice; lofty truths held in the intellect, professed, taught and discussed, and worldliness, self-indulgence, and unsubduedness! The Christianity of the New Testament differs alike from all these things. It is the divine, the heavenly, and the spiritual, displayed amid the human, the earthly and the natural. May it be the holy purpose of the writer and the reader of these lines to be satisfied with nothing short of that morally glorious Christianity revealed in the pages of the New Testament!<\/p>\n

It is needless, we trust, to add more on the question of the Sabbath. If the reader has, at all, seized the import of those scriptures which have passed before us, he will have little difficulty in seeing the place which the Sabbath holds, in the dispensational ways of God. He will see that it has direct reference to Israel and the earth – that it was a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and His earthly people, and a powerful test of their moral condition.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, he will see that Israel never really kept the Sabbath, never understood its import, never appreciated its value. This was made manifest in the life, ministry and death of our Lord Jesus Christ who performed many of His works of healing on the Sabbath day, and, at the end, spent that day in the tomb.<\/p>\n

Finally, he will clearly understand the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the first day of the week, or the Lord’s day; that the latter is never once called the Sabbath, in the New Testament; but, on the contrary, is constantly presented in its own proper distinctness; it is not the Sabbath changed or transferred, but a new day altogether, having its own special basis and its own peculiar range of thought, leaving the Sabbath wholly untouched, as a suspended institution, to be resumed, by-and-by, when the seed of Abraham shall be restored to their own land. (See Ezek 46: 1, 12.)<\/p>\n

But we cannot, happily, turn from this interesting subject without a few words on the place assigned, in the New Testament, to the Lord’s day, or first day of the week. Though it is not the Sabbath; and though it has nothing to do with holy days, or new moons, or “days and months, and times and years;” yet it has its own unique place in Christianity, as is evident from manifold passages in the scriptures of the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Our Lord rose from the dead, on that day. He met His disciples, again and again, on that day. The apostle and the brethren at Troas came together to break bread on that day. (Acts 20: 7.) The apostle instructs the Corinthians, and all that, in every place, call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to lay by their offerings on that day; thus teaching us, distinctly, that the first day of the week was the special day for the Lord’s people to assemble for the Lord’s Supper, and the worship, communion and ministry connected with that most precious institution. The blessed Apostle John expressly tells us that he was in the Spirit, on that day, and received that marvellous revelation which closes the Divine Volume.* <\/p>\n

{*Some are of opinion that the expression, “On the Lord’s day” ought to be rendered, “Of the day of the Lord,” meaning that the apostle was in the spirit of that day when our Lord Christ shall take to Himself His great power and reign. But to this view there are two grave objections. In the first place, the words te kuriake hemera, rendered, in Revelation 1: 10, “the Lord’s day,” are quite distinct from te hemera kuriou, in 1 Thessalonians 5: 2; 2 Thessalonians 2: 2; 2 Peter 3: 10, properly rendered, “The day of the Lord.” This we consider a very weighty objection, and one quite sufficient to settle the question. But, in addition to this, we have the argument based on the fact that by far the greater portion of the book of Revelation is occupied, not with “the day of the Lord” but with events prior thereto. Hence, therefore, we feel persuaded that “the Lord’s day” and “the first day of the week” are identical; and this we deem a very important fact as proving that that day has a very special place in the word of God – a place which every intelligent Christian will thankfully own.}<\/p>\n

Thus then, we have a body of scripture evidence before us amply sufficient to prove to every pious mind that the Lord’s day must not be reduced to the level of ordinary days. It is, to the true Christian, neither the Jewish Sabbath, on the one hand, nor the Gentile Sunday, on the other; but the Lord’s day, on which His people gladly and thankfully assemble round His Table, to keep that precious feast by which they show forth His death, until He come.<\/p>\n

Now, it is needless to say that there is not a shade of legal bondage or of superstition connected with the first day of the week. To say so, or to think so, would be to deny the entire circle of truths with which that day stands connected. We have no direct commandment respecting the observance of the day; but the passages already referred to are amply sufficient, for every spiritual mind; and, further, we may say that the instincts of the divine nature would lead every true Christian to honour and love the Lord’s day, and to set it apart, in the most reverent manner, for the worship and service of God. The very thought of any one, professing to love Christ, engaging in business, or unnecessary travelling, on the Lord’s day, would, in our judgement, be revolting to every pious feeling. We believe it to be a hallowed privilege to retire, as much as possible, from all the distractions of natural things, and to devote the hours of the Lord’s day to Himself and to His service.<\/p>\n

It will, perhaps be said that the Christian ought to devote every day to the Lord. Most surely; we are the Lord’s, in the very fullest and highest sense. All we have and all we are belongs to Him. This we fully, gladly, own. We are called to do everything in His Name, and to His glory. It is our high privilege to buy and sell, eat and drink, yea, to carry on all our business, under His eye and in the fear and love of His holy Name. We should not put our hand to anything, on any day in the week, on which we could not, with the fullest confidence, ask the Lord’s blessing.<\/p>\n

All this is most fully admitted. Every true Christian joyfully owns it. But, at the same time, we deem it Impossible to read the New Testament and not see that the Lord’s day gets a unique place; that it is marked off for us, in the most distinct way; that it has a significance and an importance which cannot, with justice, be claimed for any other day in the week. Indeed so fully are we convinced of the truth of all this, that, even though it were not the law of England, that the Lord’s day should be observed, we should deem it to be both our sacred duty and holy privilege to abstain from all business engagements, save such as were absolutely unavoidable.<\/p>\n

Thanks be to God, it is the law of England that the Lord’s day should be observed. This is a signal mercy to all who love the day for the Lord’s sake. We cannot but own His great goodness in having wrested the day from the covetous grasp of the world, and bestowed it upon His people and His servants to be devoted to His worship and to His work.<\/p>\n

What a boon is the Lord’s day, with its profound retirement from worldly things! What should we do without it? What a blessed break in upon the week’s toil! How refreshing its exercises to the spiritual mind! How precious the assembly round the Lord’s Table to remember Him, to show forth His death, and celebrate His praise! How delightful the varied services of the Lord’s day, whether those of the evangelist, the pastor, the teacher, the Sunday-school worker, or the tract distributor! What human language can adequately set forth the value and interest of all these things? True it is that the Lord’s day is anything but a day of bodily rest to His servants; indeed they are often more fatigued on that day than on any other day of the week. But oh! it is a blessed fatigue; a delightful fatigue; a fatigue which will meet its bright reward in the rest that remains for the people of God.<\/p>\n

Once more, then, beloved Christian reader, let us lift up our hearts in a note of praise to our God for the blessed boon of the Lord’s day. May He continue it to His church until He come! May He countervail, by His Almighty power, every effort of the infidel and the atheist to remove the barriers which English law has erected around the Lord’s day. Truly it will be a sad day for England when those barriers are removed.<\/p>\n

It may, perhaps, be said, by some that the Jewish Sabbath is done away, and is, therefore, no longer binding. A large number of professing Christians have taken this ground, and pleaded for the Opening of the parks and places of public recreation on the Sunday. Alas! it is easily seen where such people are drifting to, and what they are seeking. They would set aside the law, in order to procure a licence for fleshly indulgence. They do not understand that the only way in which any one can be free from the law is by being dead to it; and, if dead to the law, we are also of blessed necessity, dead to sin, and dead to the world.<\/p>\n

This makes it a different matter altogether. The Christian is, thank God, free from the law; but, if he is, it is not that he may amuse and indulge himself, on the Lord’s day, or any other day; but that he may live to God. “I, through law, am dead to law; that I might live unto God.” This is Christian ground; and it can only be occupied by those who are truly born of God. The world cannot understand it; neither can they understand the holy privileges and spiritual exercises of the Lord’s day.<\/p>\n

All this is true; but, at the same time, we are thoroughly convinced that were England to remove the barriers which surround the Lord’s day, it would afford a melancholy proof of her abandonment of that profession of religion which has, so long characterised her, as a nation, and of her drifting away in the direction of infidelity and atheism. We must not lose sight of the weighty fact that England has taken the ground of being a Christian nation – a nation professing to be governed by the word of God. She is therefore much more responsible than those nations wrapped in the dark shades of heathenism. We believe that nations, like individuals, will be held responsible for the profession they make; and, hence, those nations which profess and call themselves Christian shall be judged not merely by the light of creation, nor by the law of Moses, but by the full-orbed light of that Christianity which they profess – by all the truth contained within the covers of that blessed book which they possess, and in which they make their boast. The heathen shall be judged on the ground of creation; the Jew, on the ground of the law; the nominal Christian, on the ground of the truth of Christianity.<\/p>\n

Now this grave fact renders the position of England and all other professing Christian nations most serious. God will, most assuredly, deal with them on the ground of their profession. It is of no use to say they do not understand what they profess; for why profess what they do not understand and believe? The fact is they profess to understand and believe; and by this fact they shall be judged. They make their boast in this familiar sentence that ” The Bible, and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.”<\/p>\n

If this be so, how solemn is the thought of England judged by the standard of an open Bible! ‘What will be her judgement? – what her end? Let all whom it may concern ponder the appalling answer.<\/p>\n

We must, now, turn from the deeply interesting subject of the Sabbath and the Lord’s day, and draw this section to a close by quoting for the reader the remarkable paragraph with which our chapter ends. It does not call for any lengthened comment, but we deem it profitable, in these “Notes on Deuteronomy,” to furnish the reader with very full quotations from the book itself, in order that he may have before him the very words of the Holy Ghost, without even the trouble of laying aside the volume which he holds in his hand.<\/p>\n

Having laid before the people the ten commandments, the law-giver proceeds to remind them of the solemn circumstances which accompanied the giving of the law, together with their own feelings and utterances, on the occasion.<\/p>\n

“These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more; and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness – for the mountain did burn with fire – that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; and ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath showed us his glory, and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have and lived? Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it. And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee; they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! Go say to them, Get you into your tents again; but as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgements, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you; ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.”<\/p>\n

Here the grand principle of the book of Deuteronomy shines out with uncommon lustre. It is embodied in those touching and forcible words which form the very heart’s core of the splendid passage just quoted. “Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!”<\/p>\n

Precious words! They set before us, most blessedly, the secret spring of that life which we, as Christians are called to live, from day to day – the life of simple, implicit and unqualified obedience, namely, a heart fearing the Lord – fearing Him, not in a servile spirit, but with all that deep, true, adoring love which the Holy Ghost sheds abroad in our hearts. It is this that delights the heart of our loving Father. His word to us is, “My son, give me thine heart.” Where the heart is given, all follows, in lovely moral order. A loving heart finds its very deepest joy in obeying all God’s commandments; and nothing is of any value to God but what springs from a loving heart. The heart is the source of all the issues of life; and, hence, when it is governed by the love of God there is a loving response to all His commandments. We love His commandments because we love Him. Every word of His is precious to the heart that loves Him. Every precept, every statute, every judgement, in a word, His whole law is loved, reverenced, and obeyed, because it has His Name, and His authority attached to it.<\/p>\n

The reader will find, in Psalm 119, an uncommonly fine illustration of the special point now before us – a most striking example of one who blessedly answered to the words quoted above; – “Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always.” It is the lovely breathing of a soul who found its deep, unfailing, constant delight in the law of God. There are no less than one hundred and seventy allusions to that precious law, under some one title or another. We find scattered along the surface of this marvellous psalm, in rich profusion, such gems as the following.<\/p>\n

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” “I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies as much as in all riches.” “I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.” “I will delight myself in thy statutes; I will not forget thy word.” “My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgements at all times.” “Thy testimonies also are my delight, and my counsellors.” “I have stuck unto Thy testimonies.” “Behold, I have longed after thy precepts.” “I trust in thy word.” “I have hoped in thy judgements.” “I seek; thy precepts.” “I will delight myself in thy commandments which I have loved.” “I remembered thy judgements.” Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage.” “I turned my feet unto thy testimonies.” “I have believed thy commandments.” “The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” “I have hoped in thy word.” “Thy law is my delight.” “Mine! eyes fail for thy word.” “All thy commandments are faithful.” “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “I will never forget thy precepts.” “I have sought thy precepts.” “I will consider thy testimonies.” “Thy commandment is exceeding broad.” “O how love I thy law; it is my meditation all the day.” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste? yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth.” “Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever; for they are The rejoicing of my heart.” “I Will have respect unto thy statutes continually” “I love thy commandments above gold, yea, above fine gold.” “I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right.” “Thy testimonies are wonderful.” “I opened my mouth, and panted, for I longed for Thy commandments.” “Upright are thy judgements.” “Thy testimonies….. are righteous, and very faithful.” “Thy word is very pure.” “Thy law is the truth.” “The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting.” “All thy commandments are truth.” “Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgements endureth for ever: “My heart standeth in awe of Thy word.” “I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.” “Great peace have they that love thy law.” “My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.” “I have chosen thy precepts.” “Thy law is my delight.”<\/p>\n

