Exodus
20
THE
DELIVERY OF THE MORAL LAW
(vs. 1-17)
Every
necessary preparation had now been made. The priests, as well as the people,
had
“sanctified themselves.” A
wholesome dread of “breaking” through the fence, and
“touching” the mount,
had spread itself among the people Moses had returned from the
camp to the
summit of the mount; and both he and the people were attent
to hear the
words of
the “covenant,” which had been
announced to them (ch. 19:5). Then, amid
the thunderings,
and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and
the smoke, and
the
earthquake throbs which shook the ground, a voice like that of a man, distinctly
articulate,
pronounced the words of that “moral law,” which has
been from that day
to this the
guide of life to thousands upon
thousands, the only guide to some, a very
valuable
and helpful guide to all who
have known of it. It is well said by Kalisch,
that the
delivery of the
Decalogue on Sinai “formed a decisive epoch in the history
of the human race,” and was even perhaps “the greatest and most
important event
in human history,” up to the
time of its occurrence. Considering the weakness,
imperfection,
and moral obliquity of man, it was to the last degree important that an
authoritative
code should be put forth, laying
down with unmistakable clearness
the chief heads of duty, and denouncing the
chief classes of sins. It may be true
that the
educated moral sense of mankind in
civilized communities is sufficient to
teach them
all, or nearly all, of
what the Decalogue forbids and enjoins; but this is the
effect produced upon the internal constitution
of our nature by long centuries of
moral training; and
nothing like it existed in primitive times. Then the moral sense
was much
duller; men’s perceptions of right and wrong were confused, uncertain, and
not unfrequently perverted and depraved. Even in
established
as the spiritual guides of the nation for a thousand years or more, had
elaborated
a moral system of considerable merit, such a code as that of the Decalogue
would have
been a marked improvement upon anything that they had worked out for
themselves.
And the authoritative sanction by the “voice” and the “finger of God”
was an
enormous advantage, being imperatively needed to satisfy doubt, and silence
that
perverse casuistry which is always ready to question the off-hand decisions of
the moral
consciousness, and to invent a more refined
system, wherein “bitter is put
for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20) - Altogether the Decalogue stands on
a moral
eminence, elevated above and beyond all other moral systems — Egyptian,
Indian,
Chinese, or Greek, unequalled for simplicity, for
comprehensiveness, for
solemnity.
Its precepts were, according to the Jewish tradition, “the pillars of the law
and its
roots.” They formed to the nation to which they were given “tons omnis,
publici privatique juris.” They constitute for all time a condensed summary of
human duty which bears divinity upon its face,
which is suited for every form
of human society, and which, SO LONG AS THE WORLD
ENDURES,
CANNOT BECOME ANTIQUATED. The
retention of the Decalogue as the best
summary of
the moral law by Christian communities is justified on these grounds,
and itself
furnishes emphatic testimony to the excellency of the compendium.
1 “And God spake all these words, saying,"
It has been suggested that Moses
derived the
Decalogue from
Egyptian
teaching as to the duty of man. But neither the second, nor the
fourth, nor
the tenth commandment came within the Egyptian ideas of
moral duty;
nor was any such compendious form as the Decalogue known
in
than grand
and simple. Forty-two kinds of sin were denied by the departed
soul before
Osiris and his assessors. The noble utterances of
Sinai are
wholly
unlike anything to be found in the entire range of Egyptian
literature.
The Moral Law — Preliminary (v. 1)
The law
given from Sinai is the moral law by pre-eminence. The
principles
which it
embodies are of permanent obligation. It is a
brief summary of the
whole compass
of our duty to God and man. It is a law of supreme excellence —
“holy, just, and good” (Romans 7:12; Philippians 4:8). God’s
own
character
is expressed in it; it bears witness to His unity, spirituality,
holiness,
sovereignty, mercy, and equity; truth and righteousness are visible
in its
every precept. Listening to its “thou shalts”
and “thou shalt
nots,” we
cannot but
recognize the same stern voice which speaks to us in our
own
breasts, addressing to us calls to duty, approving us in what is
right,
condemning us for what is wrong. These ten
precepts, accordingly, are
distinguished
from the judicial and ceremonial statutes subsequently given
—
temporary;
The judicial law, e.g., not only draws its spirit,
and derives its highest
authority, from the law of the ten commandments, but is in
its own nature,
simply an application of the maxims of this law to the problems of actual
government. (Think of
the implications of this statement today as
has distanced herself from those laws – CY – 2017) Its binding force was
confined to
CY – 2017)
The
ceremonial law, again, with its meats and drinks, its sacrifices, etc.
bore
throughout the character of a positive institution, and had no independent
moral
worth. It stood to the moral law in a triple relation of subordination:
Ø As inferior
to it in its own nature.
Ø As designed
to aid the mind in rising to the apprehension of the
holiness which the law enjoined.
Ø As
providing (typically) for the removal of guilt contracted by the
breaking of the law. This distinctness of the “ten words” from the
other parts of the law is evinced:
Ø They alone
were spoken by the voice of God from Sinai.
Ø They were
uttered amidst circumstances of the greatest magnificence
and terror.
Ø They alone
were written on tables of stone.
Ø They were written by God’s own finger (ch. 31:18). The rest of
the law was communicated privately to Moses, and through him
delivered to the people.
THEM.
Ø They are “the words of the Lord,” as distinguished from the “judgments"
or “rights” derived from them, and embraced with them in “the book of
the covenant,” as forming
the statutory law of
Ø The tables
on which they were written are — to the exclusion of the
other parts of the law — called:
o “the testimony” (ch. 25:16),
o “the covenant” (Deuteronomy 4:13),
o “the words of the covenant” (ch.
34:28),
o “the tables of testimony” (ch. 31:18; 32:15),
o “the tables of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 9:9-11).
Ø The tables
of stone, and they only, were placed in the ark of the
covenant (ch. 25:21). They were
thus regarded as in a special
sense the bond of the covenant. The deposition of the tables
in the ark,
underneath the mercy seat, throws light on the nature of the
covenant
with
covenant — its obligatory document — the bond; yet over the
law
is the mercy-seat, sprinkled with blood of propitiation — a testimony
that there is forgiveness with God, that He may be feared (Psalm
130:4), that God will deal mercifully with
It is obvious, from these considerations, how fallacious is
the
statement that the Old Testament makes no distinction
between
the moral, juristic, and ceremonial parts of the law, but
regards
all as of equal dignity.
2 "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land
of
precepts
were prefaced by this
distinct announcement of who it was that uttered
them. God would have the Israelites clearly understand, that He
Himself gave
them the commandments. It is only possible to reconcile the
declarations of the
New Testament, that the law was given by the
ministration of angels (Acts 7:53;
Galatians
3:19; Hebrews 2:2) with this and other plain statements, by regarding
God the Son
as the actual speaker. As sent by His father, He too was, in a certain
sense, an
angel (i.e., a messenger). Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.
God does
not appeal to His authority
as creator, but to His mercy and kindness
as
protector and deliverer.
He would be obeyed by His people from a sentiment
of love,
not by fear. Out of the house of bondage. Compare Exodus
13:3, 14;
and for the ground of the expression, see ch. 1:14; 6:9.
The Speaker and the Motive (vs. 1-2)
Deity, and
one whose nature is changeless (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
Moses did not evolve the law out of his own head:
Ø he heard it,
Ø he received it,
Ø he enunciated it, but
“God spake all these words.”
the motive too which
makes His appeal not to fear, but to the sense of gratitude: — “Remember
what I have done for you, then hear what I expect you to do
for me.” The
deliverer has a right to lay down rules of conduct for those
whom he has
delivered; whilst at the same time gratitude to Him inspires
them with a
motive for obedience. Apply to ourselves:
Ø God has REDEEMED US,
Ø we should obey Him not from fear, but from
LOVE —
not that we may get something out of Him, but because we have got so
much already.
The
commandments are indications of the Divine will from which
they
spring. Our duty is to study what God has
said in order that we may
discover what He wishes. The old covenant was on stone-tables,
easily
intelligible
and very definite; the new covenant is
on hearts of flesh, it
contains
promptings to duty, rather than directions. We need both; we
must use
the old that we may give effect to the new, and the new that we
may fulfill
the old. The new covenant cannot render the old nugatory; it is
well to
have motive power, but we still need the lines laid down by which
to guide
ourselves when we have it.
The Ten Commandments
An Introductory Reminder (vs. 1-2)
Before the
speaker of these commandments proceeded to the utterance of
them, it
was necessary that He should call special and reverent attention to
Himself.
Not one of the words He was about to say could either be
understood
or obeyed without a constant reference in thought to Him who
had
delivered and arranged them. He did not bring them before
far seeing
legislator might bring such rules as were best adapted to the
limitations
and infirmities of those whom He sought to guide. They were
the laws of that kingdom where the King Himself is a real and
immutable
lawgiver, He whose
reign never comes to an end. Some of the
commandments
had a direct reference to Himself; and all had to do with His
service.
Should it not, then, be ever a helpful and sobering truth to us that
the great laws for human life thus come as
expressions through a Divine
will? We cannot overrate the importance of
requirements which God
himself
solemnly declares. And just as we Christians in repeating the
Lord’s
prayer must think constantly of the invocation to our Father in
heaven, in
order to enforce and enrich the plea of each petition, so in
carrying
out these ten commandments, each Israelite was bound to
think of
each commandment in connection with that Jehovah
who had spoken it.
The thought
that He had brought them out of the
the house of
bondage was meant to give special force to everything He
required
from the hands of His people.
HAS DONE
FOR THEM TO WHOM HE SPEAKS. He
solemnly charges
them to look back on their own experience, to consider
their past suffering
and helplessness, and how they had come to the present hour
entirely
because of what He had done for them. Note that He does not,
as on former
occasions, speak of Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob; that
was a necessary mode of description when He made His first
approach to
them, but now they have their own rich
and crowded experiences to
constitute a claim for their
attention and obedience. God bases His
expectations on services rendered to the present generation;
and the claim
He makes is founded on the greatest
boon that could be conferred, liberty.
(Consider the implication of the abuse of
this liberty in the
and even though it is a lost art, let us bow down in sackcloth and ashes!
CY - 2017) When from
this very mountain He sent Moses to them, they were
in bitter servitude; now Moses finds himself at this
mountain again, with a
nation of freemen around him. Jehovah is not afraid of
referring to the land
of
the name to override the disagreeable ones. They delighted
in thinking of it
as a land where they sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to
the full (ch.16:3;
Numbers 11:4-5). But now in this reference to Himself which would
henceforth be so conspicuous, Jehovah fixes
together in a permanent
association the land of
people disparaged the wilderness and glorified
again the sound of the
clanking chain: and if that sound, heard only in
memory, was not
dreadful as in the old reality, yet God, who is not influenced
by the lapses of time, knew how dreadful
that reality was. (In my early days
in
looking for arrowheads near an old homeplace,
I wandered into a cellar
which had iron rings on a rock wall where slaves had been
chained for
punishment or for whatever reason. If the slaves involved there could come
back to life, what a tale they could tell. If not on their bodies, in their souls
and memories, would be imprinted a parallel experience of
what the Israelites
had gone through, but in a more modern context. CY - 2017)
It is a good
thing that He remembers what men forget. Even though we be Christians,
and should have better
aims and better joys, we too often catch our thoughts
turned longingly towards a
forsaken world. And so God comes in to speak
plainly and burst
the bubble of this world’s attractions by the emphasized
truth that spiritual
is the slave of sin. While the
people were in
these things as pleasant; the life there, in the actual experience of
it, was
intolerable. And so with
perfect confidence God could appeal to their past
consciousness.
EXTERNAL
HINDRANCES TO OBEDIENCE. He had taken them clean
out of the house of bondage. They were now
free to carry out all the
observances which Jehovah
was about to appoint. They had no Pharaoh
to struggle with, grudging them time to serve their God (ch. 5:4);
they had no danger to fear from sacrificing the abominations
of
within its borders. If God asks us for service, we may be
sure that in the
very first place, He will provide all the conditions of
rendering it effectually
and comfortably. As we read our New Testament, we are made
to feel that
God expects very large things from us. He is most exacting in His claims
for self-denial and
completeness of devotion to His cause, but what of that?
Has He not given us His own Spirit, which is a spirit of
liberty, working for
the express purpose of lifting us above the crippling restraints
of natural
life? The very largeness of God’s demands helps us to
measure the
largeness of God’s spiritual
gifts; and the very largeness of the gifts should
prepare us for large demands. God’s expectations are from
the free. He
asked nothing from
verge of the last plague, which was also the verge of
liberty; and from the
free because He has freed them, He
entertains large expectations. It was to
those who believed in Jesus, risen from the dead, and making
His people to
live in newness of life, that He gave a spirit of such power
in producing
obedience and conformity as never had been known before.
3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me." Thou shalt have - The use of
the
second person singular is remarkable when a covenant was being made with
the
people (ch. 19:5). The form indicated that each individual of the
nation was addressed
severally,
and was required himself to obey the law, a mere general national
obedience
being insufficient. No one can fail to see how much the commands gain
in force,
through all time, by being thus addressed
to the individual conscience –
“no other gods before me.” - “Before
me” literally, “before my face,” is a Hebrew
idiom,
and equivalent to “beside
me,” “in addition to me.” The commandment
requires the worship of one God alone, Jehovah — the God who had in so many
ways manifested Himself to
the Israelites, and implies that there is, in point of fact,
no other God. It is
against the polytheistic notions of the nations at that time that
the
First Commandment raises a protest.
4 “Thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth.” The
triple division here and elsewhere made, is intended to embrace
the
whole material universe. As the First Commandment asserts the unity of God, and
is a protest against polytheism, so the second asserts
His spirituality, and is a protest
against idolatry and materialism. Vs. 4 and 5 are to be
taken together, the prohibition
being
intended, not to forbid the arts of sculpture and painting, or even to condemn
the
religious use of them, but to disallow the worship of God under material forms.
