_THE DECALOGUE--ITS FORM_
DEUT. v. 1-21.
As the fourth chapter belongs to the speech which concludes the
legislative portion of Deuteronomy both in contents and language
(see Chapter XXIII.), we shall pass on now to the fifth chapter,
which begins with a recital of the Decalogue. As has already
been pointed out, the main trunk of the Book of Deuteronomy is a
repetition and expansion of the Law of the Covenant contained in
Exod. xx.-xxiii.[22] Now, both in Exodus and Deuteronomy, before
the more general and detailed legislation, we have the Decalogue,
or the Ten Words, as it is called, in substantially the same form;
and the question immediately arises as to the age at which this
beautifully systematised and organised code of fundamental laws
came into existence. Whatever its origin, it is an exceedingly
remarkable document. It touches the fundamental principles of
religious and moral life with so sure a hand that at this hour,
for even the most civilised nations, it sums up the moral code,
and that so effectively that no change or extension of it has ever
been proposed. That being its character, it becomes a question of
exceeding interest to decide whether it can justly be referred to
so early a time as the days of Moses. In both the passages where
it occurs it is represented as having been given to the people
at Horeb by Yahweh Himself, and it is made the earliest and most
fundamental part of the covenant between Him and Israel. It would
accordingly seem as if a claim were made for it as a specially
early and specially sacred law. Now, much as critics have denied,
there have been found very few who deny that in the main some such
law as this must have been given to Israel in Moses' day. Even
Kuenen admits as much as that in his _History of the Religion of
Israel_. The only commandment of the ten he has difficulty in
accepting is the second, which forbids the making of any graven
image for worship. That, he thinks, cannot have been in the original
Decalogue, not because of any peculiarity of language, or because
of any incoherency in composition, but simply because he cannot
believe that at that early day the religion of Yahweh could have
been so spiritual as to demand the prohibition of images. But his
reasons are extremely inadequate; more especially as he admits
that the Ark was the Mosaic Sanctuary, and that in it there was no
image, as there was none in the Temple at Jerusalem. That Yahweh
was worshipped under the form of a calf at Horeb, and afterwards
in Northern Israel at Bethel and elsewhere, proves nothing. A law
does not forthwith extinguish that against which it is directed,
for idolatry continued even after Deuteronomy was accepted as the
law. Moreover, if, as Kuenen thinks, calf-worship had existed in
Israel before Moses, it was not unnatural that it took centuries
before the higher view superseded the lower. Even by Christianity
the ancient superstitions and religious practices of heathenism
were not thoroughly overcome for centuries. Indeed in many places
they have not yet been entirely suppressed. Nor does Wellhausen[23]
make a better case for a late Decalogue. His hesitation about it
is most remarkable, and the reasons he gives for tending to think
it may be late are singularly unsatisfactory. His first reason is
that "according to Exodus xxxiv. the commandments which stood upon
the two tables were quite different." He relies on the words in
ver. 28 of that chapter--"And he (Moses) was there with the Lord
forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink
water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the
ten words"--taking them to imply that the immediately preceding
commandments, which are of the same ritual character with those
which follow the Decalogue in Exodus xx., are here called the ten
words. But it is not necessary to take the passage so. According to
ver. 1 it was Yahweh who was to write the words on the tables, and
we cannot suppose that so flagrant a contradiction should occur in
a single chapter as that here it should be said that Moses wrote
the tables. Yahweh, who is mentioned in the previous verse, must
therefore be the subject of _wayyikhtobh_ (ver. 28), and the ten
words consequently are different from the words (up to ver. 27)
which Yahweh commanded Moses to write, somewhere, but not on the
tables. Besides, every one who attempts to make ten words of the
commands before ver. 27 brings out a different result, and that of
itself, as Dillmann says, is sufficient to show that the second
Decalogue in chapter xxxiv. is entirely fanciful. Wellhausen's
second reason is this: "The prohibition of images was quite unknown
during the other period: Moses himself is said to have made a brazen
serpent, which down to Hezekiah's time continued to be worshipped
as an image of Jehovah." But the Decalogue does not prohibit the
making of every image; it prohibits the making of images for
worship. Therefore Moses might quite well have made a figure of a
serpent, even though he wrote the Decalogue, if it was not meant
for worship. But there is nothing said to lead us to believe that
the serpent was regarded as an image of Yahweh. Indeed the very
contrary is asserted; and if Israel in later times made a bad use
of this ancient relic of a great deliverance, Moses can hardly be
held responsible for that. In the third place, Wellhausen says:
"The essentially and necessarily national character of the older
phases of the religion of Yahweh completely disappears in the
quite universal code of morals which is given in the Decalogue as
the fundamental law of Israel; but the entire series of religious
personalities throughout the period of the Judges and Kings--from
Deborah, who praised Jael's treacherous act of murder, to David,
who treated his prisoners of war with the utmost cruelty--make it
very difficult to believe that the religion of Israel was from the