Truly it does the heart good, and refreshes the spirit, to transcribe such utterances as the foregoing, many of which are the suited utterances of our Lord Himself, in the days of His flesh. He ever lived upon the word. It was the food of His soul; the authority of His path, the material of His ministry. By it He vanquished Satan; by it He silenced Sadducees, Pharisees and Herodians. By it He taught His disciples. To it He commended His servants, as He was about to ascend into the heavens.<\/p>\n

How important is all this for us! How intensely interesting! How deeply practical! What a place it gives the holy scriptures! For we remember that it is, in very deed, the blessed Volume of inspiration which is brought before us in all those golden sentences culled from Psalm 119. How strengthening, refreshing and encouraging for us to mark the way in which our Lord uses the holy scriptures, at all times, the place He gives them, and the dignity He puts upon them! He appeals to them, on all occasions, as a divine authority, from which there can be no appeal. He, though Himself as God over all, the Author of the Volume, having taken His place as man, on the earth, sets forth, with all possible plainness, what is man’s bounden duty and high privilege, namely, to live by the word of God – to bow down, in reverent subjection, to its divine authority.<\/p>\n

And have we not here a very complete answer to the oft-raised question of infidelity, “How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?” If indeed we believe in Christ; if we own Him to be the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, very God and very man, we cannot fail to see the moral force of the fact that this divine Person constantly appeals to the scriptures – to Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, as to a divine standard. Did He not know them to be the word of God? Undoubtedly. As God, He had given them; as Man, He received them, lived by them, and owned their paramount authority, in all things.<\/p>\n

What a weighty fact is here for the professing church! What a withering rebuke to all those so called Christian doctors and writers who have presumed to tamper with the grand fundamental truth of the plenary inspiration of the holy scriptures in general, and of the five books of Moses in particular! How terrible to think of the professed teachers of the church of God daring to designate as spurious, writings which our Lord and Master received and owned as divine!<\/p>\n

And yet we are told, and we are expected to believe that things are improving! Alas! alas! it is a miserable delusion. The degrading absurdities of ritualism, and the blasphemous reasonings of infidelity are rapidly increasing around us; and where these influences are not actually dominant, we observe, for the most part, a cold indifference, carnal ease, self indulgence, and worldliness – anything and everything, in short, but the evidence of improvement. If people are not led away by infidelity, on the one hand, or by ritualism, on the other, it is, for the most part, owing to the fact that they are too much occupied with pleasure and gain to think of anything else. And as to the religion of the day, if you subtract money and music, you will have a lamentably trifling balance.<\/p>\n

Hence, therefore, it is impossible to shake off the conviction that the combined testimony of observation and experience is directly opposed to the notion that things are improving. Indeed, for any one, in the face of such an array of evidence to the contrary, to cling to such a theory can only be regarded as the fruit of a most unaccountable credulity.<\/p>\n

But, perhaps, some may feel disposed to say that we must not judge by the sight of our eyes; we must be hopeful. True, provided only we have a divine warrant for our hopefulness. If a single line of scripture can be produced to prove that the present system of things is to be marked by gradual improvement, religiously, politically, morally, or socially, then, by all means, be hopeful. Yes; hope against hope. A single clause of inspiration is quite sufficient to form the basis of a hope which will lift the heart above the very darkest and most depressing surroundings.<\/p>\n

But where is such a clause to be found? Simply, nowhere. The testimony of the Bible, from cover to cover; the distinct teaching of holy scripture, from beginning to end; the voices of prophets and apostles, in unbroken harmony – all, without a single divergent note, go to prove, with a force and clearness perfectly unanswerable, that the present condition of things, so far from gradually improving, will grow rapidly worse; that ere the bright beams of millennial glory can gladden this groaning earth, the sword of judgement must do its appalling work. To quote the passages, in proof of our assertion, would literally fill a volume; it would simply be to transcribe a large portion of the prophetic scriptures of the Old and New Testament.<\/p>\n

This, of course, we do not attempt. There is no need. The reader has his Bible before him. Let him search it diligently. Let him lay aside all his preconceived ideas, all the conventionalisms of Christendom, all the ordinary phraseology of the religious world, all the dogmas of the schools of divinity, and come, with the simplicity of a little child, to the pure fountain of holy scripture, and drink in its heavenly teaching. If he will only do this, he will rise from the study with the clear and settled conviction that the world will, most assuredly, not be converted by the means now in operation – that it is not the gospel of peace but the besom of destruction that shall prepare the earth for glory.<\/p>\n

Is it, then, that we deny the good that is being done? Are we insensible to it? Far be the thought! We heartily bless God for every atom of it. We rejoice in every effort put forth to spread the precious gospel of the grace of God; we render thanks for every soul gathered within the blessed circle of God’s salvation. We delight to think of eighty-five millions of Bibles scattered over the earth. What human mind can calculate the results of all these, yea, the results of a single copy? We earnestly wish God speed to every true-hearted missionary who goes forth with the glad tidings of salvation, whether into the lanes and court-yards of London, or to the most distant parts of the earth.<\/p>\n

But, admitting all this, as we most heartily do, we nevertheless do not believe in the conversion of the world by the means now in operation. Scripture tells us that it is when the divine judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world shall learn righteousness. This one clause of inspiration ought to be sufficient to prove that it is not by the gospel that the world is to be converted, and there are hundreds of clauses which speak the same language and teach the same truth. It is not by grace, but by judgement, that the inhabitants of the world shall learn righteousness.<\/p>\n

What then is the object of the gospel If it be not to convert the world, for what purpose is it preached? The Apostle James, in his address at the memorable council at Jerusalem, gives an answer, direct and conclusive, to the question. He says, “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles.” For what? To convert them all? The very reverse: “To take out of them a people for his name.” Nothing can be more distinct than this It sets before us that which ought to be the grand object of all missionary effort – that which every divinely sent and divinely taught missionary will keep before his mind, in all his blessed labours. It is “to take out a people for his name.”<\/p>\n

How important to remember this! How needful to have ever before us a true object, in all our work! Of what possible use can it be to work for a false object? Is it not much better to work with a direct view to what God is doing? Will it cripple the missionary’s energies or clip his wings to keep before his eyes the divine purpose in his work? Surely not. Take the case of two missionaries going forth to some distant mission-field; the one has for his object the conversion of the world; the other, the gathering out of a people. Will the latter, by reason of his object, be less devoted, less energetic, less enthusiastic than the former? We cannot believe it; on the contrary, the very fact of his being in the current of the divine mind will impart stability and consistency to his work; and, at the same time, encourage his heart in the face of the difficulties and hindrances which surround him.<\/p>\n

But, however this may be, it is perfectly plain that the apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had no such object, in going forth to their work, as the conversion of the world. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”<\/p>\n

This was to the twelve. The world was to be their sphere. The aspect of their message was unto every creature; the application, to him that believeth. It was, pre-eminently, an individual thing. The conversion of the whole world was not to be their object; that will be effected by a different agency altogether, when God’s present action by the gospel shall have resulted in the gathering out of a people for the heavens.* The Holy Ghost came down, on the day of Pentecost, not to convert the world, but to “convict” (elegxei) it, or demonstrate its guilt, in having rejected the Son of God.** The effect of His presence was to prove the world guilty; and as to the grand object of His mission, it was to form a body composed of believers from amongst both Jews and Gentiles. With this He has been occupied for the last eighteen hundred years. This is “the mystery” of which the Apostle Paul was made a minister, and which he unfolds, so fully and blessedly, in his epistle to the Ephesians. It is impossible for any one to understand the truth set forth in this marvellous document, and not see that the conversion of the world and the formation of the body of Christ are two totally different things which could not possibly go on together.<\/p>\n

{*We would commend to the reader’s attention Psalm 47. It is one of a large class of passages which prove that the blessing of the nations is consequent upon Israel’s restoration. “God be merciful unto us [Israel] and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon us, that thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations…. God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.” There could not be a more lovely or forcible proof of the fact that it is Israel, and not the church, that will be used for the blessing of the nations.} <\/p>\n

{**The application of John 16: 8-11 to the Spirit’s work in the individual is, in our judgement, a serious mistake. It refers to the effect of His presence on earth, in reference to the world as a whole. His work in the soul is a precious truth, we need hardly say; but it is not the truth taught in this passage.} <\/p>\n

Let the reader ponder the following beautiful passage: “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men” – not made known in the scriptures of the Old Testament; nor revealed to the Old Testament saints or prophets – “as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets” – that is, to the New Testament prophets – “by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see, what is the dispensation [oikonomia] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenlies might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” (Eph. 3: 1-10)<\/p>\n

Take another passage from the epistle to the Colossians. “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the church; whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to complete the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus; whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” (Col. 1: 23-29.)<\/p>\n

From these, and numerous other passages, the reader may see the special object of Paul’s ministry. Assuredly, he had no such thought in his mind as the conversion of the world. True, he preached the gospel, in all its depth, fullness and power – preached it “from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum” – “preached among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;” but with no thought of converting the world. He knew better. He knew and taught that the world was ripening for judgement – yes, ripening rapidly; that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse;” that, “In the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”<\/p>\n

And, further still, this faithful and divinely inspired witness taught that “in the last days” – far in advance of “the latter times” – “perilous [or difficult] times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (Compare 1 Tim. 4: 1-3 with 2 Tim. 3: 1-5)<\/p>\n

What a picture! It brings us back to the close of the first of Romans, where the same inspired pen portrays for us the dark forms of heathenism; but with this terrible difference that in 2 Timothy it is not heathenism but nominal Christianity – “a form of godliness.” And is this to be the end of the present condition of things? Is this the converted world of which we hear so much? Alas! alas! there are false prophets abroad. There are those who cry Peace, peace, when there is no peace. There are those who attempt to daub the crumbling walls of Christendom with untempered mortar.<\/p>\n

But it will not do. Judgement is at the door. The professing church has utterly, shamefully failed; she has grievously departed from the word of God, and revolted from the authority of her Lord. There is not a single ray of hope for Christendom. It is the darkest moral blot in the wide universe of God, or on the page of history. The same blessed apostle from whose writings we have already so largely quoted, tells us that the mystery of iniquity doth already work;” hence it has been working now for over eighteen centuries. “Only he that now hindereth will hinder until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the troth, that they might he saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thess. 2: 7-12.)<\/p>\n

How awful is the doom of Christendom! Strong delusion! Dark damnation! And all this in the face of the dreams of those false prophets who talk to the people about “the bright side of things.” Thank God, there is a bright side for all those who belong to Christ. To them the apostle can speak in bright and cheering accents. “We are bound to give thanks alway to God for yon, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 2: 13, 14.)<\/p>\n

Here we have, most surely, the bright side of things – the bright and blessed hope of the church of (God – the hope of seeing “the bright and morning Star.” All rightly instructed Christians are on the look out, not for an improved or a converted world, but for their coming Lord and Saviour who has gone to prepare a place for them in the Father’s house; and is coming again to receive them to Himself, that where He is, there they may be also. This is His own sweet promise, which may be fulfilled at any moment. He only waits, as Peter tells us, in long suffering mercy, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But when the last member shall be incorporated, by the Holy Ghost, into the blessed body of Christ, then shall the voice of the archangel and the trump of God summon all the redeemed, from the beginning, to meet their descending Lord, in the air, to be for ever with Him.<\/p>\n

This is the true and proper hope of the church of God – a hope which He would have ever shining down; into the hearts of all His beloved people, in its purifying and elevating power. Of this blessed hope the enemy has succeeded in robbing a large number of the Lord’s people. Indeed, for centuries it was well nigh blotted out from the church’s horizon; and it has only been partially recovered within the last fifty years. And alas! how partially! Where do we hear of it, throughout the length and breadth of the professing church? Do the pulpits of Christendom ring with the joyful sound, “Behold the Bridegroom cometh”? Far from it. Even the few beloved servants of Christ who are looking for His coming, hardly dare to preach it, because they fear it would be utterly rejected. And so it would. We are thoroughly persuaded that, in the vast majority of cases, men who should venture to preach the glorious truth that the Lord is coming for His church, would speedily have to vacate their pulpits.<\/p>\n

What a solemn and striking proof of Satan’s blinding power! He has robbed the church of divinely given hope; and, instead thereof, he has given her a delusion – a lie. Instead of looking out for “The bright and morning Star,” he has set her looking for a converted world – a millennium without Christ. He has succeeded in casting such a haze over the future, that the church has completely lost bearings. She does not know where she is. She is like a vessel tossed on the stormy ocean, having neither compass nor rudder, seeing neither sun nor stars. All is darkness and confusion.<\/p>\n

And how is this? Simply because the church has lost sight of the pure and precious word of her Lord and has accepted, instead, those bewildering creeds confessions of men which so mar and mutilate the truth of God, that Christians seem utterly at sea as to their proper standing and their proper hope.<\/p>\n

And yet they have the Bible in their hands. True but so had the Jews, and yet they rejected the blessed One who is the great theme of the Bible from beginning to end. This was the moral inconsistency with which our Lord charged them, in John “Ye search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me; ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”* <\/p>\n

{*the word ereunate may be either imperative or indicative but the context, we judge, demands the latter. They had scriptures; they were read in their synagogues every day; they professed to believe that in them they had life; they testified of Him; and yet they would not come Him. Here was the flagrant inconsistency. Now if ereunate be taken as a command, the whole force of the passage is lost. Need we remind the reader that there are plenty of arguments and inducements leading us to search the scriptures, without appealing to what we believe to be an inaccurate rendering of John 5: 39}<\/p>\n