When the
later Jews condemned all representations of natural objects (Philo,
De
Orac. 29; Joseph.
a
literalism, which is alien from the spirit of both covenants, but departed from
the
practice of more primitive times — representations of such objects having had
their place
both in the tabernacle (ch. 25:31-34; 28:33-34) and
in the first
temple (I
Kings 6:18, 29, 32, etc.). Indeed, Moses himself, when he
erected the
“brazen serpent” (Numbers
21:9) made it clear that
representations
of natural objects were not disallowed by the law. To
moderns in
civilized countries it seems almost incredible that there should
ever have
been anywhere a real worship of images. Acquaintance with ancient
history
or even with the present condition of man in savage or backward
countries,
renders it apparent that there is a subtle fascination in such material
forms, and that imperfectly developed minds will rest in them
not as mere emblems
of divinity, but as actually possessed of Divine powers The
protest raised by the
Second
Commandment is still as necessary as ever, not only in the world, but
in the
very Christian Church itself, where there exists even at the present day a
superstitious
regard for images and pictures, (Compare the modern obsession
with
computers and screens – the satisfaction that comes from sight and not
wholly
having to depend on faith - CY – 2010) which is not only irrational,
but which absorbs the religious feelings that should have been
directed to
higher things. Any graven image. Perhaps it
would be better to translate
“any
image,” for the term used (pesel) is
applied, not only to “graven” but
also to “molten images” (Isaiah
40:19; 44:10; Jeremiah 10:14; etc.), since these
last were in almost every instance finished
by
the graving tool.
Or any likeness
of anything that is in
heaven above — i.e., “any likeness of any winged
fowl that flieth in the air.” Compare Deuteronomy 4:17. The water
under the earth. See Genesis
1:6-7. The triple division here and elsewhere made,
is intended
to embrace the whole material universe. Much of the Egyptian religion
consisted
in the worship of animals and their images.
(things that are made and
not the
Maker – CY – 2017)
5 “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation of them that
hate me;”
Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them - Every
outward
sign of
honor was shown to images in the ancient world. They were not
regarded as
emblems, but as actual embodiments of deity. There was a
special
rite in
inducted
into their statues, and made to take up their abodes in them.
Seneca says
of the Romans of his own day — “They pray to these images
of the
gods, implore them on bended knee, sit or
stand long days before
them, throw
them money, and sacrifice beasts to them, so treating them
with deep respect,
though they despise the man who made them” (Ap.
Lact. 2:2). I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God. God “will not give his
glory to another” (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11), nor will
He suffer a rival near His
throne. He
is not “jealous.” as the
Greeks thought (Herod. 7:10, § 5), of
mere
success, or greatness; but He is very jealous of His
own honor, and
will not have the respect and reverence, which is His due, bestowed on
other beings or on inanimate objects. Compare
with the present passage
ch. 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Joshua 24:19; etc.
Visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children. Exception has
been taken
to the plain meaning of this passage by a multitude of writers,
who dread
the reproach of the skeptic, that the God of the Old Testament
is a God
careless of justice and bent upon revenge. But neither does
society,
nor does civil justice itself, regard the visiting of parents’ sins upon
their
children as in all cases unjust. Society by its scorn punishes for their
parents’
transgressions the illegitimate (until political correctness of the
late 20th
and early 21st centuries – CY – 2017), the children of criminals,
the
children —
especially the daughters — of adulteresses. Civil justice
condemns to
forfeiture of their titles and their estates, the innocent children
of those
executed for treason. God again manifestly does by
the laws which
obtain in His moral universe, entail on children many
consequences of their
parents’ ill-doing — as the diseases which arise from profligacy
or
intemperance, the poverty which is the result of idleness or
extravagance,
the ignorance and evil habits which are the fruit of a neglected
education. It
is this
sort of visitation which is intended here. The children and
grandchildren of idolaters would start in life under disadvantages. The
vicious
lives of their parents would have sown in them the seeds
both of
physical and moral evil. They would commonly be
brought up in wrong
courses,
have their moral sense early perverted, and so suffer for their
parents’ faults.
It would be difficult for them to rise out of their unhappy
condition.
Still, “each would bear his own iniquity.” Each would
“be
judged by
that he had, not by that he had not.” An all-wise
God would, in
the final award, make allowance for the disadvantages
of birth and
inherited
disposition, and would assign to each that position
to which his
own conduct — his struggles, efforts, endeavors after right — entitled
him. The
visitation intended consists in temporal disadvantages, not in the
final award
of happiness or misery
6 “And shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my
commandments.” And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me -
Or, “to
the thousandth generation.” (Compare Deuteronomy 7:9) - In neither case
are the numbers to
be taken as exact and definite. The object of them is to contrast the
long duration of the Divine love and favor towards the
descendants of those who
love Him, with the comparatively short duration of His chastening wrath in the
case
of those
who are his adversaries – and keep my commandments. Thus only is love
shown.
Compare John 14:15-24; I John 2:5; II John 1:6.
The First and Second Commandments:
Against
Polytheism and Image-Worship (vs. 3-6)
These two commandments
seem to be bound together naturally by the
reason
given in ver. 5. There Jehovah says, “I am a jealous
God;”
obviously
such a feeling of jealousy applies with as much force to the
worship of other
gods as to the making of graven images. Consider —
of other gods than Jehovah, and the representation of them
by images of
created things. The
declaration here is not against more gods than one.
Such a declaration would have been incomprehensible to the
Israelite at
this time, even to Moses himself. The utter emptiness of all
idolatry, the
non-existence, except as the imagination of a superstitious
and darkened
mind, of any other Deity than Jehovah was a truth not yet
appreciable by
those to whom Jehovah spoke. He had to take His people as
they stood,
believers in the existence and power of other gods, and
proclaim to them
with all the impressiveness that came from the
demonstrations of Sinai, that
none of these gods was to be in the smallest degree
recognized. An idolater
in the midst of his idolatries, and not yet laid hold of by
Jehovah’s hand,
might as well have a thousand gods as one. Jehovah speaks
here to those
who are already bound to Himself. Have they not made their
promise? Did
not the people answer and say, “All that the
Lord hath spoken we will do”?
It was the right and
dutiful course of every Israelite to worship Him, serve
Him, and depend upon Him. The great and pressing peril was that, side by
side with Jehovah, the people should try to put other gods.
And to have
other gods meant, practically, to have images of them. How
necessary and
appropriate these two commandments were to come at this
particular time
and in this particular order, is seen when we consider the
image-making
into which
seems to have been the accordant act of the whole people;
Aaron, who was
soon to be the chief official in Jehovah’s ritual, being the
eager instrument
to gratify their desires. Nor was this a mere passing danger
to the Israelites,
a something which in due time they would outgrow. The peril
lies deep in
the infirmities of human
nature. Those whom Jehovah has brought in any
measure to Himself, need to be reminded that HE IS MASTER! Jesus has
put the thing as plain as it can be put, “No man can serve two masters.” We
cannot serve God and Mammon. Dependence on something else
than God,
even though there be nothing of religious form in the
dependence, is a peril
into which we are all liable to come. It is hard to fight —
harder than we
imagine till we are fairly put to the struggle — against the allurements of
the seen and temporal. Even when we admit that there is an invisible God
whose claims are supreme, and whose gifts, present and
future, are beyond
anything that the seen in its pride and beauty can afford —
even then we
have the utmost difficulty in carrying our admission into
practice.
AGAINST
IMAGE-WORSHIP MAY APPLY TO US. Those who go in
the way of right worship are in the way to a profitable
knowledge of God.
They come to be recognized by Him, accepted by Him, and
blessed by Him.
Having graven images inevitably led away from Jehovah. There was
no
possibility of keeping the first commandment, even in the
least degree, if
the second even in the least
degree was broken. Certainly we are under no
temptation to make images, but it comes to the same thing if
we have
images ready made. It is conceivable that the day may come
when not an
image shall be left in the world, except on museum shelves,
and the trade
of Demetrius thus come to an end.
(Acts 19:24) But what of that? The
change
may simply be one of form. Why men should first have made
images and called
them gods is an impenetrable mystery. We cannot but wonder
who was the
first man to make an image and why he made it. But that
image-making,
once established, should continue and return into practice
again and again
in spite of all attempts to destroy it, is easy enough to
understand. Habit,
tradition, training, will
account for everything in this way. Yet the practice
of image-worship, at all events in its grossest forms, can
only exist together
with DENSE INTELLECTUAL DARKNESS! When men begin to think and
question asto the foundation of
things, when they get away from their mother’s
knee, then the simple faith in what they have been taught
deserts them. There
is a frequent and natural enough lamentation that those who
have been taught
concerning Christ in childhood, oftentimes in manhood depart
from him by
the way of skepticism, into utter disbelief and denial. Yet
we must remember
that it is exactly by this kind of process thousands in
still image-worshipping
lands have broken away from their image-worship. It has not
satisfied the awakened and expanding intellect. There is
this difference,
however, that whereas the awakened intellect forsaking
Christ may come
back to Him, and indeed actually does so oftener than we
think, the
awakened intellect forsaking image-worship cannot go back to
it. But to
something as a dependent creature he must go. A man leaving
his old
idolatries and not finding Christ, must needs turn to some
new idolatry,
none the less real as an idolatry, none the less injurious
to his best interests
because the image-form is absent. We must not make to ourselves anything
whatever tO:
Ø take the place of God,
Ø intercept the sight of Him,
Ø or deaden His voice.
We may contradict the spirit of the second commandment, in
doing
things which we think profitable to the religious life and
glorifying to God.
A great deal that is reckoned beneficial and even
indispensable in the
strength, might come to look very questionable, if only the
spirit of this
commandment were exactly appreciated. How many splendid
buildings,
how many triumphs of the architect, how many combined
results of many
arts would then be utterly swept away! Men delude themselves with the
notion that these things
bring them nearer to God, whereas they simply
take His place. In
worshipping Him we should regard with the utmost
jealousy all mere indulgence of the
senses and even of the intellect.
COMMANDMENTS, Many
reasons might have been given, as for
instance, the vanity of graven images, their uselessness in
the hour of need,
the degradation in which they involved the worshippers. But
God brings
forward a reason which needed to be brought forward, and put
in the very
front place, where human thought might continually be
directed to it.
Polytheism and image-worship are indeed degrading and
mischievous to
man — but what is of far greater moment, they are also dishonoring to
the glory of Deity. Those who were sliding away into the service of
other
gods were showing that they had no truly reverent
appreciation of Jehovah;
and in order to intimate the severity of His requirements
with respect to
exclusive and devoted service, Jehovah speaks of Himself as
possessing a
feeling which, when found among men is like a devouring and
unquenchable fire. A jealous
man does well to be jealous, if he has
sufficient ground for the feeling at all, if the affection,
service, and
sympathies that should be reserved for him are turned
elsewhere. Think
then of such a feeling, exalted into the pure intensity of a
holy anger and
bursting into action from God Himself, and then you have the
measure of
His wrath with those who think that the glory of the
incorruptible God can
be changed into an image made like to corruptible man.
(Romans 1:23) He
makes His jealousy apparent in unquestionable, deeply
penetrating action. It is
the action of the great I
AM, who controls thousands of generations. God
does, as a matter of fact, visit the iniquities of the
fathers on the children,
and the magnitude of what He does is accounted for by the
intensity of His
feelings with respect to those who give HIS GLORY to another. His
almighty
hand comes down with a blow the afflictive energies of which
cannot be
exhausted in one or even two generations. Say not that there
is something
unjust about this. That each generation must take something
in the way of
suffering from preceding generations is a fact only too
plain, altogether
apart from the Scriptures. The mercy of
God is that He here gives us
something in explanation of
the fact, and of how to distinguish its working
and at last destroy it. To serve
idols, to depend upon anything else than
God, anything less than Him, anything more easily reached
and more easily
satisfied — this, when stripped of all disguise, amounts to hating God. And
a man living in this way is preparing, not
only punishments for himself, but
miseries for those who come
after him. Many times we have advice given
us to think of posterity. Depend upon it, he thinks most of posterity who
serves the will of God most
humbly and lovingly, with the utmost
concentration and assiduity, in his own generation. (Like
David – Acts 13:36)
Note here also the unmistakable revelation of GOD’S MERCIFUL
DISPOSITION! He visits iniquity to the third and fourth generation of
them that hate Him. But those who love Him are blessed to thousands of
generations. Not that
the blessing will be actually
operative, for, alas, there
may come in many things to hinder. But the expressed disposition of God
remains. If the posterity of the faithful to God are unblessed, it is because
they themselves are utterly careless as to the peculiar privileges into which
they have been introduced.
7 “Thou shalt not
take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.”
It is disputed whether
this is a
right rendering. Shav in Hebrew means both “vanity”
and ,’falsehood;” so
that the
Third Commandment may forbid either “vain-swearing” or simply
“false-swearing.
It is in favor of the latter interpretation, that our Lord seems to
contrast
his own prohibition of unnecessary oaths with the ancient prohibition of
false oaths
in the words — “Ye have heard that it hath
been said by (or “to”) them
of old time — Thou shalt not forswear
thyself, but shelf perform unto the Lord
thine oaths. But I say unto you — Swear not at all” (<Matthew
5:33-34). It is
also in
favor of the command being leveled against false-swearing, that
perjury
should naturally, as a great sin, have a special prohibition directed
against it
in the Decalogue, while vain-swearing, as a little sin, would
scarcely
seem entitled to such notice. Perjury has always been felt to be
one of the
greatest both of moral and of social offences. It implies an
absolute want of any reverence at all for God; and it destroys civil
society
by rendering the
administration of justice impossible. There has
been a
general
horror of it among all civilized nations. The Egyptians punished
perjury
with death. The Greeks thought that a divine Nemesis pursued the
perjured
man, and brought destruction both upon himself and upon his
offspring
.(Herod. 6:86). The Romans regarded the perjurer as infamous,
and the
object of Divine vengeance in the other world (Cic. De
Leg. 2:9).
The threat
contained in the words — “The Lord will not hold him
guiltless” — may be taken as an argument on either side.