outset one of a specifically moral character." Surely this is very
feeble criticism. On the same grounds we might declare, because
of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, or on account of Napoleon's
reported poisoning of his own wounded at Acre, that Christianity
was not a religion of a "specifically moral character" at this
present moment. Surely the facts that people never live at the
level of their ideals, and that the lifting of a nation's life is a
process which is as slow as the raising of the level of the delta
of the Nile, should be too familiar to permit any one to be misled
by difficulties of this kind. Nor is his last ground in any degree
more convincing. "It is extremely doubtful," he says, "whether the
actual monotheism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal
moral precepts of the Decalogue could have formed the foundation
of a national religion. It was first developed out of the national
religion at the downfall of the nation." The obvious reply is that
this is a _petitio principii_. The whole debate in regard to this
question is whether Moses was a monotheist, or at least the founder
of a religion which was implicitly monotheistic from the beginning;
and the date of the Decalogue is interesting mainly because of
the light it would throw upon that question. To decide this date
therefore by the assertion that, being monotheistic, the Decalogue
cannot be Mosaic, is to assume the very thing in dispute. Wellhausen
himself, elsewhere (p. 434), seems to favour the opposite view. In
speaking of what Moses did for Israel he says that through "the
Torah," in the sense of decisions given by lot from the Ark, "he
gave a definite positive expression to their sense of nationality
and their idea of God. Yahweh was not merely the God of Israel; as
such He was the God at once of Law and of Justice, the basis, the
informing principle, and the implied postulate of their national
consciousness"; and again (p. 438), "As God of the nation Yahweh
became the God of Justice and of Right; as God of Justice and
Right, He came to be thought of as the highest, and at last as the
only power in heaven and earth." In the Mosaic conception of God,
therefore, Wellhausen himself being witness, there lay implicitly,
perhaps even explicitly, the conception of Yahweh as "the only power
in heaven and earth." In that case, is it reasonable to put the
Decalogue late, because being moral it is universal, and so implies
monotheism?
[22] See this brought out in detail in Robertson Smith, _Old
Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 431.
[23] Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, p. 439.
But there is still other, and perhaps stronger evidence, that the
universality of the Decalogue is no indication of a late date. On
the contrary it would seem, from Professor Muirhead's account of
the Roman _fas_, that universality in legal precept may be a mark
of very primitive laws. Speaking of Rome in its earliest stages
of growth, when the circumstances of the people in very many
respects resembled those of the Hebrews in Mosaic times,[24] he
says: "We look in vain for, and it would be absurd to expect, any
definite system of law in those early times. What passed for it
was a composite of _fas_, _jus_, and _boni mores_, whose several
limits and characteristics it is extremely difficult to define."
He then proceeds to describe _fas_: "By _fas_ was understood the
will of the gods, the laws given by Heaven for men on earth, much
of it regulative of ceremonial, but a by no means insignificant
part embodying rules of conduct. It appears to have had a wider
range than _jus_. There were few of its commands, prohibitions, or
precepts that were addressed to men as citizens of any particular
state; _all mankind came within its scope_. It forbade that a war
should be undertaken without the prescribed fetial ceremonial,
and required that faith should be kept with even an enemy--when a
promise had been made to him under sanction of an oath. It enjoined
hospitality to foreigners, because the stranger guest was presumed,
equally with his entertainer, to be an object of solicitude to
a higher power. It punished murder, for it was the taking of a
God-given life; the sale of a wife by her husband, for she had
become his partner in all things human and Divine; the lifting of
a hand against a parent, for it was subversive of the first bond
of society and religion, the reverence due by a child to those to
whom he owed his existence; incestuous connections, for they defiled
the altar; the false oath, and the broken vow, for they were an
insult to the divinities invoked," etc. In fact, the Roman _fas_
had much the same character as the Decalogue and the legislation
of the first code (Exod. xx.-xxiii.). Consequently those who have
thought that all early legislation must be concrete, narrow,
particularistic, bounded at widest by the direct needs of the men
making up the clan, tribe, or petty nationality, are wrong. The
early history of law shows that, along with that, there is also a
demand for some expression of the laws of life seen from the point
of view of man's relation to God. That fact greatly strengthens the
case for the early date of the Decalogue. For practically it is
the Hebrew _fas_. If it has a higher tone and a wider sweep, if it
provides a framework into which human duty can, even now, without
undue stretching of it, be securely fitted, that is only what we
should expect, if God was working in the history and development
of this nation as nowhere else in the world. In short, the history
of primitive Roman law shows that, without inspiration, a feeble
wavering step would have been taken to the development of a code of
moral duty, within the scope of which all mankind should come. With
inspiration, surely this effort would also be made, and made with a
success not elsewhere attained.