And why was this? Simply because their minds were blinded by religious prejudice. They were under the influence of the doctrines and commandments of men. Hence, although they had the scriptures, and boasted of having them, they were as ignorant of them, and as little governed by them as the poor dark heathen around them. It is one thing to have the Bible in our hands, in our homes, and in our assemblies, and quite another thing to have the truths of the Bible acting on our hearts and consciences, and shining in our lives.<\/p>\n

Take, for instance, the great subject now before us, and which has led us into this very lengthened digression. Can anything be more plainly taught in the New Testament than this, namely, that the end of the present condition of things will be terrible apostasy from the truth, and open rebellion against God and the Lamb? The Gospels, the Epistles and the Revelation all agree in setting forth this most solemn truth, with such distinctness and simplicity that a babe in Christ may see it.<\/p>\n

And yet how few comparatively believe it! The vast majority believe the very reverse. They believe that by means of the various agencies now in operation all nations shall be converted. In vain we call attention to our Lord’s parables in Matthew 13; the tares, the leaven, and the mustard seed. How do these agree with the idea of a converted world? If the whole world is to be converted by a preached gospel, how is it that tares are found in the field at the end of the age? How is it that there are as many foolish virgins as wise ones, when the Bridegroom comes? If the whole world is to be converted by the gospel, then on whom will “the day of the Lord so come as a thief in the night”? Or what mean those awful words, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape”? In view of a converted world, what would be the just application, what the moral force of those most solemn words, in the first of Revelation, “Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him”? Where are all those wailing kindreds to be found, if the whole world is to be converted?<\/p>\n

Reader, is it not as clear as a sunbeam that the two things cannot stand, for a moment together. Is it not perfectly plain that the theory of a world converted by the gospel is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the entire New Testament? How is it then that the vast majority of professing Christians persist in holding it? There can be but the one reply, and that is, they do not bow to the authority of scripture. It is most sorrowful and solemn to have to say it; but it is, alas! too true. The Bible is read in Christendom; but the truths of the Bible are not believed – nay, they are persistently rejected. And all this in view of the oft-repeated boast that “the Bible, and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.”<\/p>\n

But we shall not pursue this subject further here, much as we feel its weight and importance. We trust the reader may be led by the Spirit of God to feel its deep solemnity. We believe the Lord’s people everywhere need to be thoroughly roused to a sense of how entirely the professing church has departed from the authority of scripture. Here, we may rest assured, lies the real cause of all the confusion, all the error, all the evil in our midst. We have departed from the word of the Lord, and from Himself. Until this is seen, felt and owned, we cannot be right. The Lord looks for true repentance, real brokenness of spirit, in His presence. “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”<\/p>\n

This always holds good. There is no limit to the blessing, when the soul is in this truly blessed attitude. But it must be a reality. being “poor and contrite; We must be in the condition. It is an individual matter. “To this man will I look”<\/p>\n

Oh! may the Lord, in His infinite mercy, lead us, every one, into true self judgement, under the action of His word! May our ears he opened to hear His voice! May there be a real turning of our hearts to Himself and to His word! May we turn our backs, in holy decision, once and for ever, upon everything that will not stand the test of scripture! This, we are persuaded, is what our Lord Christ looks for on the part Of all who belong to Him, amid the terrible and hopeless debris of Christendom.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Deu 5:1-21. Yahwehs covenant (Deu 4:13*) with Israel at Horeb (Deu 1:2*) and its obligations (Deu 5:6-21). With Ds version of the Decalogue (Deu 5:6-21) compare the earlier form in Exo 20:1-17* (E). Wellhausen is wrong in holding that there is a third (an older) version in Exo 34:10-26. The following are the principal characteristics of Dt.s rendering: (a) There are hortatory additions, (b) The statements are more definite and emphatic. (c) The wifes status is higher. (d) Dt. substitutes a humanitarian motive for the observance of the Sabbath (cf. Exo 20:11*). (e) Dt. gives additional motives for honouring parents. (f) Deu 5:14 adds ox, ass, man-servant, woman-servant to the list in Exo 20:10 f.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A REVIEW OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS<\/p>\n

(vs.1-22)<\/p>\n

At the beginning of the wilderness journey God had given Israel the ten commandments. Now at the end of the journey it was necessary that these same commandments should be strongly pressed upon them. They were now to enter the land, but were to have no smug thoughts of so having obtained what was promised them that they would be able to relax and ignore the laws of God.<\/p>\n

Moses, now at the age of 120 years, had not declined in the energy of his speaking, but declared, “Hear, 0 Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them” (v.1).<\/p>\n

He reminds Israel that God made a covenant with them in Horeb, not with their fathers, but with them (v.3). This was literally true of all those who were now over forty years of age, though those younger than this had not yet been born. Still, that law was applicable to all who were there alive now that Moses is speaking. Of course those who were living at the time would remember that God had spoken to them from the midst of a fire (v.14). How could they forget that awesome sight?<\/p>\n

Moses stood between the Lord and Israel at that time (v.5). Thus he was the mediator, typical of Christ who is today the “one Mediator between God and men” (1Ti 2:5). For the presence of God was forbidding then, and would be just as forbidding now if we did not have this Mediator who is the only Way of approach to God.<\/p>\n

The ten commandments are introduced by the initial declaration of the Lord, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (v.16). This certainly should awaken Israel’s utmost respect and attention.<\/p>\n

The first commandment is absolutely basic, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (v.7). For immediately another god is introduced, whatever people say about it, it is not merely added as an object alongside of God, but it is always put before God. Some may claim it is only intended as a reminder of God, but this is Satan’s deception, for such things will always give a wrong conception of God.<\/p>\n

The second commandment is related to the first, forbidding the making of images of any created thing, whether in heaven or earth or in the waters (v.8). Bowing down to such things or worshiping them is an insult to God. Israel did this in the case of the golden calf (Exo 32:1-8), but God is rightly jealous of His own glory, and if the fathers are guilty of such iniquity, God will visit the results of this upon the children to the third and fourth generation (v.9). It is always true that our children will suffer because of our disobedience to God. This does not affect the question of eternal salvation, for any one of the children may still call on the Lord and be saved, but their lives on earth will be affected by their parents’ wrongdoing. If a man is a robber, his children will suffer on earth because of this, but they can still be saved eternally by receiving Christ as Savior.<\/p>\n

The third commandment forbids taking God’s name in vain (v.11). This may be done seriously or flippantly. One may seriously swear by God that he will do a certain thing, and then not do it. People are so irresponsible that such things become commonplace to the point of then using God’s name flippantly, so that they don’t care how offensively they talk. But God is not mocked: He will execute judgment on all who are ungodly, not only for their ungodly deeds, but for “all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jud 1:15).<\/p>\n

The fourth commandment occupies four verses (vs.12-16), insisting on Israel’s observance of the Sabbath day. It was to be sanctified apart from all other days. Though they could labor for six days, labor was to cease of the seventh day, which of course is Saturday. This restriction extended to every family, children and servants, and included their animals. We must remember that the law was given to Israel, not to Gentiles, who are not to be judged in reference to Sabbath days (Col 2:16). Under grace no law demands the keeping of any special day, but those who have appreciated the grace of God are glad to give the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, a place of special importance, for it was on this day the Lord rose from the dead, the day he appeared in the midst of His gathered disciples (Joh 20:19, the day also “when the disciples were gathered together to break bread” (Act 20:7). It has been a great mercy of God that He has led in allowing the western nations at least to set aside this day that He might be specially honored — not as a law, but as a spiritual privilege.<\/p>\n

These first four commandments we have considered emphasize the responsibility of Israel toward God. This lesson of putting God first must surely not be confined to Israel. Believers today should gladly delight in putting God first, since He has saved us through the sacrifice of His Son.<\/p>\n

The last six commandments deal with Israel’s responsibilities toward others. Thus the fifth commandment is “Honor your father and mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (v.16). Eph 6:1 refers to this as “the first commandment with promise.” Israel soon sadly failed in this, as is exampled in Absalom, son of David, who rebelled against his father and sought to kill him (2Sa 17:1-4). His days were not long on the earth. It may be that a father is hard and cruel, but his children are still to honor him; a mother may be even irresponsible, but her children are to honor her that is, to show proper respect. Though this is not a legal commandment for believers today, yet Eph 6:1 shows it to be of moral importance still. Our motives are not to be those of submitting to legal demands, but of delighting to please God.<\/p>\n

The sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” must be considered from the viewpoint God intends (v.17). Israel had already killed many enemies that God had told them to, and in the land of Canaan would be required to kill the inhabitants. God commanded this because the inhabitants were given up to idol worship. Similarly, when justice demands the death of a criminal, it is not murder for the authorities to put him to death. But no individual is at liberty to kill another as he sees fit. As we have seen before, Scripture makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter (ch.4:41-42).<\/p>\n

“You shall not commit adultery” is the seventh commandment. Adultery is the corruption of the marriage bond, and the prohibition would certainly extend to every kind of such corruption whether persons are married or not. In the New Testament, though the words, “Ye shall not” are not used, yet the evil of fornication is no less warned against (Act 15:29; 1Th 4:3-4). Homosexuality is worse still — a most flagrant corruption of the bond of marriage (Rom 1:26-27).<\/p>\n

The eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (v.19) is one that nearly all cultures acknowledge as right, though the law does not keep people from stealing. Again, the New Testament does not use the expression, You shall not steal,” but goes even farther with an appeal to every Christian heart, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need” (Eph 4:28). Thus, the Lord Jesus so changes hearts by new birth that people want to do positive good rather than to only refrain from doing bad.<\/p>\n

The ninth commandment reads, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (v.20). To bear false witness is cruel and gross evil, but this commandment was coldly disregarded by too many Israelites. Jezebel deliberately bribed wicked men to falsely accuse Naboth to have him put to death (1Ki 21:8-13). Even the chief priests of Israel sought false witnesses to testify against the Lord Jesus, the Son of God (Mar 14:55-59). How refreshing is the contrast in what people said of John the Baptist, “All things that John spoke about the Man (the Lord Jesus) were true (Joh 10:41). Thus, in the New Testament we are not told, “Thou shalt not,” but rather, “Therefore, putting away lying, let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor” (Eph 4:25).<\/p>\n

The last commandment strikes, not at the things people do or say, but at the thoughts of their hearts, “You shall not covet.” To covet is to crave something that another has. Though one may not steal from another, yet only the craving for his possessions is sin. Paul focuses on this one law in Rom 7:7, where he clearly shows that he would not have considered covetousness as sin unless the law had declared this. Who has not been guilty of such desires? Nor can we get rid of this covetous attitude unless the Lord Jesus works in our hearts by new birth, causing us to willingly judge our motives and seek to live by wholehearted faith. Then, instead of being envious of others, we shall know how to unselfishly “rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15). We shall be glad if others are blessed even if we are deprived, and this, not because the law commands not to covet, but because the grace of God is working in our hearts. It is the grace of God that teaches us “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age” (Tit 2:11). The law told people to live in such a way, but it was unable to teach us, as grace does.<\/p>\n

Moses tells Israel it was this law that God gave him in the mountain, attended by the cloud, fire, thick darkness and a loud voice, and that He (God Himself) wrote the laws on two tables of stone. this reminder should have deeply affected the people.<\/p>\n

THE PEOPLE’S FEAR OF GOD<\/p>\n

(vs.23-33)<\/p>\n

Moses reminds Israel that when the people had seen the awesome manifestations of the forbidding majesty of God, the heads of their tribes unitedly approached Moses, acknowledging that God had spoken to them, but fearful that God’s continued speaking to them would involve His anger in consuming them by fire (vs.23-25). For if God is to speak only in righteousness, how terrible must be the results! They were therefore too frightened to come anywhere near to where God was. So they asked Moses to go near and hear what God would say and afterward tell them (v.27). They did not want to be exposed to judgment, but they did not mind if Moses was exposed! However, in this Moses is a type of Christ, the Mediator.<\/p>\n

The Lord responded to their plea by telling Moses they were right in what they said (v.28), that is, that only Moses could approach God at this crucial time. But He added a striking comment, “0 that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever” (v.29).<\/p>\n

Thus, God desired, not only their outward obedience, but that they should have hearts delighting in obedience. However, this can only be true for Israel under the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). Meanwhile, they were to return to their tents (v.30) with unchanged hearts, while Moses remained in the presence of God to hear the commandments, statutes and judgments to be taught to Israel. Thus Moses again urges upon the people to be careful to do as the Lord commanded, turning neither to one side or the other, either to excessive legality or to careless laxity (v.32). “You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you.” No point of the law was to be disregarded, as is confirmed strikingly by Jam 2:10, “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” Therefore, and attitude that defended any disobedience was treachery against God, and would certainly shorten Israel’s days in their land (v.33).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