The Third Commandment: Profanity Forbidden (v. 7)
This
Commandment clearly comes as an appropriate sequel to the two
preceding
ones. Those who are Jehovah’s, and who are therefore bound to
glorify and
serve Him alone, depend on Him alone, and keep themselves
from all
the degradations and obscuring influences of image worship, are
now
directed to the further duty of avoiding all irreverent and empty use of
THE SACRED NAME! With respect to this, there must have been a
very real
danger in
speech in
this respect (Oh my God!, Jesus Christ!,
God Damn!,
etc.
– CY - 2017),
we have
only to call to mind some of the most common expletives in English,
French, and
German, and we shall then better understand that there may have been
a great
deal of the same sad and careless license among the
ancient Hebrews. Not
that we are
to suppose Jehovah directed this command exclusively or even chiefly
against
profane swearers in the ordinary sense of the term. (
etc. are
vulgarly guilty in this – CY – 2017)
They are included, but
after all
they are only a small part of those to whom the commandment is
directed.
It is quite possible for a man to keep above all coarseness and
vulgarity
of speech, and yet in God’s sight be far worse than an habitual
swearer. Many are concerned to avoid profane swearing,
not because it is
offensive
to God, but because it is ungentlemanly. It needs no devoutness
or
religious awe to understand the couplet:
“Immodest words admit of no defense,
For want of decency is want of sense.”
And there
is as much want of decency in profane words as in immodest
ones. The
thing to be considered is not only the words we avoid, but the
words we use. Out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth will speak.
(Matthew
12:34) This commandment, like the rest,
must be kept positively, or it
cannot be
kept negatively. If we are found making a serious and habitual use of
God’s name in a right way, then, and only then, shall we
be kept effectually
from using
it in a wrong one.
God is TO KEEP
FROM ALL EMPTINESS AND SHALLOWNESS OF
THOUGHT
WITH RESPECT TO HIM. Thinking is but speaking to
oneself; and God’s commandment really means that we must
labor at all
times to have right and sufficient thoughts concerning Him.
We might
almost say, take care of the thought and the speech will take care of itself.
All our thinking about God, as about every topic of thought,
should be in
the direction of what is practical and profitable. Blessed
is he who has
made the great discovery, that of the unseen cause and
guide, behind all
things that are seen, he can only get profitable knowledge
as that Great
Unseen is pleased to give it. We who live amid the great
declarations of the
Gospel are really thinking of God in a vain and displeasing
way as long as
we suppose it possible to get any true knowledge of Him except in Christ.
Right knowledge of God, and therefore profitable thoughts of
Him must be
gained by experimental personal search into THE RICHES OF GOD IN
CHRIST JESUS! Thinking of this sort will not be vain, shallow,
fugitive
thinking, seeing that it springs out of apprehended,
personal necessities, has an
immutable basis of fact, a rewarding element of hope, and is
continually
freshened by a feeling of gratitude towards One who has conferred on us
unspeakable benefits. Surely it is
a dreadful sin to think little, to think
seldom, and to think wrongly of that profoundly compassionate God,
who so loved the world that
He gave His only begotten Son, to save it from
perishing by the gift of eternal life. (John 3:16)
No thoughts of ours indeed
can measure the fullness of that sublime love, and we shall
even fall short of
what the holiest and devoutest of
men can reach; but there is all the more
need why we should labor in constant
meditation on the saving ways of
God, according to our
abilities. Put the word “God” on a sheet of paper,
and then try to write underneath all that the name suggests,
particularly all
that it suggests in the way of individual benefit. Perhaps
the writing may
come to an end very soon, and even what is written be so
vague and
valueless as to make you feel that this commandment of God
here is not a
vain one so far as concerns you.
OUR RELATIONS
WITH OUR FELLOW-MEN. God, our God, with
all His claims and all His benefits, cannot be spoken about
too much in the
circles of men, if only He is spoken about in a right way:
but that right way
— how hard it is to attain. Much
speaking concerning Him, even by those
who do it officially, is very dishonoring to His name and
hindering to His
rule in the hearts of men. Preachers of the word of life and
duty, the word
concerning divine gifts and requirements, need to take great
heed in this
respect, for whenever they speak without proper impressions
as to the
solemnity of their message, they are assuredly taking God’s
name m vain.
There has also to be a consideration of the audience. The
words of God’s
truth and salvation must be as far as possible words in
season, not wasted,
as pearls before swine. It needs that we should strive and
watch incessantly
to have all attainable fitness as the witnesses of God.
Jesus would not have
the testimony of demons to His Messiahship,
but chose, prepared, and
sanctified such men as He saw to be suitable; and then when
He had found
fit witnesses, even though few, He sent them forth to bear
their testimony,
sure that it would be sufficient for all who had the right
mind to receive it.
It is awful, when one only considers it, in how many
instances God’s name
is taken in vain, by the use of it to sanctify unholy ends,
justify
unrighteousness, and give to error what dignity and force
can be gained
from an appeal to divine authority. When the Scriptures were
quoted to
justify slavery, what was this but taking the name of God in
vain? How
much of it there must have been in theological controversy, where
disputants have got so
embittered by partisan spirit that they would twist
Scripture in any way so as to
get God on their side, instead of laboring as
honest men to be on the
side of God. Look at the glutton sitting down to
pamper his stomach from the loaded table; but first of all
he must go
through the customary grace and make a show of eating and
drinking to
the glory of God in heaven, when in truth the god he really
worships is his
greedy, insatiable belly. We may do many things in the name
of the Lord,
but that does not make them the Lord’s things. “Lord, Lord” may ever be
on our lips, we may even get a very general reputation for
our devotedness
to God and goodness; but all this may not prevent us from
hearing at the
last, “Depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.”
APPROACHES TO
GOD. If we are His at all, there must be constant
approaches to Him, and His name therefore must be constantly
on our lips.
Ø
We must guard against formality. We must not take a name on our lips
that expresses no felt reality. To confess sins
and needs and supplicate
pardon and supply when the heart is far away
from the throne of grace, is
certainly taking God’s name in vain.
Ø
We must
guard against coming in other than the appointed way. A very
elaborate and comprehensive prayer may be
constructed to the God of
nature and providence, but even though it may seem
to be of use for a
while, it will show its emptiness in the end if
God’s own appointment of
mediation through Christ Jesus be neglected. Do
not let us deceive
ourselves with words and aspirations that are
only dissipated into the air.
For a suppliant to know of Christ and yet ignore His
mediation, is assuredly
to take God’s name in vain, however honest the
ignoring may be.
Ø
Then surely there is an empty use of God’s name in prayer, if we ask in
other than the appointed order. The order of thought in all right approach
to God is such as our Great Teacher has Himself
presented to us. Is it the
sinner who is coming, wretched and burdened?
Jesus approves the prayer,
“God be
merciful to me a sinner.” Sinners never take the name
of God in
vain, if they come to Him with two feelings
blended in one irrepressible cry:
o
the feeling
of God’s anger with ALL SIN and
o
the feeling
of His unfailing compassion for the
sinner.
Or if it be the disciple and servant who is
coming to God, then the order of
thought for his approach Jesus has also given. We must ever think of Him as
our Father
in heaven, and first of all of such things as will sanctify His name,
advance
His kingdom and procure the perfect doing of His will on earth.
We must make all our approaches to God with our
hearts entirely submitted
to Him, otherwise we shall only find that we are
taking His name in vain.
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it
holy.” The
institution of the sabbath
dates, at
any rate, from the giving of the manna (ch. 16:23).
Its primeval institution,
which has
been thought to be implied in Genesis 2:3, is uncertain. The word
“remember” here may be simply a reference to what passed
in the “wilderness of Sin”
as related in ch.
16:22-30. On the sabbath
itself, both Jewish and Christian, see the
comment
upon that chapter.
9 “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy
work” – This is not so much a
command
as a prohibition “Thou
shaft not labor more than six (consecutive) days.”
In them thou shalt do all thy necessary
work, so as to have the Sabbath
free for
the worship and service of God.
10 “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the
LORD thy God: in it thou shalt
not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates:”
But the seventh day is the sabbath
of the LORD thy God” - Rather — “The
seventh day shall be a sabbath
to the Lord thy God;” i.e., the
seventh day shall
be a day of
holy rest dedicated to religion. All unnecessary labor shall be suspended and
put aside
—
the
law of rest and ease, so far as bodily toil is concerned, which was the
law of man’s
existence before the fall, shall supersede for the time that law of heavy toil
and
continual unrest, which was laid on man as the penalty of his transgression (Genesis
3:17-19).
his labor” — even the
very beasts, pressed into man’s service since the fall, shall rest -
“in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter” – The rest
is to
extend to the whole family - “thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant” - It is to
extend
beyond the family proper, to the domestics of the household, who are to enjoy
the
respite from toil and to have the advantage of the religious refreshment, no
less than
their
masters - “nor thy
cattle” - God’s care
for cattle is a remarkable feature of the
Old
Testament dispensation. God, at the time of the flood, “remembered Noah
and the
cattle
which were with him in the ark” (Genesis 8:1). Soon after, His covenant, not to
drown the
earth any more, was
established “with
the fowl, and with the cattle, and
with every beast of the
earth,” no less than with man (Genesis 9:9-11). In the Psalms
He declares
that “the cattle
upon a thousand hills” are His - (Psalm 50:10). In Jonah,
we find
that
(Jonah
4:11). The precept, “Thou shalt
not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the
corn”
(Deuteronomy 25:4) is characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation, and had no
parallel in
the written codes or in the actual customs of other ancient nations. Animal
suffering
was generally regarded as
of small account in the ancient world; and the
idea of protecting
animals from ill usage was wholly unknown – On the contrary, as
Dr. Dollinger well observes (Jew and Gentile, vol. 2.
pp. 346-7): “The law
was
specially careful about the welfare of animals; they were to be treated
with
compassion and kindness. Domestic animals were to be well fed, and
to enjoy
the rest of the sabbath. The Israelites were to help
to lift up the ass
which had
fallen beneath its burden, and to bring back the beast that had
gone astray
(ch. 23:5, 12; Deuteronomy 25:4)… The young
was not to
be taken from its mother before the seventh day… From these
and similar
ordinances — such, for instance, as about the least painful
method of
killing animals — it is plain that the law tried to subdue that
coarse turn
of mind and unfeeling cruelty, which are engendered by the
maltreatment
of animals.” “nor
thy stranger
that is within thy gates” –
The
command that these too should rest, was at once a restriction upon their
liberty,
requiring
them to conform to the habits of those among whom they dwelt, and an
admission
of them into participation in some portion of the privileges of
The sacred rest of the sabbath prefigured
the final peace and happiness of the
blest in heaven; and they who were commanded to share in the first,
were
encouraged to hope that they might also participate in the second.
11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it.” - Two reasons are assigned for the sanctification
of the
seventh day in the Pentateuch:
God rested; and
them a time of rest after a time of labor and toil
(Deuteronomy 5:15).
It is not expressly said that the deliverance took place on
the Sabbath, but
such is the Jewish tradition on the subject. The reason here
assigned must
be regarded as the main reason, man’s rest being purposely
assimilated
to God’s rest, in order to show the resemblance between
man’s nature
and God’s (Genesis 1:27), and to point towards that eternal
rest wherein
man, united with God, will find his highest bliss and the
true end of his
being. “There remaineth a rest for the people of God.” – (Hebrews
4:9)
The Soul for God Only (vs. 3-11)
emptiness and falsehood. There must
be nothing even of our holy things
put between the soul and God. HIS PRESENCE must be THE SOUL’S
LIFE, the very air it breathes.
Ø By keeping ourselves from idols. Our daily avocations, our
interests,
affections, pleasures, may lead to our esteeming something
our chief
good and making it to be instead of God to us. God must be seen
behind His
gifts, and be more to us than all
besides.
Ø By watchful fear and hope. We bring evil not upon
ourselves only, and
the blessings which rest upon
obedience are an everlasting heritage.
We sow seeds of evil or of blessing which yield many
harvests (vs. 5-6).
(“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth,
that
shall he also reap! For he that soweth
to his flesh shall of the
flesh
reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the
Spirit
reap life
everlasting.” - Galatians 6:7-8)
Ø By reverence (v. 7). God’s name must not be emptied of its
power to
touch the heart by our lightness or hypocrisy.
Ø By keeping sacred the sabbath
rest (vs. 8-11).
o It will be a day of self-revelation, of rebuke for the evil in us,
of strengthening to the
good.
o It will be a day for the remembrance of God; and
of participation in his rest.
One of the main reasons
the Children of
was because they did not keep
the sabbath. (II Chronicles 36:18-21 –
CY – 2017)
The
Fourth Commandment: The Sacred Sabbath (vs. 8-11)
to
and who had bidden Moses speak of Him to the captives as the
God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, now takes the thoughts of His
people as far
back as it is possible for them to go. They are directed to
think of the great
work of Him who in six days
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is. “All the earth is mine,” He had bidden Moses say in ch.19:5;
and of course the Israelites, whatever their other
difficulties in the
way of understanding God’s commandments, had no question
such as
modern science has thrown down for us to ponder with respect
to these
alleged days of creation. Though indeed, as is now generally
agreed, no
difficulty is found in this question when we approach it
rightly. God’s
thoughts are not as our thoughts; his ways are not as our
ways; and so we
may add His days are not as our days, seeing that with Him
one day is as a
thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The great
matter to be
borne in mind by ancient Israelites — and for every
Christian the
consideration remains whether he also should not very
strictly bear it in
mind — was that by this seventh day of rest
after creation, God gave the
great rule for the consecration of His people’s time. It is to a
certain extent
correct to say that this precept is a positive one; but it
is not therefore
arbitrary. God may have seen well to give the precept in
such emphatic
way, just because the need of
setting apart one day out of seven is in some
way fixed in the nature of things. It is a question worth
while asking, why
creation is set before us as having occupied six successive
periods. Why
not some other number? May not the periods of creation have been
so
arranged with a view to the use of them as a ground for this
commandment? God sanctified the seventh
day because it was the best day:
Ø best for
human welfare and
Ø best to
exhibit Divine glory;
and it seems to have been at Sinai that He first distinctly
made this sanctification.