[24] _Ency. Brit._, vol. xx., p. 670.
In none of the reasons which have been advanced, therefore, is there
anything to set against the Biblical statement that the ten words
were older and more sacred than any other portion of the Israelite
legislation, and that they were Mosaic in origin. The universal
hesitation shown by the greater among the most advanced critics in
definitely removing the Decalogue from the foundations of Israel's
history, although its presence there is so great an embarrassment to
them, lets us see how strong the case for the Mosaic origin is, and
assures us that the evidence is all in favour of this view.
But if it be Mosaic, at first sight the conclusion would seem to
be that the form of the Decalogue given in Exodus is the more
ancient, and that the text in Deuteronomy is a later and somewhat
extended version of that. Closer examination, however, tends to
suggest that the original ten words, in their Mosaic form, differed
from any of the texts we have, and that of these the Exodus text
in its present form is later than that in Deuteronomy. The great
difference in length between the two halves of the Decalogue
suggests the probability that originally all the commandments were
short, and much the same in style and character as the last half,
"Thou shalt not steal," and so on. Further, when the reasons and
inducements given for the observance of the longer commands are set
aside, just such short commands are left to us as we find in the
second table. Lastly, differences between the versions in Exodus
and Deuteronomy occur in almost every case in those parts of the
text which may be regarded as appendices. In fact there are only
two variations in the proper text of the commands. In the fourth,
we have in Exodus "Remember the Sabbath day," while in Deuteronomy
we have "Observe the Sabbath day"; but the meaning is the same in
both cases. In the tenth, in Exodus the command is "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's house"; and the "house" is explained by the
succeeding clause, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor
his manservant," etc., to mean "household" in its widest sense.
In Deuteronomy the old meaning of "house" as household and goods
has fallen out of use, and the component parts of the neighbour's
household possessions are named, beginning with his wife. Then
follows the "house" in its narrow meaning, as the mere dwelling,
grouped along with the slaves and cattle, and with _tithawweh_
substituted in Hebrew for _tachmodh_. Fundamentally therefore the
two recensions are the same. Even in the reasons and explanations
there is only one really important variation. In Exod. xx. 11 the
reason for the observance of the fourth commandment is stated thus:
"For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it." In Deuteronomy, on the other hand,
that reason is omitted, and in its place we find this: "And thou
shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
Yahweh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a
stretched out arm; therefore Yahweh thy God commanded thee to keep
the Sabbath." Now if the reference to the creation had formed part
of the original text of the Decalogue in the days of the author
of Deuteronomy, if he had that before him as actually spoken by
Yahweh, it is difficult to believe that he would have left it out
and substituted another reason in its stead. He would have no object
in doing so, for he could have added his own reason after that given
in Exodus, had he so desired. It is likely, therefore, that in the
original text no reason appeared; that Deuteronomy first added a
reason; while ver. 11 in Exod. xx. was probably inserted there from
a combination of Exod. xxxi. 17 _b_ and Gen. ii. 2 _b_,--"For in
six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He
rested and was refreshed"; "and He rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had made." Both these texts belong to P and
differ in style altogether from JE, with whose language all the rest
of the setting of the Decalogue corresponds. On these suppositions
Exod. xx. 11 would necessarily be the latest part of the two texts.
Originally, therefore, the Mosaic commands probably ran thus:--
"I am Yahweh thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
"I. Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me.
"II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
"III. Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain.
"IV. Remember (_or_ Keep) the day of rest to sanctify it.
"V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
"VI. Thou shalt not kill.
"VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
"VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
"IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
"X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house."
In that shape they contain everything that is fundamentally
important, and exhibit the foundations of the Mosaic religion and
polity in an entirely satisfactory and credible form.
But, before passing on to consider the substance of the Decalogue,
it will be worth our while to consider what the full significance
of these differing recensions of the Decalogue is. In both places
the words are quoted directly as having been spoken by Yahweh to
the people, and they are introduced by the quoting word "saying."