IV. MOSES’ SECOND MAJOR ADDRESS: AN EXPOSITION OF THE LAW CHS. 5-26<\/span><\/p>\n

". . . Deuteronomy contains the most comprehensive body of laws in the Pentateuch. It is clearly intended to be consulted for guidance on many aspects of daily life, in sharp contrast with the laws of Leviticus, which are very restricted in scope and mainly concern the functions of the priesthood." [Note: R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch, pp. 103-4.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"Two of the major elements [in ancient Near Eastern covenant texts] . . . are lists of stipulations, the first of a general, principal nature and the second of a more specific and applicational kind. That is, the first spelled out in broad strokes the kinds of actions and reactions the Great King expected of his vassal, and the other offered examples of how these general expectations could and should be worked out in everyday life within the relationship.<\/p>\n

"While a general correspondence exists between Deuteronomy and the secular treaty texts, especially in form, there are significant differences as well. Among these are the narrative sections and the extensive parenesis [exhortation], both of which are lacking in the extrabiblical models. It is important to note here, moreover, that Deuteronomy, in addition to being a covenant text, is also a law code, or, more precisely, contains a law code. The general stipulation section (Deu 5:1 to Deu 11:32) and the specific stipulation section (Deu 12:1 to Deu 26:15) function as such a law code and thus serve both in this capacity and in that of covenant stipulation. To put it more succinctly, the stipulations of the Deuteronomic covenant constitute the law code for the nation Israel that was about to enter the new conditions and expectations of life in the land of promise. This is why the following principles resemble both legal statutes and covenant stipulations at one and the same time." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, pp. 139-40. Cf. Kline, "Deuteronomy," p. 162.] <\/span><\/p>\n

A. The essence of the law and its fulfillment chs. 5-11<\/span><\/p>\n

"In seven chapters the nature of Yahweh’s demand is now set out in the form of great principles. The deliverance of past days is the ground on which Moses appeals to Israel to hear what Yahweh requires of them." [Note: Schultz, p. 112.] <\/span><\/p>\n

1. Exposition of the Decalogue and its promulgation ch. 5<\/span><\/p>\n

"The exposition of the law commences with a repetition of the ten words of the covenant, which were spoken to all Israel directly by the Lord Himself. . . . The great significance of the laws and rights about to be set before them, consisted in the fact that they contained the covenant of Jehovah with Israel." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:319.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Introduction 5:1-6<\/span><\/p>\n

The covenant to which Moses referred (Deu 5:2) is not the Abrahamic but the Mosaic Covenant. What follows is an upgrade of the Mosaic Covenant for the new generation about to enter the Promised Land. The "fathers" (Deu 5:3) were the previous generation. "Face to face" (Deu 5:4) is a figure of speech indicating direct communication, without a mediator. God uttered the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the Israelites (Deu 5:22). This expression also reflects the personal relationship that existed between Yahweh and the Israelites. God made the covenant with His friends; it was not simply an impersonal revelation of laws. [Note: For an excursus on Moses the teacher, see Miller, pp. 70-71.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The basis for the Lord’s Ten Commandments was that He is who He is and that He had provided redemption for His people (Deu 5:6; cf. Deu 13:4-5; Exo 20:3; Lev 26:13; Num 15:41). God always gives first (grace) then asks for a response (obedience). [Note: See H. H. Rowley, "Moses and the Decalogue," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951):81-118, for arguments for the Mosaic origin of the Ten Commandments as opposed to a later origin.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"Love and mercy are the dominant characteristics of the covenant relationship." [Note: Miller, p. 77.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE DECALOGUE-ITS FORM<\/p>\n

Deu 5:1-21<\/p>\n

AS the fourth chapter belongs to the speech which concludes the legislative portion of Deuteronomy both in contents and language (see chapter 23), we shall pass on now to the fifth chapter, which begins with a recital of the Decalogue. As has already been pointed out, the main trunk of the Book of Deuteronomy is a repetition and expansion of the Law of the Covenant contained in Exo 20:1-26; Exo 21:1-36; Exo 22:1-31; Exo 23:1-33. Now, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy, before the more general and detailed legislation, we have the Decalogue, or the Ten Words, as it is called, in substantially the same form; and the question immediately arises as to the age at which this beautifully systematized and organized code of fundamental laws came into existence. Whatever its origin, it is an exceedingly remarkable document. It touches the fundamental principles of religious and moral life with so sure a hand that at this hour, for even the most civilized nations, it sums up the moral code, and that so effectively that no change or extension of it has ever been proposed. That being its character, it becomes a question of exceeding interest to decide whether it can justly be referred to so early a time as the days of Moses. In both the passages where it occurs it is represented as having been given to the people at Horeb by Yahweh Himself, and it is made the earliest and most fundamental part of the covenant between Him and Israel. It would accordingly seem as if a claim were made for it as a specially early and specially sacred law. Now, much as critics have denied, there have been found very few who deny that in the main some such law as this must have been given to Israel in Moses day. Even Kuenen admits as much as that in his “History of the Religion of Israel.” The only commandment of the ten he has difficulty in accepting is the second, which forbids the making of any graven image for worship. That, he thinks, cannot have been in the original Decalogue, not because of any peculiarity of language, or because of any incoherency in composition, but simply because he cannot believe that at that early day the religion of Yahweh could have been so spiritual as to demand the prohibition of images. But his reasons are extremely inadequate; more especially as he admits that the Ark was the Mosaic Sanctuary, and that in it there was no image, as there was none in the Temple at Jerusalem. That Yahweh was worshipped under the form of a calf at Horeb, and afterwards in Northern Israel at Bethel and elsewhere, proves nothing. A law does not forthwith extinguish that against which it is directed, for idolatry continued even after Deuteronomy was accepted as the law. Moreover, if, as Kuenen thinks, calf-worship had existed in Israel before Moses, it was not unnatural that it took centuries before the higher view superseded the lower. Even by Christianity the ancient superstitions and religious practices of heathenism were not thoroughly overcome for centuries. Indeed in many places they have not yet been entirely suppressed. Nor does Wellhausen make a better case for a late Decalogue. His hesitation about it is most remarkable, and the reasons he gives for tending to think it may be late are singularly unsatisfactory. His first reason is that “according to Exo 34:1-35, the commandments which stood upon the two tables were quite different.” He relies on the words in Exo 34:28 of that chapter-“And he (Moses) was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words”-taking them to imply that the immediately preceding commandments, which are of the same ritual character with those which follow the Decalogue in Exo 20:1-26, fire here called the ten words. But it is not necessary to take the passage so. According to Exo 20:1 it was Yahweh who was to write the words on the tables, and we cannot suppose that so flagrant a contradiction should occur in a single chapter as that here it should be said that Moses wrote the tables. Yahweh, who is mentioned in the previous verse, must therefore be the subject of wayyikhtobh (Exo 34:28), and the ten words consequently are different from the words (up to Exo 34:27) which Yahweh commanded Moses to write, somewhere, but not on the tables. Besides, every one who attempts to make ten words of the commands before Exo 34:27 brings out a different result, and that of itself, as Dillmann says, is sufficient to show that the second Decalogue in chapter 34, is entirely fanciful. Wellhausens second reason is this: “The prohibition of images was quite unknown during the other period: Moses himself is said to have made a brazen serpent, which down to Hezekiahs time continued to be worshipped as an image of Jehovah.” But the Decalogue does not prohibit the making of every image; it prohibits the making of images for worship. Therefore Moses might quite well have made a figure of a serpent, even though he wrote the Decalogue, if it was not meant for worship. But there is nothing said to lead us to believe that the serpent was regarded as an image of Yahweh. Indeed the very contrary is asserted; and if Israel in later times made a bad use of this ancient relic of a great deliverance, Moses can hardly be held responsible for that. In the third place, Wellhausen says: “The essentially and necessarily national character of the older phases of the religion of Yahweh completely disappears in the quite universal code of morals which is given in the Decalogue as the fundamental law of Israel; but the entire series of religious personalities throughout the period of the Judges and Kings-from Deborah, who praised Jaels treacherous act of murder, to David, who treated his prisoners of war with the utmost cruelty-make it very difficult to believe that the religion of Israel was from the outset one of a specifically moral character.” Surely this is very feeble criticism. On the same grounds we might declare, because of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, or on account of Napoleons reported poisoning of his own wounded at Acre, that Christianity was not a religion of a “specifically moral character” at this present moment. Surely the facts that people never live at the level of their ideals, and that the lifting of a nations life is a process which is as slow as the raising of the level of the delta of the Nile, should be too familiar to permit any one to be misled by difficulties of this kind. Nor is his last ground in any degree more convincing. “It is extremely doubtful,” he says, “whether the actual monotheism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal moral precepts of the Decalogue could have formed the foundation of a national religion. It was first developed out of the national religion at the downfall of the nation.” The obvious reply is that this is a petitio principii. The whole debate in regard to this question is whether Moses was a monotheist, or at least the founder of a religion which was implicitly monotheistic from the beginning; and the date of the Decalogue is interesting mainly because of the light it would throw upon that question. To decide this date therefore by the assertion that, being monotheistic, the Decalogue cannot be Mosaic, is to assume the very thing in dispute. Wellhausen himself seems to favor the opposite view. In speaking of what Moses did for Israel he says that through “the Torah,” in the sense of decisions given by lot from the Ark, “he gave a definite positive expression to their sense of nationality and their idea of God. Yahweh was not merely the God of Israel; as such He was the God at once of Law and of Justice, the basis, the informing principle, and the implied postulate of their national consciousness”; and again, “As God of the nation Yahweh became the God of Justice and of Right; as God of Justice and Right, He came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as the only power in heaven and earth.” In the Mosaic conception of God, therefore, Wellhausen himself being witness, there lay implicitly, perhaps even explicitly, the conception of Yahweh as “the only power in heaven and earth.” In that case, is it reasonable to put the Decalogue late, because being moral it is universal, and so implies monotheism?<\/p>\n

But there is still other, and perhaps stronger evidence, that the universality of the Decalogue is no indication of a late date. On the contrary it would seem, from Professor Muirheads account of the Roman fas, that universality in legal precept may be a mark of very primitive laws. Speaking of Rome in its earliest stages of growth, when the circumstances of the people in very many respects resembled those of the Hebrews in Mosaic times, he says: “We look in vain for, and it would be absurd to expect, any definite system of law in those early times. What passed for it was a composite of fas, jas, and boni mores, whose several limits and characteristics it is extremely difficult to define.” He then proceeds to describe fas: “By fas was understood the will of the gods, the laws given by Heaven for men on earth, much of it regulative of ceremonial, but a by no means insignificant part embodying rules of conduct. It appears to have had a wider range than ins. There were few of its commands, prohibitions, or precepts that were addressed to men as citizens of any particular state; all mankind came within its scope. It forbade that a war should be undertaken without the prescribed fetial ceremonial, and required that faith should be kept with even an enemy-when a promise had been made to him under sanction of an oath. It enjoined hospitality to foreigners, because the stranger guest was presumed, equally with his entertainer, to be an object of solicitude to a higher power. It punished murder, for it was the taking of a God-given life; the sale of a wife by her husband, for she had become his partner in all things human and Divine; the lifting of a hand against a parent, for it was subversive of the first bond of society and religion, the reverence due by a child to those to whom he owed his existence; incestuous connections, for they defiled the altar; the false oath, and the broken vow, for they were an insult to the divinities invoked,” etc. In fact, the Roman fas had much the same character as the Decalogue and the legislation of the first code. {Exo 20:1-26; Exo 21:1-36; Exo 22:1-31; Exo 23:1-33} Consequently those who have thought that all early legislation must be concrete, narrow, particularistic, bounded at widest by the direct needs of the men making up the clan, tribe, or petty nationality, are wrong. The early history of law shows that, along with that, there is also a demand for some expression of the laws of life seen from the point of view of mans relation to God. That fact greatly strengthens the case for the early date of the Decalogue. For practically it is the Hebrew fas. If it has a higher tone and a wider sweep if it provides a framework into which human duty can, even now, without undue stretching of it, be securely fitted, that is only what we should expect, if God was working in the history and development of this nation as nowhere else in the world. In short, the history of primitive Roman law shows that, without inspiration, a feeble wavering step would have been taken to the development of a code of moral duty, within the scope of which all mankind should come. With inspiration, surely this effort would also be made, and made with a success not elsewhere attained.<\/p>\n

In none of the reasons which have been advanced, therefore, is there anything to set against the Biblical statement that the ten words were older and more sacred than any other portion of the Israelite legislation, and that they were Mosaic in origin. The universal hesitation shown by the greater among the most advanced critics in definitely removing the Decalogue from the foundations of Israels history, although its presence there is so great an embarrassment to them, lets us see how strong the case for the Mosaic origin is, and assures us that the evidence is all in favor of this view.<\/p>\n