He had made (Genesis
2:2); now it is known — at least it is known in part —
why this resting was not till the seventh day, and also not
later. May it not be
that the expression “God blessed
the seventh day, and sanctified it, because
that in it he had rested from
all his work which God created and made,”
(ibid. v. 3) was inserted by Moses after the
transactions at Sinai, as a
suitable addition to the statement that God rested from His
work? If this
verse was not inserted in the Genesis record until after the
instructions
from Sinai, then we have some sort of explanation why no
clear,
indubitable sign of the Sabbath is found in patriarchal
times.
distinctly bear in mind the object to be attained. The
seventh day was to be
sanctified, and in
order that it might be properly sanctified, a scrupulous
rest from ordinary work was necessary. The rest
was but the means to the
sanctification; and the sanctification is the thing to be kept prominently in
view. The mere resting from work on the seventh day
did an Israelite no
good, unless he remembered what the rest
implied. The commandment
began, “Remember the Sabbath
day, to keep
it holy,” not “Remember
to do
no work therein.” Certainly it was only too easy to forget the
requirement
of rest; but it was easier still to forget the requirement of holiness. A man
might rest without hallowing, and so it had to be enjoined
on him to shape
his rest that hallowing might be secured by it. Certain of
the animals
required for holy purposes by God, were to be such as had
not borne the
yoke. The animal could not be given to God and at the same time used for
self. And in like
manner the Sabbath could not both be given to God and
used for self. Therefore the Israelite is charged to do no
work and let no
work be done, even by the humblest of his slaves. He himself must get no
temporal
benefit from this day. God has so
arranged, in His loving
providence
and holy requirements, that six days’
work shall supply seven
days’ need. This
lesson the manna distinctly teaches if it teaches anything at
all. And now that the Jewish Sabbath has gone, the Christian
has to ask
himself how far the mode of Sabbath-keeping in
for him in his use of the Lord’s day. He is a miserable
Christian who begins
to plead that there is no distinct and express commandment
in the New
Testament for the keeping of a sacred day of rest. To say that the Sabbath
is gone with the outward
ordinances of Judaism is only making an excuse
for self-indulgence. True, the sacrifices of the law are done away with, but
only that imperfections may give place to perfections. In
the very doing
away, a solemn claim is made that the Christian should present his body as
a living sacrifice; and one
cannot be a living sacrifice without feeling that
ALL ONE’S TIME is for doing
God’s will. When in the inscrutable
arrangements of
to be so largely a day of cessation from toil, surely the
part of Christian wisdom
is to make the very best of the opportunity. There is,
and there always will
be, room for much improvement as to the mode of keeping the
day of rest;
but in proportion as we become
filled with the spirit of Christ and the
desire for perfection, in that proportion we shall be delivered from the
inclination
to make Sunday a day for self, and led forward
in resolution,
diligence and love, to make
it a day for God. The more we
can make our
time holy time, the more we shall make ourselves holy
persons. If in God’s
mercy we find Sunday a day of larger opportunities, let it
be according to
our individual opportunity, a day of
larger achievements. Each one of us
should say, “I am bound to discover how God would have me
use
this
day.” My neighbor Christian may feel constrained to use it
in a way that,
if I were to imitate him, might not promote my own spiritual
advantage, or
the glory of God. Let every man be fully persuaded in his
own mind, only
let him take care that he has a persuasion and acts
conscientiously and
lovingly up to it.
“Remember.” Not of
course that this commandment is more important than
the rest. He who breaks one breaks all, for each
is a member of the whole
as of a living unity. But there must have been a special
reason in the mind
of God for calling attention to this commandment. We are told to
remember
what we are likely to forget. Also, certain things we are
exhorted to remember, because if we only remember them we
shall come in
due course to other things which cannot be so constantly in
the mind, and
which indeed the mind may not yet be able properly to grasp.
He who
remembers the right way will
assuredly come to the right end, even
though
he may not be constantly thinking of it. We may be sure that keeping the
Sabbath day really holy, had a very salutary effect towards KEEPING ALL
THE REST OF THE COMMANDMENTS! It gave time for reflection on
all those affairs of daily life in which there are so many
opportunities and
temptations to set at naught the righteous claims both of
God and of our
fellow-men. And so the Christian may ever say to himself,
“Soul, remember
the day of rest which God has so graciously secured to
thee.” God, though
He has condescendingly done so much to come near to needy
men with His
supplies of grace, gets soon hidden by the cloud and dust of this world’s
business. It is only
too easy to forget the spirit of these commandments,
and be unfair, unkind, malicious and revengeful toward our
fellow-men in
the jostlings
and rivalries of life. Remember then. Let us but attend to this
and the rest of God’s
remembers, and we may be sure they will do a great
deal to neutralize that
forgetting which is inevitably incident to the
infirmities of FALLEN HUMAN NATURE!
12 “Honor
thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land
which the LORD thy God giveth
thee.” - In the Decalogue, the position of this duty,
at the head of our duties towards our neighbor, marks
its importance; which is further
shown by
this being “the first commandment with
promise” (Ephesians
6:2). Modern
commentators
generally assume that the promise was not personal, but national —
the
nation’s days were to be “long upon the land,” if the
citizens generally were
obedient
children. But this explanation cannot apply to Ephesians
6:1-3. And if
obedience
to parents is to be rewarded with long life under
the new covenant, there
can be no
reason why it should not have been so rewarded under the old. The
objection
that good sons are not always long-lived is futile. God governs the
universe by
general, not by universal laws.
The Fifth Commandment: the Commandment for Children
(v. 12)
PARENTS.
Ø
This
commandment gave the parents an opportunity for telling the
children
how it originated. Not only
an opportunity, but we may say a
necessity. It was a commandment
to children, through their parents. All
the commandments, statutes,
and judgments, were to be taught
diligently (with effort) to the
children (Deuteronomy 6:7), and this one
here would require very earnest and
special explanation in the family.
It will be seen that it was a commandment
which could not be isolated;
a self-willed parent could not quote it
with any advantage for the sake
of upholding arbitrary authority. The Israelite parent had to explain how
these commandments were given; he had to
narrate the events in Sinai,
and these in turn compelled a reference
to the exodus and the bitter
experiences of
on themselves in making
their children duly acquainted with all the
glorious doings and strict
requirements of Jehovah. If a parent had to
deal with a disobedient and despising
child, he was able to point out that
this requirement of honoring father and
mother was God’s most strict
requirement, and God was He who had rule and
authority over parent
and child alike.
Ø Thus father and mother were evidently
required to honor themselves.
No special verbal utterance was here required, telling
father and mother
to remember the obligations to offspring, and anyway this
was not the
proper place for it. The commandments here are universal
commandments, such as all men incur the temptation of
breaking. Thus
it was eminently fitting to have a word for children,
enjoining upon them
the proper feeling towards parents; as all know the filial
relation, but all
do not know the parental one. One of the merits of the Decalogue is its
brevity and sententiousness. No father could expect his
children to
honor the parental relation unless he did so himself; and in
measure as
he more and more comprehended the import of the relation, in
that
measure might his children be expected to respond to his
treatment
of them. “Honor all men,” says the
apostle Peter (I Peter 2:17);
and to do this we must begin at home in our own life, and
put the
proper value on ourselves. God has put immense honor on
father
and mother; and it is the curse, loss, and fearful
reservation of
penalty for many parents that they do not see what momentous
interests have been put in their stewardship.
Ø
God
thus showed His earnest desire to help parents in their arduous,
anxious
work. The work
of a parent in
responsibilities was no light matter. Great opportunities were
given him,
and great things might be done by him; things not to be done
by any
other teacher or guide, and he had thus a very comforting
assurance
that God was his helper. Helper to the father, and, bear in mind, to
the mother also. It
is worthy of note that father and mother are
specially mentioned. She is not left in the obscurity of a
more general
term. God would give to both of them according to
their peculiar
opportunities all understanding, wisdom,
forbearance, steadfastness,
discrimination of character, that
might be necessary for their work.
needed to teach children as to the making of some sort of
distinction
between their father and mother and other men and women.
But, in order
that the distinction might be a right one, and evermore real
and deepening
in its presence and influence, such a commandment as this
was imperatively
needed. As we have said, it was a commandment universal in
its scope,
because all are or have been in the filial relation, but as
a matter of fact it
would address itself directly to the young. They were laid
hold of as soon
as anything like intelligence, power to obey, and power to understand the
difference between right and
wrong manifested themselves. God came and
made His claim upon them, in a way as suitable as any to
their childish
consciousness. They were to honor father and mother, not
because father
and mother said so, but because GOD
SAID SO. Plainly the honoring
included both deep inward feeling and clear outward
expression. The
outward expression, important as it was, could only come
from real and
habitual feeling within. Outward expression by itself
counted for nothing.
Honoring with the lips while the heart was far removed from
the parent
would be reckoned a grievous sin against God. The child had
to grow up
esteeming and venerating the parental relation everywhere.
It could not
honor its own father and mother and at the same time despise
the parents
of other children. The promise here given obviously a
suitable one for
children. To them the prospect of
a long life, in the land already promised,
was itself a promise agreeable to the limitations of the old
covenant, when
there could be no pointing in clear terms to the land beyond
death; and we
may be very sure that, according to this promise, filial
obedience had a
corresponding temporal reward.
The Commandment with Promise (v. 12)
Ø Its reasonableness. Reverent,
loving subjection to parents is obedience
to the deepest instincts of the heart.
Ø Its pleasantness. This
subjection is rest and joy: it is ceasing from
doubt and inner conflict; it lets into the
spirit the sunshine of a parent’s
loving approbation.
Lord thy God giveth thee.” Obedience to parents is the condition of
national prosperity.
Ø It is
respect for law and loyal acceptance of the teachings of the past.
Ø It is denial of the spirit of self will and self pleasing.
Ø It guards
youth from excess and vice.
Ø It
prepares for the understanding of and
submission to THE WILL
OF GOD!
Ø It lays broad and deep in the nation’s life the foundations of
industry
and strength and of moral,
as well as material, greatness.
(Something that is dreadfully lacking in a large
segment of society
in the
13 “Thou shalt not kill.” - Our first duty towards our
neighbor is to respect his life.
When Cain
slew Abel, he could scarcely have known what he was doing; yet a
terrible
punishment was awarded him for his transgression (Genesis 4:11-14).
After the
flood, the solemn declaration was made, which thenceforward became
a
universal
law among mankind — “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his
blood be shed: for in the
image of God made He man” (Genesis 9:6). In the world
that followed
the flood, all races of men had the tradition that only blood could
expiate blood. (Now many
in the
perverted
justice in many cases, and drawn out the punishment for so long a
time that
it is almost meaningless. CY –
2017) In the few places where there was
an
organized government, and a systematic administration of justice, the State acted
on the
principle, and
punished the murderer capitally. Elsewhere, among tribes and
races which had not yet coalesced
into states, the law of blood-revenge obtained,
and the
inquisition for blood became a private affair. The next of kin was the
recognized “avenger,” upon whom
it devolved to hunt out the murderer
and punish
him. Here the sin is simply and emphatically denounced, the brevity of
the precept increasing its
force. The Israelites are told that to
take life is a crime.
God forbids it. As usual, no exceptions are made. Exceptions
appear later on
(Numbers
35:22-25; Deuteronomy 4:42); but the first thing is to
establish the principle.
Human life is sacred. Man is not to
shed the blood of his fellow-man. If he does,
of his hand will the life taken surely be
required. The casuistic question whether
suicide is
forbidden under this precept, probably did not occur to the legislator or
to the
Hebrews of this time. Neither the Hebrews, nor the Egyptians, among whom
they had so
long lived, were addicted to suicide; and it is a general rule that laws are
not made
excepting against tolerably well-known crimes. It has been argued
that
angry
thoughts and insulting words were forbidden by it on the strength of our
Lord’s
comment in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-22). But it seems to
the present
writer that in Matthew 5:21-47 our Lord is not so much explaining
the Jewish
law as amplifying it on His own authority — note the
repetition of the
phrase, “But I say unto you” — and making it mean to Christians what it had
not meant
to Jews.
14 “Thou shalt not
commit adultery.” - Our second duty towards our neighbor is to
respect the
bond on which the family is based, and that conjugal honor which to the
true man is dearer
than life. Marriage, according
to the original institution, made the
husband and
wife “one flesh” - (Genesis
2:24); and to break in upon this sacramental
union was at
once a crime and a
profanity. Adulteresses and their paramours were in
most ancient
nations liable to be punished with death by the injured party; but the
adultery of
a married man with an unmarried woman was thought lightly of. The
precept of the Decalogue binds both man
and woman equally. Our Lord’s
expansion
of this commandment
(Matthew 5:27-32) is parallel to His expansion of the preceding
one (ibid.
vs. 21-26). He shows that there are adulterous marriages in
countries where
the law
gives a facility of divorce, and that without any overt act adultery may be
committed in
the heart.
15 “Thou shalt not
steal.” - By these words the right of property received
formal
acknowledgment, and a protest was made by anticipation against the maxim
of modern
socialists — “La propriete, c’est
le vol.” Instinctively
man feels that
some things
become his, especially by toil expended on them, and that, by parity of
reasoning,
some things become his neighbor’s. Our third duty towards our
neighbor
is to respect his property rights. Society, in
every community that has hitherto existed,
has
recognized private property; and social order may be said to be built upon it.
Government
exists mainly for the security of men’s lives and properties;
and anarchy
would supervene if either could be with impunity attacked. Theft has
always been
punished in every state.
16 “Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy
neighbor.” - False witness is
of two
kinds, public and private. We may either seek to damage our neighbor by
giving
false evidence against him in a court of justice, or simply calumniate him
by making
false statements to others in our social intercourse with them. The form
of the
expression here used points especially to false witness of the former kind,
but does
not exclude the latter, which is expressly forbidden in ch.