Now if we do not wish to square what we read with any theory, the
slight divergences between the two recensions need not trouble us,
for we have the substance of what was said, and in the main the
very words, and that is really all we need to be assured of. But
if, on the contrary, we are going to insist that, this being part
of an inspired book, every word must be pressed with the accuracy
of a masoretic scribe, then we are brought into inextricable
difficulties. It cannot be true that at Horeb Yahweh said two
different things on this special occasion. One or both of these
accounts must be inaccurate, in the pedantic sense of accuracy,
and yet both have the same claim to be inspired. In fact both
_are_ inspired; it is the theory of inspiration which demands for
revelation this kind of accuracy that must go to the wall.
It will be seen that this instance is very instructive as to the
method of the ancient Hebrews in dealing with legislation which
was firmly held to be Mosaic, or even directly Divine. If we are
right in holding that originally the ten words were, as we have
supposed, limited to definite short commands, this example teaches
us that where there could be no question of deceit, or even an
object for deceiving, additions calculated to meet the needs and
defects of the particular period at which the laws are written down,
are inserted without any hint that they did not form part of the
original document. If this has been done, even to the extent we have
seen reason to infer, in a small, carefully ordered, and specially
ancient and sacred code, how much more freely may we expect the same
thing to have been done in the looser and more fluid regulations of
the large political and ceremonial codes, which on any supposition
were posterior, and much less fundamental and sacred. That there is
for _us_ something disappointing, and even slightly questionable, in
such action is really nothing to the purpose. We have to learn from
the actual facts of revelation how revelation may be, or perhaps
even must be, conveyed; and we cannot too soon learn the lesson
that to a singular degree, and in many other directions than their
notions of accuracy, the ancient mind differs from the modern mind,
and that at any period there is a great gulf to be crossed before a
Western mind can get into any intimate and sure _rapport_ with an
Eastern mind.
One other thing is noteworthy. Wellhausen has already been quoted
as to the quite universal and moral character of the Decalogue;
and his view, that a code so free from merely local and ceremonial
provisions can hardly be Mosaic, has been discussed. But, while
rejecting his conclusion, we must adhere to his premisses. By
emphasising the universal nature of the ten commandments, and by
showing that they preceded the ceremonial law by many centuries,
the critical school have cut away the ground from under the
semi-antinomian views once so prevalent, and always so popular,
with those who call themselves advanced thinkers. It is now no
longer possible to maintain that the Decalogue was part of a purely
Jewish law, binding only upon Jews and passing away at the advent
of Christianity as the ceremonial law did. Of course this view was
never really taken seriously in reference to murder or theft; but
it has always been a strong point with those who have wished to
secularise the Sunday. Now if the advanced critical position be in
any degree true, then the ten commandments stand quite separate
from the ceremonial law, have nothing in common with it, and are
handed down to us in a document written before the conception even
of a binding ceremonial law had dawned upon the mind of any man in
Israel. Nor is there anything ceremonial or Jewish in the command,
Remember _or_ Observe the rest-day to keep it holy. In the reasons
given in Exodus and Deuteronomy we have the two principles which
make this a moral and universal command--the necessity for rest,
and the necessity of an opportunity to cultivate the spiritual
nature. Nothing indeed is said about worship; but it lies in the
nature of the case that if secular work was rigorously forbidden,
mere slothful abstinence from activity cannot have been all that
was meant. Worship, and instruction in the things of the higher
life, must certainly have been practised in such a nation as Israel
on such a day; and we may therefore say that they were intended by
this commandment. Understood in that way, the fourth commandment
shows a delicate perception of the conditions of the higher life,
which surpasses even the prohibition of covetousness in the tenth.
In the words of a working man who was advocating its observance,
"It gives God a chance"; that is, it gives man the leisure to
attend to God. But the moral point of view which it implies is so
high, and so difficult of attainment, that it is only now that the
nations of Europe are awaking to the inestimable moral benefits of
the Sabbath they have despised. Because of this difficulty too,
many who think themselves to be leaders in the path of improvement,
and are esteemed by others to be so, are never weary of trying to
weaken the moral consciousness of the people, until they can steal
this benefit away, on the ground that Sabbath-keeping is a mere
ceremonial observance. So far from being that, it is a moral duty
of the highest type; and the danger in which it seems at times to
stand is due mainly to the fact that to appreciate it needs a far
more trained and sincere conscience than most of us can bring to the
consideration of it.