But if it be Mosaic, at first sight the conclusion would seem to be that the form of the Decalogue given in Exodus is the more ancient, and that the text in Deuteronomy is a later and somewhat extended version of that. Closer examination, however, tends to suggest that the original ten words, in their Mosaic form, differed from any of the texts we have, and that of these the Exodus text in its present form is later than that in Deuteronomy. The great difference in length between the two halves of the Decalogue suggests the probability that originally all the commandments were short, and much the same in style and character as the last half, “Thou shalt not steal,” and so on. Further, when the reasons and inducements given for the observance of the longer commands are set aside, just such short commands are left to us as we find in the second table. Lastly, differences between the versions in Exodus and Deuteronomy occur in almost every case in those parts of the text which may be regarded as appendices. In fact there are only two variations in the proper text of the commands. In the fourth, we have in Exodus “Remember the Sabbath day,” while in Deuteronomy we have “Observe the Sabbath day”; but the meaning is the same in both cases. In the tenth, in Exodus the command is “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house”; and the “house” is explained by the succeeding clause, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his manservant,” etc., to mean “household” in its widest sense. In Deuteronomy the old meaning of “house” as household and goods has fallen out of use, and the component parts of the neighbors household possessions are named, beginning with his wife. Then follows the “house” in its narrow meaning, as the mere dwelling, grouped along with the slaves and cattle, and with tithawweh substituted in Hebrew for tachmodh.<\/p>\n

Fundamentally therefore the two recensions are the same. Even in the reasons and explanations there is only one really important variation. In Exo 20:11 the reason for the observance of the fourth commandment is stated thus: “For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” In Deuteronomy, on the other hand, that reason is omitted, and in its place we find this: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore Yahweh thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath.” Now if the reference to the creation had formed part of the original text of the Decalogue in the days of the author of Deuteronomy, if he had that before him as actually spoken by Yahweh, it is difficult to believe that he would have left it out and substituted another reason in its stead. He would have no object in doing so, for he could have added his own reason after that given in Exodus, had he so desired. It is likely, therefore, that in the original text no reason appeared; that Deuteronomy first added a reason; while ver. 11 in Exo 20:1-26. was probably inserted there from a combination of Exo 31:17 b and Gen 2:2 b, -“For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed”; “and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.” Both these texts belong to P and differ in style altogether from JE, with whose language all the rest of the setting of the Decalogue corresponds. On these suppositions Exo 20:9 would necessarily be the latest part of the two texts. Originally, therefore, the Mosaic commands probably ran thus:<\/p>\n

“I am Yahweh thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”<\/p>\n

1. Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me.<\/p>\n

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.<\/p>\n

3. Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain.<\/p>\n

4. Remember (or Keep) the day of rest to sanctify it.<\/p>\n

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.<\/p>\n

6. Thou shalt not kill.<\/p>\n

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.<\/p>\n

8. Thou shalt not steal.<\/p>\n

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.<\/p>\n

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house.<\/p>\n

In that shape they contain everything that is fundamentally important, and exhibit the foundations of the Mosaic religion and polity in an entirely satisfactory and credible form.<\/p>\n

But, before passing on to consider the substance of the Decalogue, it will be worth our while to consider what the full significance of these differing recensions of the Decalogue is. In both places the words are quoted directly as having been spoken by Yahweh to the people, and they are introduced by the quoting word “saying.” Now if we do not wish to square what we read with any theory, the slight divergences between the two recensions need not trouble us, for we have the substance of what was said, and in the main the very words, and that is really all we need to be assured of. But if, on the contrary, we are going to insist that, this being part of an inspired book, every word must be pressed with the accuracy of a masoretic scribe, then we are brought into inextricable difficulties. It cannot be true that at Horeb Yahweh said two different things on this special occasion. One or both of these accounts must be inaccurate, in the pedantic sense of accuracy, and yet both have the same claim to be inspired. In fact both are inspired; it is the theory of inspiration which demands for revelation this kind of accuracy that must go to the wall.<\/p>\n

It will be seen that this instance is very instructive as to the method of the ancient Hebrews in dealing with legislation which was firmly held to be Mosaic, or even directly Divine. If we are right in holding that originally the ten words were, as we have supposed, limited to definite short commands, this example teaches us that where there could be no question of deceit, or even an object for deceiving, additions calculated to meet the needs and defects of the particular period at which the laws are written down, are inserted without any hint that they did not form part of the original document. If this has been done, even to the extent we have seen reason to infer, in a small, carefully ordered, and specially ancient and sacred code, how much more freely may we expect the same thing to have been done in the looser and more fluid regulations of the large political and ceremonial codes, which on any supposition were posterior, and much less fundamental and sacred. That there is for us something disappointing, and even slightly questionable, in such action is really nothing to the purpose. We have to learn from the actual facts of revelation how revelation may be, or perhaps even must be, conveyed; and we cannot too soon learn the lesson that to a singular degree, and in many other directions than their notions of accuracy, the ancient mind differs from the modern mind, and that at any period there is a great gulf to be crossed before a Western mind can get into any intimate and sure rapport with an Eastern mind.<\/p>\n

One other thing is noteworthy. Wellhausen has already been quoted as to the quite universal and moral character of the Decalogue; and his view, that a code so free from merely local and ceremonial provisions can hardly be Mosaic, has been discussed. But, while rejecting his conclusion, we must adhere to his premises. By emphasizing the universal nature of the ten commandments, and by showing that they preceded the ceremonial law by many centuries, the critical school have cut away the ground from under the semi-antinomian views once so prevalent, and always so popular, with those who call themselves advanced thinkers. It is now no longer possible to maintain that the Decalogue was part of a purely Jewish law, binding only upon Jews and passing away at the advent of Christianity as the ceremonial law did. Of course this view was never really taken seriously in reference to murder or theft; but it has always been a strong point with those who have wished to secularize the Sunday. Now if the advanced critical position be in any degree true, then the ten commandments stand quite separate from the ceremonial law, have nothing in common with it, and are handed down to us in a document written before the conception even of a binding ceremonial law had dawned upon the mind of any man in Israel. Nor is there anything ceremonial or Jewish in the command, Remember or Observe the rest-day to keep it holy. In the reasons given in Exodus and Deuteronomy we have the two principles which make this a moral and universal command-the necessity for rest, and the necessity of an opportunity to cultivate the spiritual nature. Nothing indeed is said about worship; but it lies in the nature of the case that if secular work was rigorously forbidden, mere slothful abstinence from activity cannot have been all that was meant. Worship, and instruction in the things of the higher life, must certainly have been practiced in such a nation as Israel on such a day; and we may therefore say that they were intended by this commandment. Understood in that way, the fourth commandment shows a delicate perception of the conditions of the higher life which surpasses even the prohibition of covetousness in the tenth. In the words of a working man who was advocating its observance, “It gives God a chance”; that is, it gives man the leisure to attend to God. But the moral point of view which it implies is so high, and so difficult of attainment, that it is only now that the nations of Europe are awaking to the inestimable moral benefits of the Sabbath they have despised. Because of this difficulty too, many who think themselves to be leaders in the path of improvement, and are esteemed by others to be so, are never weary of trying to weaken the moral consciousness of the people, until they can steal this benefit away, on the ground that Sabbath-keeping is a mere ceremonial observance. So far from being that, it is a moral duty of the highest type; and the danger in which it seems at times to stand is due mainly to the fact that to appreciate it needs a far more trained and sincere conscience than most of us can bring to the consideration of it.<\/p>\n

THE DECALOGUE-ITS SUBSTANCE<\/p>\n

THAT the Decalogue in any of its forms must have been the work of one mind, and that a very great and powerful mind, will be evident on the most cursory inspection. We have not here, as we have in other parts of Scripture, fragments of legislation supplementary to a large body of customary law, fragments which, because of their intrinsic importance or the necessities of a particular time, have been written down. We have here an extraordinarily successful attempt to bring within a definite small compass the fundamental laws of social and individual life. The wonder of it does not lie in the individual precepts. All of them, or almost all of them, can be paralleled in the legislation of other peoples, as indeed could not fail to be the case if the fundamental laws of society and of individual conduct were aimed at. These must be obeyed, more or less, in every society that survives. It is the wisdom with which the selection has been made; it is the sureness of hand which has picked out just those things which were central, and has laid aside as irrelevant everything local, temporary, and purely ceremonial; it is the relation in which the whole is placed to God – these give this small code its distinction. In these respects it is like the Lords Prayer. It is vain for men to point out this petition of that unique prayer as occurring here, that other as occurring there, and a third as found in yet another place. Even if every single petition contained in it could be unearthed somewhere, it would still remain as unique as ever; for where can you find a prayer which, like it, groups the fundamental cries of humanity to God in such short space and with so sure a touch, and brings them all into such deep connection with the Fatherhood of God? In both cases, in the prayer and in the Decalogue alike, we must recognize that the grouping is the work of one mind; and in both we must recognize also that, whatever were the natural and human powers of the mind that wrought the code and prayer respectively, the main element in the success that has attended their work is the extraordinary degree in which they were illumined by the Divine Spirit. But where, between the time of Moses and the time when Deuteronomy first laid hold upon the life of the nation, are we to look for a legislator of this pre-eminence? So far as we know the history, there is no name that would occur to us. So far as can be seen, Moses alone has been marked out for us in the history of his people as equal to, and likely to undertake, such a task. Everything, therefore, concurs to the conclusion that in the Decalogue we have the first, the most sacred, and the fundamental law in Israel. Here Moses spoke for God; and whatever additions to his original ten words later times may have made, they have not obscured or overlaid what must be ascribed to him. He may not have been the author of much that bears his name, for unquestionably there were developments later than his time which were called Mosaic because they were a continuation and adaptation of his work; but we are justified in believing that here we have the first law he gave to Israel; and in it we should be able to see the really germinal principles of the religion he taught.<\/p>\n

Now, manifestly, a religion which spoke its first word in the ten commandments, even in their simplest form, must have been in its very heart and core moral. It must always have been a heresy therefore, a denial of the fundamental Mosaic conception, to place ritual observance per se above moral and religious conduct, as a means of approach to Yahweh. On any reading of the commandments only the third and fourth (two out of ten) refer to matters of mere worship; and even these may more correctly be taken to refer primarily to the moral aspects of the cultus. All the rest deal with fundamental relations to God and man. Consequently the prophets who, after the manner of Amos and Hosea, denounce the prevailing belief that Yahwehs help could be secured for Israel, whatever its moral state, by offerings and sacrifices, were not teaching a new doctrine, first discovered by themselves. They were simply reasserting the fundamental principles of the Mosaic religion. Reverence and righteousness – these from the first were the twin pillars upon which it rested. Before ever the ceremonial law, even in its most rudimentary form, had been given, these were emphasized in the strongest way as the requirements of Yahweh; and the people whom the prophets reproved, instead of being the representatives of the ancient Yahwistic faith, had rejected it. Whether the popular view was a falling away from a truer view which had once been popular, or whether it represented a heathen tendency which remained in Israel from pre-Mosaic times and had not even in the days of Amos been overcome, it seems undeniable that it was entirely contrary to the fundamental principles of Yahwism as given by Moses. Even by the latest narrators, those who brought our Pentateuch into its present shape, and who were, it is supposed, completely under the influence of ceremonial Judaism, the primarily moral character of Yahwehs religion was acknowledged by the place they gave to the ten commandments. They alone are handed down as spoken by Yahweh Himself, and as having preceded all other commands; and the terrors of Sinai, the thunder and the earthquake, are made more intimately the accompaniments of this law than of any other. Unquestionably the mind of Israel always was, that here, and not in the ceremonial law, was the center of gravity of Yahwism. In the view of that fact it is somewhat hard to understand how so many writers of our times, who admit the Decalogue to have been Mosaic, or at any rate pre-prophetic, yet deny the prevailingly moral character of the early religion of Israel. When this law was once promulgated, the old naturalism in which Israel, like other ancient races, had been entangled was repudiated, and the relation between Yahweh and His people was declared to be one which rested upon moral conduct in the widest sense of that term. And the ground of this fact is plainly declared here to be the character of Yahweh: “I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” He was their deliverer, He had a right to command them, and His commands revealed His nature to His people.<\/p>\n

The first four commandments show that Yahweh was already conceived as a spiritual being, removed by a whole heaven from the gods of the Canaanite nations by whom Israel was surrounded. These were mere representatives of the powers of nature. As such they were regarded as existing in pairs, each god having his female counterpart; and their acts had all the indifference to moral considerations which nature in its processes shows. They dwelt in mountaintops, in trees, in rude stones, or in obelisks, and they were worshipped by rites so sanguinary and licentious that Canaanite worship bore everywhere a darker stain than even nature-worship elsewhere had disclosed. In contrast to all this the Yahweh of the Decalogue is “alone,” in solitary and unapproachable separation. Amid all the unbridled speculation that has been let loose on this subject, no one, I think, has ever ventured to join with Him any name of a goddess, and He sternly repudiates the worship of any other god besides Him. Now, though there is nothing said of monotheism here, i.e., of the doctrine that no god but one exists, yet, in contrast to the hospitality which distinguished and distinguishes nature-worship in all its forms, Yahweh here claims from His people worship of the most exclusive, kind. Besides Him they were to have no object of worship. He, in His unapproachable separateness, had alone a claim upon their reverence. Further, in contrast to the gods who dwelt in trees and stones and pillars, and who could be represented by symbols of that kind, Yahweh sternly forbade the making of any image to represent Him. Thereby He declared Himself spiritual, in so far as He claimed that no visible thing could adequately represent Him. In contrast to the ethnic religions in general, even that of Zarathushtra, the noblest of all, where only the natural element of fire was taken to be the god or his symbol, this fundamental command asserts the supersensuous nature of the Deity, thereby rising at one step clear above all naturalism.<\/p>\n