23:1. The wrong
done to a
man by false evidence in a court may be a wrong of the very extremest
kind
— may be
actual murder (I Kings 21:13) More often, however, it results in an injury
to his
property or his character. As fatal to the administration
of justice, false witness
in courts has been severely visited by penalties in all
well-regulated states. Private
slander may
sometimes involve as serious consequences to individuals as false
witness in
a court. It may ruin a man; it may madden him; it may drive him to suicide.
But it does
not disorganize the whole
framework of society, like perjured evidence
before a
tribunal; and states generally are content to leave the injured party to the
remedy of an
action-at-law. The Mosaic legislation was probably the first wherein
it was
positively forbidden to circulate reports to the prejudice of another, and
where
consequently this was a criminal offence.
17 “Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor
his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
- Here the Mosaic law takes a step
enormously
in advance of any other ancient code. Most codes stopped short at the deed;
a few went
on to words; not one attempted to control thoughts. “Thou shalt not covet”
teaches
men that there is One who sees the
heart; to whose eyes “all things are naked
and open;” (Hebrews 4:13) and who
cares far less for the outward act than the inward
thought or
motive from which the act proceeds. “Thou shalt not covet” lays it
down
again that we are not mere slaves of our natural desires and passions, but have a
controling power implanted
within us, by means of which we can keep down passion,
check desire, resist impulse. Man is lord
of himself, capable, by the exercise of his
free-will,
of molding his feelings, weakening or intensifying his passions, shaping
his
character. God, who “requires truth in the inward parts,” (Psalm 51:6)
looks
that we
should in all cases go to the root of the matter, and not be
content with
restraining
ourselves from evil acts and evil words, but eradicate the evil feeling
from which the acts and words proceed. “Thy neighbor’s house” is mentioned
first as
being of primary necessity, and as in some sort containing all the rest.
The other
objects mentioned are placed in the order in which they
are usually
valued. The multiplication of objects is by way of emphasis.
The
Ten Commandments Collectively (vs. 1-17)
The ten
commandments form a summary of our main duties towards God, and towards
man. They
stand out from the rest of the Old Testament in a remarkable way:
ü They were
uttered audibly by a voice which thousands heard — a voice
which is called that of God himself (Deuteronomy 5:26) and
which
filled those who heard it with a terrible fear (v.19).
ü They were
the only direct utterance ever made by God to man under the
Old Covenant.
ü They were
not merely uttered by God but written by him, inscribed in
some marvelous way by the finger of God on the two
tables of
testimony (ch. 31:18; Deuteronomy
4:13).
ü They have
the additional testimony to their primary importance, that our
Lord Himself appealed to them as laying down that which men
must do
to inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:18-19). We may observe
of them
collectively:
God and
man; they are both prohibitive and directive; they reach to the heart as
well as to the outward
life; they comprise both moral and positive precepts.
According to the
division adopted by the
churches
generally, the first four lay down our duty to our Maker, the last six
our duty to our fellow men.
Mostly they are prohibitive; but this is not the case
with the fourth and fifth. The
generality are concerned with acts, but words form
the subject matter of the third; and
both the tenth and the fifth deal with thoughts.
ARRANGEMENT. The Decalogue takes as its basis the fact that
all our duties
are owed either to God or man. It regards our
duties to God as the more
important, and therefore places them first. The
duties consist:
ü In
acknowledging His existence and unity, and in “having Him” for
our God and none
other (First Commandment);
ü In
conceiving aright of His incorporeity and spirituality, and worshipping
Him as a Spirit, in
spirit and in truth (Second Commandment);
ü In
reverencing His holy Name, and avoiding the profane use of it (Third
Commandment); and,
ü In setting
apart for his worship some stated portion of our time, since
otherwise we shall be sure to neglect it (Fourth
Commandment). Our
duties towards our fellow men are more complicated. First,
there is a
special relation in which we stand towards those who bring
us into the
world and support us during our early years, involving
peculiar duties to
them, analogous in part to those which we owe to God, and so
rightly
following upon the summary of our Divine duties (Fifth
Commandment).
Next, with respect to men in general, we owe it them to
abstain from
injuring them in deed, word, or thought. In deed we may
injure their
person, their honor, and their property, which we are
consequently
forbidden to do in the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Eighth
Commandments.
In word, we injure our neighbor especially by false witness,
public or
private, both of which are forbidden in the Ninth Commandment.
We
injure him in thought, finally, when we covet what is his;
hence the
Tenth Commandment.
OF THE
MORAL LAW MAY BE ENVOLVED. The Decalogue is a collection
of elementary moral
truths. Its predominantly negative form is indicative of this,
since abstaining from
evil is the first step on the road to virtue. Each
command
asserts a principle; and the principle is in every
case capable of being worked
out to a
thousand remote consequences. The letter may be narrow; but the
spirit
of the commandment
is in every case “exceeding broad” – (Psalm
119:96) –
This will appear, more clearly, in
the ensuing section, in which the Ten
Commandments will
be
considered
individually.
The
Ten Commandments Individually (vs. 1-17)
takes the
form which our Lord gave it — “Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God
with all-thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the first
and great commandment’ (Matthew
22:37-38). Not merely
abstract belief, not
merely humble
acknowledgment of one God is necessary, but heartfelt devotion
to the One Object
worthy of our devotion, the One Being in all the universe on
whom we may rest
and stay ourselves without fear of His failing us. He is
the
Lord our God —
not an Epicurean deity, infinitely remote from man, who
has
created the world and left it
to its own devices — not a Pantheistic essence
spread through
all nature, omnipresent, but intangible, impersonal, deaf to our
cries, and indifferent
to our “to us making for righteousness” in actions — not an
inscrutable “something external to
us making for righteousness,” in the words of
the religious Agnostic — but a Being very near us, “in whom we live., and
move,
and have our being,” (Acts 17:28) who is “about our path and
about
our bed, and spieth
out all our ways,” a Being whom we may know, and
love, and trust, and feel to be with
us, warning us, and cheering us, and
consoling us, and pleading with us,
and ready to receive us, and most
willing to pardon us — a Being who
is never absent from us, who
continually sustains our life,
upholds our faculties, gives us all we enjoy
and our power to enjoy it, and who
is therefore the natural object of our
warmest, tenderest,
truest, and most constant love. The First Commandment
should not be difficult to keep. We have
only to open our eyes to the facts,
and let them make their natural impression
upon our minds, in order to
love One who has done and still does
so much for us.
Commandment forbids us to have unworthy thoughts
of God, to liken Him
to an idol, or regard Him as “even such an one as ourselves.” (Psalm 50:21) –
Considered as directive, it requires us to form
in our minds a just and true idea
of the Divine nature, and especially of its
spirituality, its lofty majesty, and its
transcendent holiness. All
materialistic ideas, and consequently all
Pantheistic notions, are degrading
to the dignity of God, who “is a Spirit,
without body, parts, or passions,
not mixed with matter, but wholly
separate from it, yet everywhere
present after a supersensuous manner.
Again, anthropomorphic notions of
God are degrading to Him; though it is
scarcely possible to speak of Him
without anthropomorphic expressions.
When we use such terms — as when we
call God just, or merciful, or
longsuffering — we should remember
that those qualities in Him are not
identical with the human ones, but
only analogous to them; and altogether
we should be conscious of a deep
mysteriousness lying behind all that we
know of God, and rendering Him a
Being awful, inscrutable — whom we
must not suppose that we can fathom
or comprehend.
forbids perjury or false swearing;
secondarily, it forbids all unnecessary
oaths, all needless mention of the
holy name of God, and all irreverence
towards anything which is God’s —
His name, house, day, book, laws,
ministers. Whatever
in any sense belongs to God is sacred, and, if it has to
be mentioned, should be mentioned
reverently. The true main object of the
Third Commandment is to inculcate
reverence, to point out to us that the
only proper frame of mind in which
we can approach God is one of self-
abasement and deeply reverential
fear. “Keep thy foot, when thou goest
to
the house of
God,” says the Preacher, “and be more ready to hear
than to
offer the
sacrifice of fools, for they consider not that they do evil. Be not
rash with thy
mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter
anything
before God: for
God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy
words be few” (Ecclesiastes
5:1, 2).
have the basis for all that is
external in religion. The dedication of one
entire day out of seven to God, and
the command to abstain on that day
from the ordinary labors of life,
led on naturally to the institution of
sacred services, holy convocations,
meetings for united worship and
prayer. Man is an active being, and
a social being. If the ordinary business
of life is stopped, some other
occupation must be found for him: he will not
sit still from morning to night with
folded hands wrapped in pious
contemplation. The institution of
the Sabbath stands in close relation to the
appointment of a priesthood, the
construction of a holy place, and the
establishment of a ceremonial. On
the Christian the Fourth Commandment
is not binding in respect of the
letter — he is not to remember the Seventh
day to keep it holy, but the First;
he is not tied to hallow it by an abstinence
from all labor, but encouraged to
devote it to the performance of good
works; but in the spirit of it, the
commandment is as binding as any. Men
need, under Christianity as much as
under Judaism, positive religious
institutions, places of worship,
hours of prayer, a liturgy, a ritual, ceremonies.
Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together as the manner of some
is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day
approaching” – (Hebrews
10:25) - The value of the Lord’s Day as a Christian
institution is incalculable; it
witnesses for religion to the world; it constitutes a
distinct call on men to take into
consideration the aim and intent of the day; and
its rightful use is of inestimable
benefit to all truly religious persons, deepening
in them, as it does, the sense of
religion, and giving them time and opportunity
for the training of their spiritual
nature, and the contemplation of heavenly things,
which would otherwise to most men
have been unattainable. It has been well
called “a bridge thrown across
life’s troubled waters, over which we may pass to
reach the opposite shore — a link
between earth and heaven — a type of the
eternal day, when the freed spirit,
if true to itself and to God, shall, put on for
ever the robe of immortal holiness
and joy.”
exacts from us is irrespective of
our parents’ personal merits or demerits.
We are to honor them as being our
parents. Difficulties may be raised
easily enough in theory; but they
are readily solvable in practice. Let us
defer to our parents’ commands in
all things lawful — let us do everything
for them that we can — let us
anticipate their wishes in things indifferent
— let us take trouble on their behalf
— let us be ever on the watch to
spare them vexatious annoyance — let
us study their comfort, ease, peace
— and without any sacrifice of
principle, even if they are bad parents, we
may sufficiently show that we feel
the obligation of the relationship, and
are anxious to discharge the duties
which it involves. Comparatively few
men are, however, severely tried. We
are not often much better than our
parents; and it is seldom difficult
to honour them:
Ø For their
age and experience.
Ø For the
benefits which they have conferred on us.
Ø For the
disinterested affection which they bear to us, and which
they evince in their
conduct. As a rule, parents have very much more
love for their
children than these have for them, and make sacrifices on
their children’s
behalf, which their children neither appreciate nor
reciprocate. The honor which, according to this
commandment, has to
be shown to parents,
must of course be extended, with certain
modifications, to
those who stand to us in loco parentis — to
guardians,
tutors,
schoolmasters, and the like. It is not perhaps quite clear that the
commandment extends
also to those who are set over us in Church and
State, though it is
usual so to interpret it. There are certain relations of
parents to their
offspring which are altogether peculiar; and these are
absolutely
incommunicable. There are others, which
are common to
parents with rulers;
but these, unless in very primitive communities,
can scarcely be said
to rest upon the domestic relation as their basis.
The ordinary
relation of the governed to their governors is rather one
parallel to that of
children to their parents, than one which grows out
of it; and though
either may be used to illustrate the other, we must
view the two as
separate and independent of each other.
commandment to Christians, our Lord
has shown. Not only are murder and
violence prohibited by it, but even
provoking words, and angry thoughts
(Matthew 5:21-26). The “root of bitterness” whence murder springs, is
either some fierce passion, or some
inordinate desire. To be secure from
murderous impulses, we must be free
from such emotions as these, — we
must have tender and joying feelings towards all our fellow-men. “Love is
the fulfilling of the law;” (Romans
13:10) and unless a man really “love the
brethren,” he has no security against being surprised into
violence towards
them, which may issue in death. Nor
is there one species of murder only. The
Sixth Commandment prohibits, not
only violence to the body, but — what is
of far greater consequence — injury
to the soul. Men break it most flagrantly
when they lead another into deadly
sin, thereby — so far as in them lies —
destroying his soul. The corrupter
of innocence, the seducer, the persuader
to evil, are “murderers” in a far worse sense than the cut-throat, the
bandit,
or the bravo. Death on the scaffold may expiate the crimes of these latter;
eternal punishment
alone would seem to be an adequate penalty for the
guilt of the
former. He that has eternally ruined a soul should
surely be
himself eternally unhappy.
advantage of our Lord’s comment on
the commandment, to help us to
understand what it ought to mean to
us. Not only adultery, but fornication
— not only
fornication, but impurity of any and every kind — in act, in
word, in
thought — is forbidden to the Christian. He that looketh on a
woman with the object of lusting
after her, has already committed adultery
with her in his heart (Matthew
5:28).
Ø He that dallies with temptation,
Ø he that knowingly goes into the company of the
impure,
Ø he that in his solitary chamber defiles himself,
Ø he that hears without rebuking the obscene words,
transgresses against this law,
and, unless he repents, cuts
himself off from
God. And observe — the law is one both for men and
women. We are
ready enough to speak with scorn of “fallen women,” —
to regard them as ruined for ever,
and treat their sin as the one
unpardonable offence; but what
of “fallen men”? Is not
their sin as
irreversible? Is it not the same
sin? Is it not spoken of in Scripture in the
same way? “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews
13:4). “Murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and
all
liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and
brimstone;
which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8). And is it not as
debasing,
as deadening to the soul, as destructive of all true manliness, of all
true
chivalry, of all self-respect? Principiis obsta. Let the young keep that
precious gift of purity which is theirs, and not be
induced by the ridicule of
unclean men to part with it. Once gone
it can never return. Let them be
pure, as Christ was pure. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they
shall
see
God!” – (Matthew 5:8)
punished by the law in most countries,
is seldom practiced, unless it be by
children and slaves. But indirect
stealing of various kinds is common. It
should be clearly understood that
the Christian precept forbids any act by
which we
fraudulently obtain the property of another. Adulteration,
concealment of defects,
misrepresentation of quality, employment of false
weights or measures, are the acts of
a thief, as much as pocket-picking or
shop-lifting. Servants steal when
they take “commission” from tradesmen
unknown to their masters, or
appropriate as “perquisites” what their
masters have not expressly agreed to
allow, or neglect to do the work
which they undertook, or do it in a
slovenly manner, or damage their
master’s property by carelessness or
diminish it by waste. Masters steal
when they do not permit their
servants the indulgences they promised, or
allow their wages to fall into
arrear, or force them to work overtime
without proper remuneration, or
deprive them of such “rest” as they had a
reasonable right to expect upon the
Sunday. Those steal who cheat the
revenue by smuggling, or false
returns to tax-collectors; or who cheat
tradesmen by incurring debts which
they can never pay, or who in view of
coming bankruptcy pass over their
property to a friend, with the
understanding that it is to be
restored to them, or who have recourse of
any of the “tricks of trade,” as they
are called. All men are sure to steal in
one way or another, who are not
possessed by the spirit of honesty, who
do not love justice and equity and
fair, dealing, who do not make it the
law
of
their life to be ever doing to others as they would that others should do
unto
them. (Matthew 7:12)
given. We most of us pass our lives without
having once to appear in a
court, either as prosecutor,
witness, or accused. The false witness against
which the generality have especially
to be on their guard, is that evil
speaking which is
continually taking place in society, whereby men’s
characters are
blackened, their motives misrepresented, their reputations
eaten away. It is dull
and tame to praise a man. We get a character for wit
and shrewdness if we point out flaws
in his conduct, show that he may
have acted from a selfish motive,
“just hint a fault and hesitate dislike.” It is
not even necessary in all cases to
establish our character for shrewd insight
that we should say anything. Silence
when we hear a friend maligned, a
shrug of the shoulders, a movement
of the eyebrows, will do. Again, false
witness may be given in writing as
well as in speech. The reviewer who
says of a book worse than he thinks
of it, bears false witness. The writer
for the Press who abuses in a
leading article a public man whom he
inwardly respects, bears false
witness. The person who vents his spite
against a servant by giving him a
worse character than he deserves, bears
false witness. We can
only be secure against daily breaches of this
commandment by joining the spirit of
love with a deep-seated regard for
truth, and aiming always at saying
of others, when we have occasion to
speak of them, the best that we can
conscientiously say.
supplementary to the eighth. Rightly
understood, the eighth implies it,
covetousness being the root from which theft springs. The command
seems
added to the Decalogue in order to
lay down the principle that:
Ø the thoughts of the heart come under God’s law, and
Ø that we are as responsible for them as for our actions.
Otherwise, it would not be needed, being implied in the
eighth and in the seventh. Since,
however, it was of the greatest
importance for men to know and
understand that God regards the heart,
and “requires truth in the inward parts;” and since covetousness
was the
cause of the greater portion of the
evil that is in the world, the precept,
although already implied, was given
expressly. Men were forbidden to
covet the house, wife, slaves,
cattle, property of their neighbor — in fact,
“anything that is his.” They were not forbidden to
desire houses, or wives,
or cattle, or property generally —
which are all, within limits, objects of
desire and things which men may
rightfully wish for — but they were
forbidden to desire for themselves
such as were already appropriated by
their fellows, and of which,
therefore, they could not become possessed
without their fellows suffering
loss. A moderate desire for earthly goods is
not forbidden to the Christian
(Matthew 19:29; I Timothy 4:8); though his
special covetousness should be for “the best gifts” — the
virtues
and graces which make up the perfect
Christian character (I Corinthians
12:31; 14:1).
The Moral Law — General Survey (vs. 1-18)
View this
Law of the Ten Commandments as:
saying,” etc. (v.
1). An authoritative revelation of moral law was necessary:
Ø
That man might be made distinctly aware of the compass of his
obligations. The moral
knowledge originally possessed by man had
gradually been parted with. What remained was distorted and confused. He
had little right knowledge of his duty to God,
and very inadequate
conceptions even of his duties to his
fellow-men. This lost knowledge
was
recovered to him by positive revelation. Consider, in proof of the need of
such a revelation:
o
the ignorance
of God which prevails still,
o
men’s
imperfect apprehensions of His
holiness, and
o
their defective views of duty, etc.
And this
though the revelation has SO LONG BEEN GIVEN!
Ø
That a basis of certainty might be obtained for the inculcation of
moral
truth. This also was
necessary. Man has ever shown himself ingenious in
explaining away the obligations which the law
imposes on him. He may
deny that they exist. He may make light of
holiness. He may take up
utilitarian ground, and ride off on disputes as
to the nature of conscience,
the origin of moral ideas, the diversities of
human opinion, etc. The law
stops all
such caviling by interposing with its authoritative “Thus saith
the
Lord.” See on this point a valuable paper on
“Secularism,” by R. H.
Hutton, in “Expositor,” January, 1881. (One of the glories of the
Internet is that things as old as this can be
found in 2017 - If interested
look it up.
CY - 2017)
Ø
That the authority of conscience may be strengthened. Conscience
testifies, in however dim and broken a way, to
THE EXISTENCE OF
A LAW
ABOVE US! IT SPEAKS WITH AUTHORITY! Had it might
as it has right, it would rule the world.” (The man who killed around 60
people and injured over 500 in
have and should have known "thou shalt not
kill!" Our government
is very
foolish to prevent this idea from being taught in the public schools,
as it had
from the beginning of this country! A man's religion can keep
him from
killing someone, A GOVERNMENT CANNOT! In 1961,
in our senior play at
a real gun.
I do not remember anyone checking to see if it was loaded.
You figure - CY - 2017) In order, however, that we may be made to
feel
that it is a living will, and no mere impersonal law, which thus imposes
its
commands upon us, there is a clear need for the
voice within being
reinforced by the voice without — for historical
revelation. Sinai teaches
us to recognize the authority which binds us in
our consciences as God’s
authority.
This preface to the law is of great importance.
Ø
It testified to the fact that God’s relation to
gracious one. “The law was introduced with the words, ‘I am the Lord thy
God,’ and speaks with the majestic authority of the
Eternal, dispensing
blessings and cursings on the
fulfillment and transgression of THE LAW.
But although this is given amidst the thunder
and lightning of Sinai, whose
roll seems to be heard constantly in its mighty imperatives — ‘Thou shalt not!’
or ‘Thou shalt!’ yet still it points back to
grace; for the God who speaks in
the law is He who led the people out of
bondage — the God who gave the promise to
Abraham, and who has
prepared a highest good, THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM for His people”
(Martensen).
Ø
It furnished a motive for obedience to the law. Mark the order — the
same as in the Gospel; God first saves
keep. Because God had redeemed them from
of His free mercy, this glorious privilege of
being His people, therefore were
they to keep His commandments. This was the
return they were to make to
Him for the so great love wherewith He had loved
them. Their relation to
the law was not to be a servile one. Obedience
was not to be a price paid
for favor, but a
return of grateful hearts for favors already received.
From this motive of gratitude, and that they
might retain the privileges He
had given them, and inherit further blessing,
they were to walk in the
prescribed way. If,
notwithstanding, a pronouncedly legal element entered
into that economy, a curse even being pronounced
against those who failed
to keep the whole law, while the good promised
to obedience appears
more as legal award than as a gift of grace — we
know now the reason for
the covenant being cast into this legal form,
and can rejoice that in Christ
our
justification is placed on so much better a footing. Obedience,
however, is still required of us as a condition
of continuance in God’s
favor, and of ultimate inheritance of blessing. (Jesus said, "If
a man love
me, he will
keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and we will
come unto
him, and make our abode with him." John 14:23 - CY - 2017)
Ø
It furnished to the pious Israelite a pledge of merciful treatment when
he transgressed or fell short of the requirements of his law. What, e.g.,
had David to fall back upon in the hour of his
remorse for his great
transgression (Psalm 51), but just such a word
as this, confirmed as it was
by acts of God, which showed that it was A WORD ALWAYS
TO BE
DEPENDED ON! always to be depended on. This one saying, prefacing
the law, altered the whole complexion of
It gave to the Israelite the assurance that he most needed,
namely — that,
notwithstanding the strictness of the commandment, God
would yet accept
him in his sincere endeavors after obedience, though
these fell manifoldly
short of
the full requirement, i.e., virtually on the ground of faith — in
connection, however, with propitiation.
Though imposed on man by Divine authority, moral law is no arbitrary
creation
of the Divine will. It is an
emanation from the Divine nature.
The primary idea of goodness is the essential, not the
creative, will of God.
The Divine will, in its
essence is:
Ø infinite love,
Ø mercy,
Ø patience,
Ø truth,
Ø faithfulness,
Ø rectitude,
Ø spirituality, and
Ø all that
is included in the idea of HOLINESS WHICH
CONSTITUTES THE INMOST
NATURE OF GOD!
The holiness of God, therefore, neither precedes His will
(‘sanctitas antceedens voluntatem’ of the
schoolmen) nor follows
it, but is His will itself. The good is
not a law for the Divine will (so that
God wills it because it is good); neither is it a creation
of His will (so that it
becomes good because He wills it); but it is THE NATURE OF GOD from
everlasting to everlasting.” (See also Martensen’s “Christian Ethics,” on
“God the only Good,” and on “The Law’s Content.”) The law,
in a word,
expresses immutable demands of holiness. What these are is
determined in
any given case by the abstract nature of holiness and by the
constitution
and circumstances of the being to whom the law is given. Man, e.g., is a
free, immortal spirit; but he is at the same time an inhabitant of the earth,
bound by natural
conditions, and standing to his fellowmen in relations,
some of which at least belong only to his present state of
existence. Hence
we find in the Decalogue precepts relating to the weekly
Sabbath, to
marriage, to the institution of private property, etc. These
precepts are
founded on our nature, and are universally
obligatory. They show what
duty immutably requires of us as possessing such a nature;
but obviously
their application will cease under different conditions of
existence
(Matthew 22:30). Only in its fundamental
principles of love to God and
to our fellow-beings, and
in its spiritual
demands for truth, purity,
uprightness, reverence, and
fidelity, is THE LAW absolutely unchangeable.
Ø
Its two divisions:
o
the one turning on the principle of love to God,
o
the other, on the principle of love to man.
Ø
The relative position of the two divisions — duty to God standing first,
and laying the
needful foundation for the right discharge of our duties to
mankind. True love to man has its fountain head in
love to God. Neglect of
THE DUTIES
OF PIETY will
speedily be followed by THE NEGLECT
OF DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. The Scripture does not ignore the
distinction between religion (duties done
directly to God) and morality
(duties arising from earthly relations), but it
unites the two in the deeper
idea that ALL
DUTY IS TO BE DONE TO GOD whose
authority is
supreme in
the one sphere as in the other.
Ø
The scope of its precepts. These cover the entire range of human
obligation. The
precepts of the first table (including here the Fifth
Commandment) require
that God be honored :
o
in His
being,
o
His
worship,
o
His name,
o
His day,
o
His human representatives.
Ø
The precepts
of the second table require that our neighbor be not injured:
o
in deed,
o
in word,
o
in thought; and
in respect
neither of:
o
his person,
o
his wife,
o
his
property, nor
o
his reputation.
So complete and concise a summary of duty —
religious and ethical —
based on true ideas of the character of God, and
taking holiness, not bare
morality, as its standard, is without parallel
in ancient legislation.
Ø
The law to be studied in its principles. Taken in its bare letter, it might
appear narrow. Here, however, as everywhere in
Scripture, the letter is
only the vehicle of the spirit. The whole law of
Moses being founded on
this part of it — being viewed simply as an
expansion or amplification in
different relations of the principles embodied
in the ten words — it is plain,
and common sense supports us in the view, that
the principles are the main
things, the true roots of obligation. Thus, the
Third Commandment, in the
letter of it, forbids false swearing, or
generally, any vain use of the name of
God. But underlying this, and obviously forming
the ground of the
command, is the principle
that God’s name, i.e., everything whereby He
manifests
Himself, is to be treated with deepest
reverence. This principle, in
its various applications, carries us far beyond
the letter of the precept.
Read in the same way, the Sixth Commandment
forbids killing, but not less
the murderous motive than the murderous act;
while the principle involved,
viz., reverence
for, and care of, human life (compare Genesis 9:6 -
I saw on Facebook
today - being Oct. 4, 2017 - these words - Sorry,
but I
don't listen
to anti-gun lectures from people who think it is okay to
kill a
baby!" CY - 2017), branches out into a multiplicity of duties,
of which the other parts of the law of Moses
furnish numerous illustrations.
The true
key to the spiritual interpretation of the law is that given by Christ
in the
sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7).
Ø
Summed up in love. “Love is the
fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8-10).
o
It is the central requirement. “Them that love me” (v. 6). Implied in
the first and all later precepts. Whatever in the way of outward service
we render to God, or man, if love is withheld, the law is not fulfilled.
o
It is needed to fill up the meaning of the special precepts. These receive
their fullness of interpretation only through love.
And, in the spiritual
reading of them, they cannot be kept without
love. It is impossible, e.g.,
to keep the heart free from all envy, malice, hate, covetousness, save as
it is possessed by the opposite principle
of love. Love is the
root of:
§
fidelity
to God,
§
spirituality
in His worship,
§
reverence
for His name, and
§
delight
in His day, etc.
The more deeply we penetrate into the meaning of
the law, the
more clearly do we perceive that love to
God and love to man
are
indispensable
for the fulfilling of it.
o
Love secures the fulfilling of the law. For “love worketh no
ill to his
neighbour” (Romans 13:10). It will not voluntarily injure another. It
will not kill, rob, defraud, slander a fellowman,
or covet his possessions.