So great is the step indeed, that Kuenen and others, who cannot escape the evidence for the antiquity of the other commandments, insist that this at least cannot be pre-prophetic, since we have such numerous proofs of the worship of Yahweh by images, down at least to the time of Josiahs reform. But, by all but Stade, it is admitted that there was at Shiloh under Eli, and at Jerusalem under David and Solomon, no visible representation of Deity. Now the same writers who tell us this everywhere represent the worship of Yahweh by images as existing among the people. According to their view, the nation had a continual and hereditary tendency to slip into image-worship, or to maintain it as pre-Mosaic custom. And it is quite certain that up even to the Captivity, and after, when, according to even the very boldest negative view, this command had been long known, image-worship, not only of Yahweh, but also of false gods and of the host of heaven, was largely prevalent. Only the Captivity, with its hardships and trials, brought Israel to see that image-worship was incompatible with any true belief in Yahweh. Undeniably, therefore, the existence of an authoritative prohibition does not necessarily produce obedience; and the Biblical view that the Decalogue is Israels earliest law proves to be the more reasonable, as well as the better authenticated of the two. If, after the command beyond all doubt existed in Israel, it needed the calamities of Israels last days, and the hardships and griefs of the Exile, to get it completely observed, and if in Jerusalem and at Shiloh in the pre-prophetic time Yahweh was worshipped without images, there can hardly be a doubt that this command must have existed in the earliest period. For no religion is to be judged by the actual practice of the multitude. The true criterion is its highest point; and the imageless worship of Jerusalem is much more difficult to understand if the second commandment was not acknowledged previously in Israel, than it would be if the Decalogue, essentially as we now have it, was acknowledged in the days before the kingship at least.<\/p>\n

The arguments advanced by Kuenen and Wellhausen for a contrary view, beyond those we have just been considering, rest on an undue extension of the prohibition to make any likeness of anything. They adduce the brazen serpent of Moses, and the Cherubim, and the brazen bulls that bore the brazen laver in the court of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the ornaments of that building, as a proof that even in Jerusalem this commandment cannot have been known. But, as we have seen, the original command prohibited only the making of a pesel, i.e., of an image for worship. The making of likenesses of men and animals for mere purposes of art and adornment was never included; and the whole objection falls to the ground unless it be asserted that the bulls under the basin were actually worshipped by those who came into the Temple!<\/p>\n

The supersensuous nature of Yahweh must, therefore, be taken to be a fundamental part of tile Mosaic religion. But besides being solitary and supersensuous, Yahweh was declared by Moses, perhaps by His very name, to be not only mighty, but helpful. The preface to the whole series of commandments is, “I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt.” Now of all the derivations of Yahweh, that which most nearly commands universal acceptance is its derivation from hayah, to be. And the probabilities are all in favor of the view that it does not imply mere timeless existence, as the translation of the explanation in Exodus {Deu 3:14} has led many to believe. That is a purely philosophical idea entirely outside of morality, and it can hardly be that the introduction to this moral code, which announces the author of it, should contain no moral reference. if the name be from Qal, and be connected with ehyeh, then it means, as Dillmann says (“Exodus and Leviticus,” p. 35), that He will be what He has been, and the name involves a reference to all that the God of Israel has been in the past. Such He will be in the future, for He is what He is, without variableness or shadow of turning. If, on the other hand, it be from Hiphil, it will mean “He who causes to be,” the creator. In either case there is a clear rise above the ordinary Semitic names for God, Baal, Molech, Milkom. which all express mere lordship. No doubt Yahweh was also called Baal, or Lord, just as we find Him in the Psalms addressed as “my King and my God”; but the specially Mosaic name, the personal name of the God of Israel, does undoubtedly imply quite another quality in God. It is the Helper who has revealed Himself to Israel who here speaks. Hence the addition, “who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” It is as a Savior that Yahweh addresses His people. By His very name He lifts all the commands He gives out of the region of mere might, or the still lower region of gratification at offerings and precious things bestowed, into the region of gratitude and love.<\/p>\n

Further, by issuing this code under the name of Yahweh Moses claimed for Him a moral character. Whether the Hebrew word for holy, qadhosh, implied more in those days than mere separateness, may be doubted; but it is impossible that the idea which we now connect with the word “holy” should not have been held to be congruous to, and expressive of, the nature of Yahweh. Here morality in its initial and fundamental stages is set forth as an expression of His will. And similarly, righteousness must also be an attribute of His, for justice between man and man is made to be His demand upon men. He Himself, therefore, must be faithful as well as holy, and His emancipation from the clinging chain of mere naturalism was thereby completed. The Yahweh of the Decalogue is therefore absolutely alone. He is supersensuous. He is the Helper and Savior, and He is holy and true. These are His fundamental qualities. Such qualities may be supposed to be present only in their elements, even to the mind of Moses himself: yet the fundamental germinal point was there: and all that has grown out of it may be justly put to the credit of this first revelation.<\/p>\n

A moments thought will show how the teaching that Yahweh alone was to be worshipped broke away from the main stream of Semitic belief, and prepared the way for the ultimate prevalence of the belief that God was one. That He was supersensuous, so that He could not rightly or adequately be represented by any likeness of anything in heaven or earth or sea, left no possible outlet for thought about Him, save in the direction that He was a Spirit. In essence consequently the spirituality of God was thereby secured. Still more important perhaps was the conception of Yahweh as the Helper and Deliverer; the Savior of His people; for this at once suggested the thought that the true bond between God and man was not mere necessity, nor mere dependence upon resistless power, but love – love to a Divine Helper who revealed Himself in gracious acts and providences, and who longed after and cared for His people with a perfectly undeserved affection. Lastly, His holiness and faithfulness, His righteousness in fact, held implicit in it His supremacy and universality. As Wellhausen has said, “As God of justice and right, Yahweh came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as the only power in heaven and earth.” Whether that last stage was present to the mind of Moses, or of any who received the commandments in the first place, is of merely secondary importance. At the very least, the way which must necessarily lead to that stage was opened here, and the mind of man entered upon the path to a pure monotheism, a monotheism which separated God from the world, and referred to His will all that happened in the world of created things. God is One, God is a Spirit, God is Love, and God rules over all-these are the attributes of Yahweh as the Decalogue sets them forth; and in principle the whole higher life of humanity was secured by the great synthesis.<\/p>\n

Like all beginnings, this was an achievement of the highest kind. Nowhere but in the soul of one Divinely enlightened man could such a revelation have made itself known; and the solitude of a lonely shepherds life, following upon the stir and training of a high place in the cultured society of Egypt, gave precisely the kind of environment which would prepare the soul to hear the voice by which God spoke. For we are not to suppose that this revelation came to Moses without any effort or preparation on his part. God does not reveal His highest to the slothful or the debased. Even when He speaks from Sinai in thunder and in flame, it is only the man who has been exercising himself in these great matters who can understand and remember. All the people had been terrified by the Divine Presence, but they forgot the law immediately and fell back into idolatry. It was Moses who retained it and brought it back to them again. His personality was the organ of the Divine will; and in this law which he promulgated Moses laid the foundation of all that now forms the most cherished heritage of men. The central thing in religion is the character of God. Contrary to the prevailing feeling, which makes many say that they know nothing of God, but are sure of their duty to man, history teaches that, in the end, mans thought of God is the decisive thing. Everything else shapes itself according to that; and by taking the first great steps, which broke through the limits of mere naturalism, Moses laid the foundation of all that was to come. There was here the promise and the potency of all higher life: love and holiness had their way prepared, so that they should one day become supreme in mans conception of the highest life: the confused halting between the material and the spiritual, which can be traced in the very highest conceptions of merely natural religions, was in principle done away. And what was here gained was never lost again. Even though the multitude never really grasped all that Moses had proclaimed Yahweh to be; and though it should be proved, which is as yet by no means the case, that even David thought of Him as limited in power and claims by the extent of the land which Israel inhabited; and though, as a matter of fact, the full-orbed universality which the ten commandments implicitly held in them was not attained under the old covenant at all; yet these ten words remained always an incitement to higher thoughts. No advance made in religion or morals by the chosen people ever superseded them. Even when Christ came, He came not to destroy but to fulfill. The highest reach of even his thoughts as regards God could be brought easily and naturally under the terms of this fundamental revelation to Israel.<\/p>\n

The remaining commands, those which deal with the relations of men to each other, are naturally introduced by the fifth commandment, which, while it deals with human relations, deals with those which most nearly resemble the relations between God and man. Reverence for God, the deliverer and forgiver of men, is the sum of the commandments which precede; and here we have inculcated reverence for those who are, under God, the source of life, upon whose love and care all, at their entrance into life, are so absolutely dependent. Love is not commanded; because in such relations it is natural, and moreover it cannot be produced at will. But reverence is; and from the place of the command, manifestly what is required is something of that same awful respect which is due to Yahweh Himself. The power which parents had over their children in Israel was extensive, though much less so than that possessed, for example, by Roman parents. A father could sell his daughters to be espoused as subordinate wives; {Exo 21:7} he could disallow any vows a daughter might wish to take upon her; {Num 30:6} and both parents could bring an incorrigible rebellious son to the elders of the city, {Deu 21:8} and have him stoned publicly to death. But, according to Moses, the main restraining forces in the home should be love and reverence, guarded only by the solemn sanction of death to the openly irreverent, just as reverence for Yahweh was guarded.<\/p>\n

There was here nothing of the sordid view, repudiated so energetically by Jewish scholars like Kalisch, that we ought “to weigh and measure filial affection after the degree of enjoyed benefits.” No; to this law “the relation between parents and children is holy, religious, godly, not of a purely human character”; and it is a mere profanation to regard it as we in modern times too often do. In our mad pursuit after complete individual liberty we have fallen back into a moral region which it was the almost universal merit of the ancient civilizations to have left behind them. It is true, certainly, that there were reasons for this advance then which we could not now recognize Without falling, back from our own attainments in other directions; but it was the saving salt of the ancient civilizations that the parents in a household were surrounded with an atmosphere of reverence, which made transgressions against them as rare as they were considered horrible. The modern freedom may in favorable circumstances produce more intimate and sympathetic intercourse between parents and children; but in the average household it has lowered the whole tone of family life; and it threatens sooner or later, if the ancient feeling cannot be restored, to destroy the family, the very keystone of our religion and civilization. This commandment is not conditioned on the question whether parents have been more or less successful in giving their children what they desire, or whether they have been wise and unselfish in their dealing with their children. As parents they have a claim upon their respect, their tenderness, their observance, which can be neglected only at the childrens peril. Even the average parent gives quite endless thought and care to his children, and almost unconsciously falls into the habit of living for them. That brings with it for the children an indelible obligation; and along with the new and wiser freedom which is permitted in the modern home, this reverence should grow, just as the love and reverence for God on the part of those who have been made the free children of God through Christ ought far to exceed that to which the best of the Old Testament saints could attain.<\/p>\n

Want of reverence for parents is, in the Decalogue, made almost one with want of reverence toward God, and, in the case of this human duty alone, there is a promise annexed to its observance. The duty runs so deep into the very core of human life, that its fulfillment brings wholesomeness to the moral nature; this health spreads into the merely physical constitution, and long life becomes the reward. But apart from the quietude of heart and the power of self-restraint which so great a duty rightly fulfilled brings with it, we must also suppose that in a special manner the blessing of God does rest upon dutiful children. Even in the modern world, amid all its complexity, and though in numberless instances it may seem to have been falsified, this promise verifies itself on the large scale. In the less complex life of early Israel we may well believe that its verification was even more strikingly seen. In both ancient and modern times, moreover, the human conscience has leaped up to justify the belief that of all the sins committed without the body this is the most heinous, and that there does rest upon it in a peculiar manner the wrath of Almighty God. It is a blasphemy against love in its earliest manifestations to the soul, and only by answering love with love and reverence can there be any fulfilling of the law.<\/p>\n

After the fifth, the commandments deal with the purely human relations; but in coming down from the duties which men owe to God, this law escapes the sordidness which seems to creep over the laws of other nations, when they have to deal with the rights and duties of men. The human rights are taken up rather into their relation to God, and cease to be mere matters of bargain and arrangement. They are viewed entirely from the religious and moral standpoint. For example, the destruction of human life, which in most cases was in ancient times dealt with by private law, and was punished by fines or money payments, is here regarded solely as a sin, an act forbidden by God. The will of a holy God is the source of these prohibitions, however much the idea of property may extend in them beyond the limits which to us now seem fitting. They begin with the protection of a mans life, the highest of his possessions. Next, they prohibit any injury to him through his wife, who next to his life is most dear to him. Then property in our modern sense is protected; and lastly, rising out of the merely physical region, the ninth commandment prohibits any attack upon a mans civil standing or honor by false witness concerning him in the courts of justice. To that crime Easterns are prone to a degree which Westerns, whom Rome has trained to reverence for law, can hardly realize. In India, at this hour, false witnesses can be purchased in the open market at a trifling price; and under native government the whole forces of civil justice become instruments of the most remediless and exasperating tyranny. So long as the law has not spoken its last word against the innocent, there is hope of remedy; justice may at last assert itself. But when, either by corrupt witnesses or by a corrupt judge, the law itself inflicts the wrong, then redress is impossible, and we have: the oppression which drives a wise man mad. Both murder and robbery, moreover, may be perpetrated by false swearing; and the trust, the confidence that social life demands, is utterly destroyed by it.<\/p>\n