On the contrary, it
will seek in every way it can to do him good. It is the
great impelling
motive to obedience. “The
love of Christ constraineth
us” (II Corinthians 5:14). “Faith, which
worketh by love” (Galatians
5:6).
Ø By Divine threatening (vs. 5-7).
Ø By Divine example (v. 11).
Ø By Divine promises (vs. 6-12).
See below. Behold,
then, the beauty and perfection of the law. “Thy
commandment is exceeding
broad” (Psalm 119:96). We are not to be
misled:
Ø By the
studied brevity of the law, which is part of its
excellency; or,
Ø By its
prevailing negative
form — a
testimony, not to the unspirituality
of the law, but to the existence of strong evil tendencies in the heart,
needing to be repressed (Romans
7:7-8; I Timothy 1:9-10). Yet
perfect as it is of its kind, it is not to be compared, as a
mirror of
holiness, with THE
PERFECT HUMAN LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST!
No accumulation of separate precepts can exhaust all that is
contained
in holiness. Precepts convey also a defective idea of the
good by
breaking up that which is in its own nature one — an ideal —
into a number of separate parts. What,
however, the law could
not do for us, is done in the perfect
example of our Lord. In Him,
law is translated into life. The ideal is no longer
presented to us,
as even in the Decalogue, in detached precepts, “broken
lights,”
“words,” which — just because holiness is so vast a thing —
are
left to hint more than they express, but in its true
unbroken unity,
in the sphered whole of a perfect
human character.
Our
law is CHRIST!
The Individual Israelite Considered in His
Duties Towards His Neighbor
(vs. 13-17)
Of these
five commandments — namely, against murder, adultery, theft,
slander and covetousness, it almost goes
without saying that their very
negativeness in form constitutes the strongest way of
stating a positive
duty. From a
proper consideration of these commandments all possible
manifestations
of brotherliness will flow. They show the spirit we
should
cherish towards our neighbors; those who equally with
ourselves are the
objects of Divine providence and mercy. They show
what we are bound to
give and
what we have equally a right to expect. Pondering the serious and
injurious
actions here indicated we note:
A man maliciously disposed, sensual, reckless,
unscrupulously selfish, has
thus the extent of his power set before him.
Ø That life
which man has no power to give, he can take away at a
single blow.
Ø A man in
the gratification of his sensual passions is able to destroy
domestic peace, gladness and purity.
Ø Property,
which may be the fruit and reward of long industry, is
swept away by those who will not work for
themselves as long
as they can get others to work for them.
Ø Reputation
may be taken away by clever and plausible slander.
Ø A man’s
whole position may be made uncertain by those who on the
right hand and the left look enviously on that
position and wish
to make it their own.
It is when these possibilities are borne in mind that we
feel how true it is that
even the best guarded of earthly store-houses is
nevertheless the one where
the thief can break through and steal. Industry, temperance,
caution, vigilance,
will guard many points of human life, but what avails, if
even a single one is
left that cannot be called invulnerable? If, then, our fellow men are so much
in our power, how important it becomes us to quell the very
first outbreaks
of all that is malicious, envious, selfish and sensual! If we
allow the evil in us
to grow, we know not what evil it may inflict on
the innocent and happy.
relations to others, they equally show a bright one. THERE IS GREAT
GOOD
WHICH WE CAN DO TO ONE ANOTHER. The man who has
power to kill, has, on the other hand, power to do much in
the way of
preserving, cherishing and invigorating the lives of others.
Instead of
pulling down others by a degrading companionship to the
level of his own
impure heart, he can do something by seeking purity himself to draw others
toward a like quest. Instead of
stealing, he will work not only to sustain
himself, but that from his superfluity, if possible, he may give to those who
have not. He who has
spoken ill of men will find it just as easy to speak
well, if only he is so disposed. That tongue
with which the renewed heart
blesses God will also be
constrained to say what is kind, commendatory
and helpful to others. Covetousness
will give place to a gracious and
generous disposition that constantly takes for its motto, “It is more blessed
to give than to receive” (Acts
20:35). It is only when we are doing our
neighbors all the good we can, that we may be really sure we
are carrying
out the commandments of God. There are only the two ways:
Ø the
forbidden and
Ø the
commanded one;
and if we are not treading heartily and resolutely in the
commanded one,
it
follows as a matter of course that we are in the forbidden
one.
KEEPING
THESE COMMANDMENTS IS GREATER THAN THE
WE CAN DO
BY BREAKING THEM. God has put us largely in the
power of one another, that thereby we might have the
happiness coming
from loving service and mutual association in giving and receiving; but, at
the same time, He has made us so that while we are very
powerful as
coworkers with Him, yet even our greatest efforts are
comparatively
powerless against those who put themselves under His
protection. Those
injuring others do indeed inflict a great injury from a
certain point of view;
but they terribly deceive themselves in thinking that the
injury is such as
can never be compensated for. Christ has given to His people
the word of
comfort against all assault and spoliation from evil men: — “Fear not them
that kill the body.” The
priceless treasures, constituting the essence of
every human life, are not without a storehouse because the
earthly
storehouse proves insufficient. The truth seems to be that man has it in his
power to do more good than
he can conceive, more good certainly than he
ever attempts. He has not the faith to believe that incessant
and plenteous
sowing will bring good results, to be manifested in that day
when all
secrets are brought fully to light. And so on the other
hand, the malicious
man exaggerates his power. He thinks he has done more than
he possibly
can do. Good is left undone for want of faith, and evil is
done through too
much faith. Many an evil act would never have been committed
if the doer
had only known how his evil, in the wondrous reach of God’s
providence,
would be turned to good. And so the evil-doer, the man of
many crimes, if
perchance the hour comes to him when he reflects in
self-condemnation in
the past, and says in his heart that all repentance is vain,
should yet find
hope and illumination as he considers how the evil done to others is an evil
which God can neutralize, which He can even transmute into good. He who
hurts his neighbor and rejoices over the mischief, may find,
when it is too
late, that the only real evil has been
to himself, because he has persisted in
an impenitent heart.
Our Threefold Duty to Our Neighbor (vs. 13-17)
Ø His life is to be held sacred. It is God’s great gift to him and it is God’s
only to take it away, by express
command, or by His own judgment.
This is a law for nations as well as individuals. In every
unjust war this
command is trampled under foot.
Ø His home is sacred. The wreck of homes which
lust has made! The
holy, loving refuge of childhood and youth
desolated, and its very
memory made a horror and anguish! (The same for drugs!
a work “...of the flesh..
witchcraft - φαρμακεία – pharmakeia –
Galatians 5:19-20) Here the word φαρμακεία, originally
denoting the
use of drugs merely, means, sometimes, their use
for poisoning; but
this sense would not be very suitable here. But the
nouns φαρμακός,
φαρμακεύς, and φαρμακεία, like veneficus and veneficium in
Latin, are
also often used with reference to the employment of drugs in charms
and incantations; and thence
of the employment of black arts in general –
magic, sorcery, witchcraft (sins of irreligion)
Ø His property is sacred. It is the man’s special stewardship from God.
God can bless us also, for all things are His, but this
stands between
our neighbor and the Master, to whom he must render his account.
(“For must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that
every one may receive the things
done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be
good or bad.” (II Corinthians 5:10)
his life, his home, his goods, and yet our
tongue may wound and rob him.
We may cause respect and love to fall away from him
wrongfully. Our
dimininishing aught of
these, save as the servants of truth, is a crime before
God.
for a blameless life but also for A PURE HEART, in which lust and hate
and envy and greed HAVE NO PLACE! Sin is to be slain in its root.
Our Threefold Duty to Our Neighbor (vs. 13-17)
Ø His life is to be held sacred. It is God’s great gift to him and it is God’s
only to take it away, by express
command, or by His own judgment.
This is a law for nations as well as individuals. In every
unjust war this
command is trampled under foot.
Ø His home is sacred. The wreck of homes which
lust has made! The
holy, loving refuge of childhood and youth
desolated, and its very
memory made a horror and anguish! (The same for drugs!
a work “...of the flesh..
witchcraft - φαρμακεία – pharmakeia –
Galatians 5:19-20) Here the word φαρμακεία, originally
denoting the
use of drugs merely, means, sometimes, their use
for poisoning; but
this sense would not be very suitable here. But the
nouns φαρμακός,
φαρμακεύς, and φαρμακεία, like veneficus and veneficium in
Latin, are
also often used with reference to the employment of drugs in charms
and incantations; and thence
of the employment of black arts in general –
magic, sorcery, witchcraft (sins of irreligion)
Ø His property is sacred. It is the man’s special stewardship from God.
God can bless us also, for all things are His, but this
stands between
our neighbor and the Master, to whom he must render his account.
(“For must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that
every one may receive the things
done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be
good or bad.” (II Corinthians 5:10)
his life, his home, his goods, and yet our
tongue may wound and rob him.
We may cause respect and love to fall away from him
wrongfully. Our
dimininishing aught of
these, save as the servants of truth, is a crime before
God.
for a blameless life but also for A PURE HEART, in which lust and hate
and envy and greed HAVE NO PLACE! Sin is to be slain in its root.
THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE PEOPLE
AND
THE
NEARER APPROACH OF MOSES TO GOD (vs. 18-21)
The
effect produced upon the people by the accumulated terrors of Sinai — “the
thunderings and the lightnings,
the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain
smoking” — the cloud, and the voice out of the cloud — was an awful
and terrible
fear.
They could not bear the
manifestation of the near presence of God; and therefore
“they removed and stood afar off.” It
seemed to them as if, on hearing the voice
of
God, speaking out of the thick darkness, they must die (v.19). Moses, upon
their
expressing
these feelings, comforted them with an assurance that God had shown His
terrors,
not for their injury, but to put His fear in their hearts (v.20), and allowed
them
to retire to a distance from the mount, while he himself “drew near unto the
thick darkness where God was”
(v.21).
18 “And all the people saw the thunderings, and
the lightnings, and the
noise of the trumpet, and the mountain
smoking: and when the people saw it,
they removed, and stood afar off.” – The people saw the thunderings. The use
of a
specific verb for a
generic one, with terms to all of which it is not, strictly
speaking, applicable, is common to many writers, and is
known to grammarians as
zengma. “Saw” here means “perceived, witnessed.” The mountain smoking.
Compare
ch.19:18. In Deuteronomy 5:23 it is said that “the mountain did burn
with fire.” When the people saw it, they removed. It
appears, from Deuteronomy
5:23, that.
before retiring, the people sent a deputation of heads of tribes and elders
up to Moses
in the mount, to
convey to him their wishes, and suggest that he
should be
their intermediary
with God. Moses laid their wishes before God,
and was directed to
give them his sanction, whereupon they withdrew to their tents
(ib, 30).
19 “And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but
let not
God speak with us, lest we die.” Their whole speech, as delivered in Deuteronomy
5:24-27 was
as follows: — “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. 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 then 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”. The speech is here
abbreviated
greatly; but its essential points are preserved:
20 “And Moses said unto the people, Fear not:
for God is come to prove
you, and that His fear may be before your
faces, that ye sin not.”
And Moses said unto the
people. Not immediately — Moses
first held
colloquy with God. God declared that the people had “spoken
well” (Deuteronomy 5:28); and authorised
Moses to allow of their
withdrawal
(ibid. v. 30). Fear not. Here
Exodus is more full in its details than
Deuteronomy.
Moses, finding the people in a state of extreme alarm, pacified
them —
assured them that there was no cause for immediate fear — God had
not
now come in vengeance — the object of the terrors of
Sinai was to “prove”
them — i.e., to test them, whether they were inclined to submit themselves
to
God, or not — and to impress upon their minds
permanently an awful fear of God,
that
they might be kept back from sin by dread of His almighty
power. The motive
of
fear is, no doubt, a low one; but where we can appeal to nothing else, we must
appeal
to it.
directed by the harsh voice of fear, until it
had learned to be guided by the tender
accents of love
21 “And
the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness
where God was.” The people stood afar off. They
retired from the base of Sinai
to their
tents, where they “stood,” probably
in their tent doors. And Moses
drew near unto the thick
darkness. As the
people drew back, Moses
drew near.
The display which drove them off, attracted him. He did not
even fear
the “thick
darkness” — a thing front which human nature
commonly
shrinks. Where God was, he would be.
The Ten Words (vs. 16-21)
“And God stake all these words.” “And the people
stood afar off: and
Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where
God was.” (Exodus 20:1, 21).
Our subject
is the law of the ten commandments, and:
five chief names; four in the Old Testament and one in the
New.
Ø “The
ten words.” [“The ten
commandments” is an unscriptural phrase.]
(ch. 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4
See Hebrew) This name
implies that the code was in a very special sense the distinct utterance of
God. The utterance
touched
that which was central in human life, viz.,
duty.
Ø “The
law,” i.e., the heart
and core of the Mosaic legislation. All the rest
was as the fringe to the robe of righteousness.
Ø “The
testimony.” God’s
attestation of His mind as to our moral carriage
through life.
Ø “The
covenant.” But care
should be exercised as to the putting of this.
cannot be given as the price of
salvation.
Ø “The
commandments”(Matthew
19:17). The names of the code stamp
it as unique. The Mosaic legislation stands out
like a mountain range
from all other codes historic in the world; but the “ten words” are the
ten peaks of that mighty range.
Ø Subsequent to salvation (ch. 20:1). Trace the evangelical parallel, show
that this is the order of
the divine love:
o first deliverance, and
o then direction for life.