But it is in the tenth commandment especially that this code soars most completely away beyond others. In four short words the whole region of neighborly duty, so far as acts are concerned, has been covered, and with that other codes have been content. But the laws of Yahweh must cover more than that. Out of the heart proceed all these acts which have been forbidden, and Yahweh takes knowledge of its thoughts and intents. The covetous desire, the grasping after that which we cannot lawfully have, that, too, is absolutely forbidden. It has been pointed out that the first commandment also deals with the thoughts. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,” separated from the prohibition of idol-worship, can refer only to the inward adoration or submission of the heart. And in this last commandment also it is the evil desire, the lust which “bringeth forth sin,” which is condemned. In its beginning and ending, therefore, this code transcends the limits ordinarily fixed for law; it leads the mind to a. view of the depth and breadth of the evil that has to be coped with, which the other-precepts, taken by themselves and understood in their merely literal sense, would scarcely suggest.<\/p>\n

This fact should guard us against the common fallacy that Moses and the people of his day could not have understood these commandments in any sense except the barely literal one. In the first and tenth commandments there is involved the whole teaching of our Lord that he that hateth his brother is a murderer. The evil thought that first stirs the evil desire is here: placed on the same interdicted level as the evil deed; and though until our Lord had spoken none had seen all that was implied, yet here too He was only fulfilling, bringing to perfection, that which the law as given by Moses had first outlined. With this in view, it seems difficult to justify that interpretation of the commandments which refuses all depth of meaning to them. The initial and final references to the inner thoughts of men, the delicate moral perception which puts so unerring a finger on the sources of sin, show that such literalism is out of place. No interpretation can do this law justice which treats it superficially; and instead of feeling safest when we find least in these commandments, we should Welcome from them all the correction and reproof which a reasonable exegesis will sustain.<\/p>\n

Some of those who adopt the other view, do so in the interests of the authenticity of the commandments. They say we must be careful not to put into them any idea which transcends what was possible in the days of Moses; otherwise we must agree with those who bring down the date of these marvelous ten words to the middle of the seventh century B.C. But there is much ground for distrusting modern judgments as to what men can have thought and felt in earlier and ruder stages of society. So long as the naive interpretation of the state of man before the fall prevailed, which Milton has made so widely popular, the tendency was to exaggerate the early mans moral and spiritual attainments. Now, when the most degraded savages are taken as the truest representatives of primitive man, the temptation is to minimize both unduly. How often have we been told, for example, that the Australian is the lowest of mankind, and that he has no other idea of a spiritual world than that when he dies he will “jump up” a white man! Yet Mr. A.W. Howitt, an unexceptionable authority, as having himself been “initiated” among the Australian blacks, tells us that they give religious and moral instruction to their boys when they receive the privileges of manhood. His words are: “The teachings of the initiation are in a series of moral lessons, pantomimically displayed in a manner intended to be so impressive as to be indelible. There is clearly a belief in a Great Spirit, or rather an anthropomorphic Supernatural Being, the Master of all, whose abode is above the sky, and to whom are attributed powers of omnipotence and omnipresence, or, at any rate, the power to do anything and to go anywhere. The exhibition of his image to the novices, and the magic dances round it, approach very near to idol-worship. The wizards who profess to communicate with him, and to be the mediums of communication between him and his tribe, are not far removed from an organized priesthood. To his direct ordinance are attributed the spiritual and moral laws of the community. Although there is no worship of Daramulun, as, for instance, by prayer, yet there is clearly an invocation of him by name, and a belief that certain acts please while others displease him.” To most it would have seemed absurd to attribute religious ideas of such a kind to a people in the social and moral condition of the Australian aborigines. Yet here we have the testimony of a perfectly competent and reliable witness, who, moreover, has no personal bias in favor of theologic notions, to prove that even in their present state their theology is of this comparatively advanced kind.<\/p>\n

Many critics like Stade, and even Kuenen, would deny to Israel in the days of Moses any conception of Yahweh which would equal the Australian conception of Daramulun! Not to speak of the “regrettable vivacities” of Renan in regard to Yahweh, Kuenen would deny to the Mosaic Yahweh the title of Lord of all; he would deny to Him the power “to go anywhere and to do anything,” binding Him strictly to His tribe and His land; he would make His priests little more than the Australian wizards; and purely moral laws like the Decalogue Wellhausen would remove to a late date mainly because such laws transcend the limits of the thought and knowledge of the Mosaic time. But can any one believe that Israel in the Mosaic time had lower beliefs than those of the Australian aborigines? In every other respect they had left far behind them the social state and the merely embryonic culture of the Australian tribes. Moses himself is an irrefragable proof of that. No such man as he could have arisen among a people in the state of the Australians. Even the fact that the Hebrews had lived in Egypt, and had been compelled to do forced labor for a long series of years, would of itself have raised them to a higher stage of culture. Moreover they built houses, and owned sheep and cattle, and must have known at least the rudiments of agriculture. Indeed Deu 11:10 asserts this, and the testimony of travelers as to the habits of the tribes in the wilderness of the wanderings now confirms it. Further, they had been in contact with Egyptian religion, and they had been surrounded by cults having more or less relation to the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. Under such circumstances, even apart from all revelation, it could not be assumed that their religious ideas must needs correspond to modern notions of the low type of primitive religions. On the contrary, nothing but the clearest proof that their religious conceptions were so surprisingly low should induce us to believe it. On any supposition, they had in the Mosaic time the first germs of what is now universally admitted to be the highest form of religion. Can we believe that only 1300 years B.C., in the full light of history, coming out of a land where the religion of the people had been systematized and elaborated, not for centuries, but for millenniums, and only 600 years before the monotheistic prophets, a people at such a stage of civilization as the Hebrews can have had cruder notions of Deity than the Wiraijuri and Wolgal tribes of New South Wales! It may have been so; but before we take it to have been so, we have a right to demand evidence of a stringent kind, evidence which leaves us no way of escape from a conclusion so improbable.<\/p>\n

Moreover the acceptance of the view now opposed does not get rid of the necessity for supernatural enlightenment in Israel. It only transfers it from an earlier to a later time. For if the knowledge of Israel in Moses day was below the Wolgal standard, then it would seem inexplicable that the ethical monotheism of the prophets should have grown out of it by any merely natural process. If there were no inspiration before the prophets, though they believed and asserted there was, then their own inspiration only becomes the more marvelous. It is not needful to deny that the Hebrew tribes may at some time have passed through the low stage of religious belief of which these writers speak. But they err conspicuously in regarding every trace of animistic and fetichistic worship which can be unearthed in the language, the ceremonies, and the habits of the Hebrews at the Exodus, as evidence of the highest beliefs of the people at that time. As a matter of fact, these were probably mere survivals of a state of thought and feeling then either superseded or in the process of being so. Besides, the mass of any people always lag far behind the thoughts and aspirations of the highest thinkers of their nation; and if we admit inspiration at all as a factor in the religions development of Israel, the distance between what Moses taught and believed himself, and what he could get the mass of the people to believe and practice, must have been still greater. If he gave the people the ten commandments, he must have been far above them, and dogmatic assertions as to what he can have thought and believed ought to be abandoned.<\/p>\n

Granting, however, that all we have found in the Decalogues conception of Yahweh war present to the mind of Moses, and granting that the commands which deal with the relations of men to each other are not mere isolated prohibitions, but are founded upon moral principles which were understood even then to have much wider implications, there still remains a gap between the widest meaning that early time could put into them, and that which Luthers Catechism, or the Catechism of the Westminster Divines, for example, asserts. The question therefore arises whether these wider and more detailed explanations, which make the Decalogue cover the whole field of the moral and religious life, are legitimate, and if so, on what principle can they be justified? The reply would seem to be that they are legitimate, and that the ten words did contain much more than Moses or any of his nation for many centuries after him understood. For any fruitful thought, any thought which really penetrates the heart of things, must have in it wider implications than the first thinker of it can have conceived. If by any means a man has had insight to see the central fact of any domain of thought and life, its applications will not be limited to the comparatively few cases to which he may apply it. He will generally be content to deduce from his discovery just those conclusions which in his circumstances and in his day are practically useful and are most clamorously demanded. But those who come after, pressed by new needs, challenged by new experiences, and enlightened by new thoughts in related regions, will assuredly find that more was involved in that first step than any one had seen. The scope of the fruitful principle will thus inevitably widen with the course of things, and inferences undreamed of by those who first enunciated the principle will be securely drawn from it by later generations. Now if that be true in regard to truths discovered by the unassisted intellect of man, how much more true will it be of thoughts which have first been revealed to man under the influence of inspiration? Behind the human mind which received them and applied them to the circumstances which then had to be dealt with, there is always the infinite mind which sees that<\/p>\n

“Far-off Divine event <\/p>\n

To which the whole creation moves.”<\/p>\n

The Divine purpose of the revelation must be the true measure of the thoughts revealed, and the Divine purpose can best be learned by studying the results as they have actually evolved themselves in the course of ages. Consequently, while the fundamental point in sound interpretation of a book such as the Bible is to ascertain first what the statements made therein signified to those who heard them first, the second point is not to shut the mind to the wider and more extensive applications of them which the thought and experience of men, taught by the course of history, have been induced, or even compelled, to make. Both the narrower and the wider meanings are there, and were meant to be found there. No exposition which ignores either can be adequate.<\/p>\n

That all works of God are to be dealt with in this way is beautifully demonstrated by Ruskin (Fors Clavigera, Vol. I, Letter V). In criticizing the statement of a botanist that “there is no such thing as a flower,” after admitting that in a certain sense the lecturer was right, he goes on to say: “But in the deepest sense of all, he was to the extremity of wrongness wrong; for leaf and root and fruit exist, all of them, only that there may be flowers. He disregarded the life and passion of the creature, which were its essence. Had he looked for these, he would have recognized that in the thought of nature herself, there is, in a plant, nothing else but flowers.” That means, of course, that the final perfection of a development is the real and final meaning of it all. Now any thought given by God in this special manner which we call “inspiration” has in it a manifold and varied life, and an end in view, which God alone foresees. It works like leaven, it grows like a seed. It is supremely living and powerful; and though it may have begun its life, like the mustard seed, in a small and lowly sphere, it casts out branches on all sides till its entire allotted space is filled. So in the Decalogue; the central chord in all the matters dealt with has been touched with Divine skill, and all that has further to be revealed or learned on that matter must lie in the line of the first announcement.<\/p>\n

It is not, therefore, an illegitimate extension of the meaning of the first commandment to say that it teaches monotheism, nor of the second that it teaches the spirituality of God, nor of the seventh that it forbids all sensuality in thought or word or deed. It is true that probably only the separateness of God was originally seen to be asserted in the first, and the words may possibly have been understood to mean that the “other gods” referred to had some kind of actual life. The second, too, may have seemed to be fulfilled when no earthly thing that was made by man was taken to represent Yahweh. Lastly, those who say that nothing is forbidden in the seventh commandment but literal adultery have much to say for themselves. In a polygamous society concubinage always exists. The absence of the more flagrant of what in monogamous societies are called social evils does not in the least imply the superior morality, such as many who wish to disparage our Christian civilization have ascribed, for instance, to Mohammedans. The degraded class of women who are the reproach and the despair of our large towns are not so frequent in those societies, because all women are degraded to nearer their level than in monogamous lands. Both lust and vice are more prevalent: and they are so because the whole level of thought and feeling in regard to such matters is much lower than with us.<\/p>\n

Now, undoubtedly, ancient Israel was no exception to this rule. In it, as a polygamous nation, there was a license in regard to sexual relations with women who were neither married nor betrothed which would be impossible now in any Christian community. It may be therefore, that only the married woman was specially protected by this law. But in none of these cases did the more rudimentary conception of the scope of the commandments last. By imperceptible steps the sweep of them widened, until finally the last consequences were deduced from them, and they were seen to cover the whole sphere of human duty. It may have been a long step from the prohibition to put other gods along with Yahweh to St. Pauls decisive word “An idol is nothing in the world,” but the one was from the first involved in the other. Between “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image” and our Lords declaration “God is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth,” there lies a long and toilsome upward movement; but the first was the gate into the path which must end in the second. Similarly, the commandment which affirmed so strongly the sacredness of the family, by hedging round the housemother with this special defense held implicit in it all that rare and lovely purity which the best type of Christian women exhibits. The principles upon which the initial prohibitions were founded were true to fact and to the nature both of God and man. They were, therefore, never found at fault in the advancing stages of human experience; and the meaning which a modern congregation of Christians finds in these solemn “words,” when they are read before them, is as truly and justly their meaning as the more meager interpretation which alone ancient Israel could put upon them.<\/p>\n