Ø Before ritual. Hence the subordination, even for the Jew, of
ritual to
morals. For us the symbolic ritual is no more. Our
prerogative is that of
unveiled gaze upon the spiritual.
to describe the incidents of the delivery, on the basis of
the sacred
narrative, aided by topographical illustration, as to
exhibit the unique
character of this code. The following hints may be of
service]: — The great
plain north of Sinai; Sinai to the south; the barren
character of this huge
natural temple [
to the mountain; mists rising like smoke; lightning; thunder
like ten
thousand trumpets; reverberation; earth-trembling. The
people would have
drawn away, but Moses led them near the base. He ascended;
but returned,
that he, as one of the people, and with
them, might hear the code. God
alone. Then the very voice of very God, possibly pronouncing the “ten” in
their shortest form. [Ewald: “
for a mediator. If we had today a phonogram even of that
awful voice,
some would still say, “It is the voice of a man, and not of
a god.”
Ø Graven by God. The record supernatural, like the delivery. On
granite;
not too large for a man to carry; graven on both sides;
symbol of the
completeness, inviolability, and perpetuity of the Divine
law. Note the
seven or eight weeks’ delay ere the tables were given, and
the
intervening incidents.
Ø Kept in the ark. In that which was a memorial of the desert
life; the
wood, acacia of the wilderness. In that which was central to
the life of
recesses of that the idea of duty enshrined. The tables last
seen at
Solomon’s dedication. Are they now lying with the wreck of
in the valley of the
Ø There were five words on each table. So we think. Great diversity of
opinion as to the division and the throwing of the “ten words” on the two
tables. According to the division we adopt, the first table
concerned itself
with God — his existence, worship, name, day, and representative. But if
the parent is the representative of God, then there are
suggestions for the
character and the administration of the parent; as well as
for the intelligent
obedience of the child.
Ø The five
words concerning duty to God come first. Religion ever comes
before morality, and morality without that foundation must
be partial and
imperfect. Man must first be in right
relation with the Father in heaven,
then he will come to be
right with all the children.
Psalm 119:18, 72, imply a great depth and breadth in these “ten.” Are
they really so comprehensive as is implied?
Ø Glance at the “ten.” We have seen how comprehensive are the first
five.
[See above, v.1.] Note the comprehensiveness of the second.
We are not
to assault:
o the life,
o the family,
o the property,
o the reputation,
o the peace
(by
coveting and threatening what they have),
of our
fellow-men.
Ø Pierce into the spirit of the “ten,” and note!
o The
negative must include the positive; e.g., we are bound to
conserve life, lest by neglect we kill.
o The
absolute form covers all cases; e.g., the sixth commandment
stands absolute, unless dispensed with by the supervention of a
higher law. There may be things more sacred even
than life.
o The
external includes the internal. (Matthew 5:27-28) Given the
lust, its gratification does not depend upon the
man, but upon
circumstances out of his control; therefore he
is guilty. Besides,
what we are is of more moment than what we do.
o The principle of obedience in all is
love.
THE PRESENT
USE AND OFFICE OF “THE TEN.”
Ø The law of” the ten words” was, and is, something absolutely
unique.
Of the unique character all that has been
previously said is illustration.
It may, then, be reasonably inferred that “the ten” will have some
special bearing on our
moral life.
Ø It implies
that God claims authority
over the moral life of man.
Ø It was NOT INTENDED to
afford man an opportunity for winning
salvation. That is God’s free gift.
Ø Salvation given, God means
the law to be obeyed.
Ø
The effort to obey will deepen man’s
sense of the need of God’s
delivering
mercy. The effort brings a deeper acquaintance with
the
law, and so we come to know more of:
o the righteousness of God,
o the depravity of man.
Ø A growing conformity is, however,
blessedly possible. (“But as
many as received Him, to
them gave He power to become the
sons of God, even to
them that believe on His name.” - John 1:12)
Ø There comes with growing conformity freedom from law, Love
dispenses with the literal precept. This is the ideal of the
New Testament.
Still, “the ten words” have ever
their use for those on the low planes of
spiritual life.
Ø
And even with those free from the law, it
will still have the following
offices:
o To keep the
Christian under grace as the source of all his
serenity and bliss.
o To restrain from sin in the
presence of temptation.
o To keep before the aspiring saint the fair ideal of righteousness.
THE DIVINE PRESENCE AT ONCE ATTRACTIVE AND REPELLENT
(vs. 18-21)
When Christ was upon the earth, so winning was His graciousness that
crowds
flocked to
Him, and one man at least exclaimed, “Lord, I will follow thee
whithersoever
thou goest.” – (Luke 9:57)
But at the same time so terrible was the manifestation of His
power, that
there were those who “besought Him that He
would depart out of their
coasts.” (Mark
5:17) – God is love, and God is power, and
wherever He is, He
exhibits both qualities; but there
are some who see
mainly the love, and there are
others who
see only the power. Hence the Divine presence at once:
Ø attracts
and repels,
Ø charms men
and affrights
them.
The
Israelites invited to draw near to God, and hold with Him
direct communication,
after
brief trial, decline the
offer, and
will have an intermediary. Moses, given the
same
invitation, and a witness of the same sights and sounds, not only stands his
ground, but
at the end draws more near. The reasons for the difference would seem
to be
these:
have no love, “believe and tremble.” (James 2:19) - Men, who
have greatly
sinned, and who therefore cannot
help seeing in God mainly a “consuming
fire,” (Hebrews 12:29) and “an avenger to execute wrath,” (Romans
13:4)
– lose sight of all God’s gentler attributes,
cease to feel that He is their Father,
no longer look upon Him as “merciful
and gracious,” (ch. 34:6) and
consequently no longer have
any feeling of love towards Him. We cannot
love one from whom we expect nothing but punishment.
MASTERS
IT. “The fear of the Lord endureth for ever” (Psalm
19:9) —
no love of which a creature is capable can altogether cast
it out. The very
angels veil their faces before the Lord of Hosts, and feel
themselves unworthy
to gaze upon the Divine perfections. (Isaiah 6) - But where love increases, fear
diminishes. Let love grow, and become
strong, and glow within the heart like a
flame of fire — by degrees fear changes its
character, ceases to be a timorous
dread, and becomes awe. Awe and love can very
well co-exist; and love draws
us towards God more than awe keeps us back.
Love is glad to have no
intermediary — rejoices that imay “go boldly to the
throne of grace that
we may
obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” — (Hebrews
4:16) - seeks to draw as near as
possible to the beloved one — so constrains
fear, that fear ceases to act any longer as a
deterrent, is mastered, and held
under restraint. “Moses drew
near into the thick darkness where God was.”
The loving soul presses towards God — would “see Him face to face”
— and “know even as it also is known.” (I
Corinthians 13:12)
THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT – ch. 20:22 to ch.23:31
The Decalogue is followed by a series of laws,
civil, social, and religious, which
occupy the
remainder of ch. 20. and the whole of the three
following chapters
21, 22, and
23. It appears from ch. 24 that these laws, received by
Moses on Sinai,
immediately
after the delivery of the Ten Commandments, were at once committed to
writing and
collected into a book, which was known as “the Book of the Covenant”
(ch. 24:7), and was regarded as a specially sacred volume.
The document, as it has
come down
to us, “cannot be regarded as a strictly systematic whole” (Canon Cook):
yet still,
it is not wholly unsystematic,but aims in some degree
at an orderly
arrangement.
First and foremost are placed the laws which concern the worship of
God, which
are two in number:
Ø Against
idols – (v. 22)
Ø Concerning
altars (vs. 23-26).
Then follow
the laws respecting what our legal writers call “the rights of persons” —
which
occupy thirty-two verses of ch. 21 and fall under
some twenty
different heads,
beginning
with the rights of slaves, and terminating with the compensation to be made
for
injuries to the person caused by cattle. The third section is upon “the rights of
property,” and extends
from ch. 21:33, to ch. 22:15, including
some ten or twelve
enactments.
After this we can only say that the laws are mixed, some being concerned
with Divine
things (as ch. 22:20, 29-30; and ch.
23. 10-19): others with human, and
these last
being of various kinds, all, however, more or less “connected with the civil
organization
of the state” (Kalisch). In the fourth section the enactments seem to
fall
under about
twenty-five heads. The result is that the “Book of the Covenant”
contains,
in little
more than three chapters, about seventy distinct laws.
22 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt
say unto the
children of
The
book opened with this reminder, which at once recalled its author and
declared
its authority. “I, who give these laws, am
the same who spake the
Ten Commandments amid the
thunders of Sinai. Reverence the laws
accordingly.”
23 “Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto
you gods
of gold.” - This
is a repetition, in part, of the Second Commandment, and can only
be
accounted
for by the prohibition being specially needed. The first
idea of the
Israelites, when they considered that Moses had deserted them,
was to make a
golden calf for a god. (ch. 32)
24 “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me,
and shalt sacrifice
thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace
offerings, thy sheep, and
thine oxen: in all places where I record my name
I will come unto
thee, and I will bless thee. An altar
of earth. Among the nations of
antiquity
altars
were indispensable to Divine worship, which everywhere included sacrifice.
They
were often provided on the spur of the occasion, and were then
"constructed
of
earth, sod, or stone, collected upon the spot." The patriarchal altars had
probably
been
of this character, and it was now provided that the same usage should
continue:
at any rate, elaborate structures of hewn and highly ornamented stone should
not be
allowed, lest thus idolatry should creep in, the images engraved upon the altars
becoming
the objects of worship – “and shalt sacrifice thereon
thy burnt offerings,
and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my
name I will come unto thee,
and I will bless thee.” - The
promise is conditional on
the
observance of the command. If the altars are rightly
constructed, and proper
victims offered, then, in all places where He allows the erection
of an altar,
GOD WILL ACCEPT THE SACRIFICES OFFERED upon it and bless the
worshippers.
25 “And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt
not build it
of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool
upon it, thou hast polluted it.”
And if thou wilt make me
an altar of stone - i.e., if, notwithstanding my preference
expressed for an altar of earth, thou wilt insist on making
me one of stone, as more
permanent, and so more honorable, then I require that the
stones shall be rough
stones shaped by nature, not stones chiseled into shape by
the art of man. For if
thou lift up thy tool
upon it thou hast polluted it. It is conjectured with reason
that we have here an old traditional idea, which God thought
fit under the
existing circumstances to sanction. The real object was that
altars should not
be elaborately carved with objects that might superinduce idolatry. The widely
prevalent notion, that nature is sacred, and that all man's
interference with nature
is a defilement, was made use of economically, to produce
the desired result.
No tool being allowed to be used, no forms of living creatures
could be engraved,
and so no idolatry of them could
grow up.
26 “Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine
altar, that thy
nakedness
be not discovered thereon.” Neither shalt thou go up by steps
unto mine altar. Here the reason of decency, added in the
text, is obvious; and
the law would necessarily continue until sacerdotal
vestments of a very different
character from the clothes commonly worn by Orientals were
introduced
(ch. 38:3-43). After their
introduction, the reason for the law, and with it the law
itself, would drop. The supposed "slope of earth"
by which the priests are thought
to have ascended to the "ledge" on the altar of
burnt offerings, and the "inclined
plane," said by Josephus to have given access to the
great altar of Solomon,
rest on no sufficient authority, and are probably pure
fictions. As soon as an
ascent was needed, owing to the height of the altar, it was
probably an ascent
by steps (See Ezekiel 43:17.)
The
Law of the Altar (vs. 22-26)
of gold (v.23). The God who had
talked with them from heaven had
appeared in no visible form. “Ye heard
the voice of the words, but saw no
similitude;
only ye heard a voice” (Deuteronomy 4:12). Let the sole
object of our worship be the
invisible, spiritual, infinite, yet revealed God.
God’s revelations of Himself lay the
basis of right worship. God has
spoken. How reverently should we
hear! “God is a
Spirit and they
that worship
Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth” - (John
4:24)
(v. 24). God records His name by
making a revelation of Himself, as at
till the time came for the erection
of a permanent sanctuary, there would He
meet with them. Religion is now set free from places (John
4:21-23).
Wherever two or three are met in
Christ’s name, there will he be in the
midst of them (Matthew 18:20).
natural materials (v. 25). The
simple unadorned material as provided by God
himself. Anything beyond this, any
touch of human handicraft, pollutes it.
It
is the altar of propitiation. Man is
viewed as one whose sins are yet unexpiated.
His ART, in that
state,
would have polluted the altar. Art came
in afterwards
(ch. 25). Nothing of man’s own avails for propitiation (atoning
sacrifice for
sins). The
principle which underlies this fact: — sacrifices
offered in the
appointed way are
acceptable; if we try to better the appointed way —
to put something of our own into the sacrifice as a ground for acceptance
— we
spoil all. Self-obtrusion,
however well-intended, is pollution. The altar
is the
expression of God’s will: try to improve it, and it becomes
instead an
expression
of the will of the would be improver. THE ALTAR OF
SELF IS
NOT THE
ALTAR OF GOD! Sacrifices
offered upon it may perhaps
soothe the worshipper, THEY CANNOT PROPITITATE THE DEITY!
purposes of atonement — as symbols
of personal consecration (burnt
offerings) — as pledges of peace and
renewed fellowship (peace offerings).
Not in the first, but in the other
meanings of sacrifice, we are still
summoned to bring them in our
worship — “spiritual sacrifices” of self-
surrender (Romans 12:1), of the
broken spirit (Psalm 51:17), of
praise and thanksgiving.
be made with a pure motive, it must also be offered in a pure and reverent
manner. The special direction, no doubt, aimed against the enthusiastic
indecencies associated with idolatry. Still, it illustrates a principle: “All things,”
in the worship of God, should be done “decently
and in order.” (I Corinthians
14:40) - God looks first at character, but He requires also that character be
matched by conduct. The
Corinthian Christians (I Corinthians chapters 11 and
14) infringed the principle, if not the precept. Many amongst modern
worshippers infringe it also, e.g., by indecencies of dress, behavior, etc.,
in a place of worship or when engaged in prayer – (Dear
contemporary
reader – this is
not my writing but was written by men of God 200 years ago –
CY – 2010) In conclusion - two things
required of us, humility
and
reverence;
inward and outward
self-suppression. Do we want a motive? “Mine
altar”
(v. 26). REMEMBER
WHOM IT IS THAT WE WORSHIP! What
place is left for self when the heart is fixed on God?
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library,
LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This
material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com