How gradually, and how naturally, the advancing thoughts and changed circumstances of Israel affected the Decalogue may be seen most clearly in the differences between its form as originally given, and as it is set forth in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. If the original form of these commandments was what we have indicated, they corresponded entirely to the circumstances of the wilderness. There is no reference in them which presupposes any other social background than that of a people dwelling together according to families, possessing property, and worshipping Yahweh. None of the commandments involves a social state different from that. But when Israel had entered upon its heritage, and had become possessed of the oxen and asses which were needed in agricultural labor and in settled life, this stage of their progress was reflected in the reasons and inducements which were added to the original commands. In the fourth and tenth commandments of Exodus we have consequently the essential commandments of the earlier day adapted to a new state of things, i.e., to a settled agricultural life. Then, even as between the Exodus and Deuteronomic texts, a progress is perceptible. The reasons for keeping the Sabbath which these two recensions give are different, as we have seen, and it is probable that the reason given in Deuteronomy was first. To the people in the wilderness came the bare Divine command that this one day was to be sacred to Yahweh. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy we have additions, going into details which show that when these versions were prepared Israel had ceased to be nomadic and had become agricultural. In Deuteronomy we find that the importance and usefulness of this command from a humane point of view had been recognized, and one at least of the grounds upon which it should be held a point of morality to keep it is set forth in the words “that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.” Finally, if the critical views be correct, in Exodus we have the motive for the observance of the Sabbath raised to the universal and eternal, by being brought into connection with the creative activity of God.<\/p>\n

If the progression now traced out be real, then we have in it a classical instance of the manner in which Divine commands were given and dealt with in Israel. Given in the most general form at first, they inevitably open the way for progress, and as thought and experience grow in volume and rise in quality, so does the understanding of the law as given expand. Under the influence of this expansion addition after addition is made, till the final form is reached; and the whole is then set forth as having been spoken by Yahweh and given by Moses when the command was first promulgated. In such eases literary proprietorship was never in question. Each addition was sanctioned by revelation, and those by whom it came were never thought of. It would seem, indeed, that nothing but modern skeptical views as to the reality of revelation, the feeling that all this movement to a higher faith was merely natural, and that the hand of God was not in it, could have suggested to the ancient Hebrew writers the wish to hand on the names of those by whom such changes were made. Yahweh spoke at the beginning, Moses mediated between the people and Yahweh, and the law thus mediated was in all forms equally Mosaic, and in all forms equally Divine.<\/p>\n

One other thing remains to be noticed, and that is the prevailing negative form of the commandments. Of the ten only the fourth and fifth are in the affirmative. All the others are prohibitions, and we who have been taught by Christianity to put emphasis upon the positive aspects of duty as the really important aspects of it, may not improbably feel chilled and repelled by a moral code which so definitely and prevailingly forbids. But the cause of this is plain. A code like that of the Twelve Tables published in early Rome is only occasionally negative, because it rises to no great height in its demands, and is intent only upon ordering the life of the citizens in their outward conduct. But this code, which seeks to raise the whole of life into the sacredness of a continual service of God and man, must forbid, because the first condition of such a life is the renunciation and the restriction of self. Benevolent dreamers and theorists of all ages, and men of the world whose moral standard is merely the attainment of the average man, have denied the evil tendency in mans nature. They have asserted that man is born good; but the facts of experience are entirely against them. Whenever a serious effort has been made to raise man to any conspicuous height of moral goodness, it has been found necessary to forbid him to follow the bent of his nature. “Thou shalt not” has been the prevailing formula; and in this sense original sin has always been witnessed to in the world. Hence the Old Testament, in which the most strenuous conflict for goodness which the world in those ages knew was being carried on, could not fail, in every part of it, to proclaim that man is not born good. However late we may be compelled to put the writing of the story of the fall as it stands in Genesis, there can be no question that it represents the view of the Old Testament at all times. Man is fallen; he is not what he ought to be, and the evil taint is handed on from one generation to another. Every generation, therefore, is called, by prophet and priest and lawgiver alike, to the conflict against the natural man.<\/p>\n

The truth is that all along the leaders of Israel had a quite overawing sense of the moral greatness of Yahweh and of the stringency of His demands upon them. “Be ye holy, for I am holy,” was His demand; and so among this people, as among no other, the sense of sin was heightened, till it embittered life to all who seriously took to heart the religion they professed. This feeling sought relief in expiatory sacrifices, like the sin offering and the guilt offering; but in vain. It then led to Pharisaic hedging of the law, to seeking a positive precept for every moment of time, to binding upon mens consciences the most minute and burdensome prescriptions, as a means of making them what they must be if they were to meet the Divine requirements. But that too failed. It became a slavery so intolerable that, when St. Paul received the power of a new life, his predominant feeling was that for the first time he knew what liberty meant. He was set free from both the bondage of sin and the bondage of ritual.<\/p>\n

To the religious man of the Old Testament life was a conflict against evil tendencies, a conflict in which defeat was only too frequent, but from which there was no discharge. It was fitting, therefore, that at the very beginning of Israels history, as the people of God, this stern prohibition of the rougher manifestations of the natural man should stand.<\/p>\n

But it is characteristic of the Old Testament that it states the fundamental fact, without any of the over-refinements and exaggerations by which later doctrinal developments have discredited it. There is no appearance here, or anywhere in the Old Testament, of the Lutheran exaggeration that man is by nature impotent to all good, as a stock or a stone is. Keeping close to the testimony of the universal conscience, the Decalogue, and the Old Testament generally, speaks to men as those who can be otherwise if they will. There is, further, a robust assertion of righteous intention and righteous act on the part of those whose minds are set to be faithful to God. This may have been partly due to a blunter feeling in regard to sin, and a less highly developed conscience, but it was mainly a healthy assertion of facts which ought not to be ignored. Yet, with all that, original sin was too plain a fact ever to be denied by the healthy-minded saints of the Old Testament. Fundamentally, they held that human nature needed to be restrained, its innate lawlessness needed to be curbed, before it could be made acceptable to God.<\/p>\n

Among the heathen nations that was not so. Take the Greeks, for instance, as the highest among them. Their watchword in morals was not repression, but harmonious development. Every impulse of human nature was right, and had the protection of a deity peculiarly its own. Restraint, such as the Israelite felt to be his first need, would have been regarded as mutilation by the Greek, for he was dominated by no higher ideal than that of a fully developed man. There was no vision of unattainable holiness hovering always before his mind, as there was before the mind of the Israelite. God had not revealed Himself to him in power and unalloyed purity, with a background of infinite wisdom and omnipotence, so that unearthly love and goodness were seen to be guiding and ruling the world. As a consequence, the calling and destiny of man were conceived by the Greeks in a far less soaring fashion than by Israel. To put the difference in a few words, man, harmoniously developed in all his powers and passions and faculties, with nothing excessive about him, was made God by the Greeks; whereas in Israel God was brought down into human life to bear mans burden and to supply the strength needed that man might become like God in truth and mercy and purity. It is of course true that both conceived of God under human categories. They could not conceive God save by attributing to Him that which they looked upon as highest in man. It is also true that the higher natures in both nations, starting thus differently, did in much approach each other. Still, the immense difference remains, that the impulse in the one case was given from the earth by dreams of human perfection, in the other it came from above through men who had seen God. The Greeks had seen only the glory of man; Israel had seen the glory of God.<\/p>\n

The result was that human nature as it is seemed to the one much more worthy of respect and much less seriously compromised than it did to the other. Comparing man as he is, only with man as he easily might be, the Greeks took a much less serious view of his state than the Hebrews, who compared him with God as He had revealed Himself. The former never attained any clear conception of sin, and regarded it at a passing weakness which could without much trouble be overcome. The latter saw that it was a radical and now innate want of harmony with God, which could only be cured by a new life being breathed into man from above. And when Europe became Christian, this difference made itself felt in very widespread religious and theological divergences. In the South and among the Latin races the less strenuous view of human disabilities-the view which naturally grew out of the heathen conception of man as, on the whole, born good, with no very arduous moral heights to scale-has prevailed, and in those regions the Pelagian form of doctrine has mastered the Christian Church. But the Teutonic races have, in this matter, shown a remarkable affinity with the Hebrew mind and teaching. The deeper and more tragic view of the state of man has commended itself to the Teutonic mind, and the depth of the moral taint in the natural man has been estimated according to the Biblical standard. It is not only theologians among the Northern races who have been thus affected. The higher imaginative literature of England gives the same impression; and in our own day Browning, our greatest poet, has emphasized his acceptance of the Augustinian view of human nature by making its teaching as to original sin a proof of the truth of Christianity. At the end of his poem “Gold Hair: a Story of Pornic,” in which he tells how a girl of angelic beauty, and of angelic purity of nature as was supposed, is found after her death to have sold her soul to the most gruesome avarice, he says:<\/p>\n

“The candid incline to surmise of late <\/p>\n

That the Christian faith may be false, I find; <\/p>\n

For our Essays and Reviews debate <\/p>\n

Begins to tell on the public mind, <\/p>\n

And Colensos words have weight”:<\/p>\n

“I still, to suppose it true, for my part, <\/p>\n

See reasons and reasons this to begin: <\/p>\n

Tis the faith that launched point-blank her dart <\/p>\n

At the head of a lie-taught original sin, <\/p>\n

The corruption of mans heart.”<\/p>\n

But the Pagan view always reasserts itself; and modern Hellenists especially, in their admiration of the grace which does undoubtedly go with such conceptions of goodness as the Greeks could attain, are apt to look askance at the harshness and strenuousness which they find in the Old Testament. For the most pathetic and pure of the Greek conceptions of the gods are those which, like Demeter, embody mothers love or some other natural glory of humanity. Being thus natural, they are set before us by the Greek imagination with an unconstrained and graceful beauty which makes goodness appeal to the aesthetic sense. To do this seems to many the supreme achievement. Without this they hold that Christianity would fail to meet the requirements of the modern heart and mind, for to interest “taste” on the side of goodness is, apparently, better than to let men feel the compulsion of duty. Reasoning on such premises, they claim that Greek religion gave to Christianity its completion and its crown. This is the claim advanced by Dyer in his “Gods of Greece” (p. 19). “The Greek poets and philosophers,” he says, “are among our intellectual progenitors, and therefore the religion of today has requirements which include all that the noblest Greeks could dream of, requirements which the aspirations of Israel alone could not satisfy. Our complex life had need, not only of a supreme God of power, universal and irresistible, of a jealous God beside whom there was no other God, but also of a God of love and grace and purity. To these ideal qualities, present in the Diviner godhead of the Gospels, the evolution of Greek mythology brought much that satisfies our hearts.” The best answer to that is to read Deuteronomy. The Hebrews had no need to borrow “a God of love and grace and purity” from Greek mythology. Centuries before they came in contact with Greeks, their inspired men had painted the love and grace and purity of God in the most attractive colors. Nor did they ever need to unlearn the belief that Yahweh was merely a supreme God of power. In the course of our exposition we shall have occasion to see that the worship of mere power was superseded by the religion of Yahweh from the first, and that the author of Deuteronomy gives his whole strength to demonstrate that the God of Israel is a “God of love and grace and purity.” But perhaps “grace” means to Mr. Dyer “gracefulness.” In that case we would deny that “the Diviner godhead of the Gospels,” as revealed in Jesus Christ, had that aesthetic quality either. There is no word of an appeal to the sense of the artistically beautiful in anything recorded of Him; but neither in the Old Testament nor the New is there any want of moral beauty in the representation given of God. Moral beauty alone has a central place in religion; and when beauty that appeals to the senses intrudes into religion, it becomes a source of weakness rather than of strength. There may be a few people who can trust to their taste to keep them firm in the pursuit of goodness, but the bulk of men have always needed, and will always need, the severer compulsion of duty. They need an objective standard; they need a God, the embodiment and enforcer of all that duty demands of them; and when they bend themselves to the yoke of obligation thus imposed, they enter into a world of heavenly beauty which seizes and enraptures the soul. The mere aesthetic beauty of Greek mythology pales, for the more earnest races of mankind at least, before this Diviner loveliness, and it is the special gift of the Hebrew as well as of the Teutonic races to be sensitive to it, just as they fall behind others in aesthetic sensitiveness. Wordsworth felt this, and has expressed it inimitably in his “Ode to Duty”-<\/p>\n

“Stern Lawgiver! yet Thou dost wear <\/p>\n

The Godheads most benignant grace, <\/p>\n

Nor know we anything so fair <\/p>\n

As is the smile upon Thy face.”<\/p>\n

That expresses the Hebrew feeling also. Drawn upwards by the infinite and unchangeable love and goodness of Yahweh, the Hebrews felt the clog of their innate sinfulness as no other race has done. The stern “thou shalt nots” of the Decalogue consequently found an echo in their hearts. Won by the beauty of holiness, they gladly welcomed the discipline of the Divine law, and by doing so they established human goodness on a foundation immeasurably more stable than any the gracefulness of Greek imaginations could hope to lay.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 1. called unto ] i.e. summoned together. So rightly LXX. all Israel ] D’s characteristic phrase for the people: see Deu … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 5:1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5063","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5063\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}