On the one hand, the answer to this question is a no-brainer--of course they are. They're in the Christian Bible, so they're Christian.
But then again, Christians generally read the Bible through filtered glasses. The filters include things like: 1. the things Christians believe in general, which has been influenced heavily by 2000 years of church history, 2. the specific Christian traditions a person comes from (e.g., Baptist, Wesleyan), and 3. contemporary American culture and the many ways it influences us. I don't have a problem with this in general--it seems to be part of how God makes the meaning of the Bible transcend particular times and places.
But I'd like to take a minute to talk about what the 10 commandments really meant--the ancient Israelite meaning, not the pop meaning you might hear on Christian radio or the "figurehead" role it's playing in the news today.
First of all, who is the "you" of "You will have no other gods before me"? Both Exodus and Deuteronomy are very clear--it refers to ancient Israel. "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. 5:1). "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). So why do we think this is about us? Well, it is about us now in some way because these words have become Scripture, and they're in our Bible. But it didn't originally address me. I'm a Gentile by birth, and these commandments specifically addressed ancient Israel.
Different traditions number the "10 words" (Decalog) differently. For Jews, the "I am the LORD your God" is the first "word." For Christians, the first one at least includes "you shall have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7). Here we remember that the ancient Israelites were henotheists more than monotheists. They believed in the existence of other gods, but they weren't allowed to worship them. There were plenty of gods on the market--Ba'al, Dagan, Marduk...--but they were to put none of them before Yahweh.
Israel's God was Yahweh (translated as LORD in all caps in most translations), while the other nations paired up with other gods on the list. Deuteronomy 32:8 expresses it well:
"When the Most High [El Elyon] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the numbers of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (NRSV).
El Elyon was the king of the Canaanite pantheon, like Zeus in the Greek system. In this passage El Elyon, also here called Yahweh, allots the other gods to the other nations and then takes Israel for himself. We can take this statement somewhat poetically. But needless to say, it makes me a little uncomfortable to hear Moses expressing the "god situation" in terms that fit so easily into Canaanite religious categories. The picture here is not unlike if some Greek were to say that Zeus gave Troy to Poseidon, Delphi to Apollo, and then took some city for himself. Compare Psalm 82, which uncomfortably uses similar imagery
It's not really until the middle chapters of Isaiah that we begin to see the "absolute monotheism" that we all think of as monotheism. Of course we would have no problem believing that there was an evil being behind Ba'al, but we would call it a demon (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). Our categories are clearly not the same as Moses'.
For Lutherans and Catholics, the first commandment continues into what other Protestants call the second commandment: don't make idols of living things and don't worship them. This is not a commandment that any of us are in danger of violating literally, which is of course how it was originally meant.
I'll follow the standard Protestant numbering for a while. The third is "Do not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." This was about swearing by Yahweh. Jephthah gets the award for "most stupid oath" in the Old Testament. He swears by Yahweh that he will sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of his house if Yahweh gives him the victory. It turns out to be his daughter.
But Jephthah does not violate the commandment. He does not invoke God's name in vain. He gives his daughter two months to mourn dying a virgin, then he sacrifices her.
Jesus has undercut the need for this commandment--it need never apply again. Jesus says that you won't ever need to swear by Yahweh if you are a person of your word. "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all" (Matt. 5:34).
Is the third commandment Christian? Jesus implies that a Christian should never need use it.
The fourth commandment is not Christian if we read it literally. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Originally, this commandment was 1. about Saturday and 2. about not working. I have no problem with thinking of Sunday as a day of rest or with the way Christians today "translate" this commandment. But that isn't what it meant, and Christians are not obligated to keep this commandment according to the New Testament.
First of all, only Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday. The Jewish Sabbath was a Saturday not a Sunday. No New Testament passage equates Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath. Christians in practice simply do not keep the Sabbath of the 10 commandments.
The only New Testament passages that mention the Sabbath in the literal sense refer to the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. The ones most important to us are in Paul's writings and unanimously prohibit Sabbath enforcement among non-Jews.
Colossians 2:16: "Do not let anyone condemn you [Colossian Gentiles] in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."
Romans 14:5: "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord..."
There is simply no biblical basis for considering the fourth commandment in its literal meaning as binding on a Christian today.
Well I've gone on quite a bit. My purpose is to expose how much "culture" is involved in the current Christian politics with regard to the Ten Commandments. I have no problem with them in a courthouse, and I have no problem with the way Christians today are applying them.
What really bugs me is that the conservative political machine is shooting us in the foot with its machinations. I think we could have the 10 commandments in our courthouses if these people weren't making such a direct connection between them and the Christian religion. And of course it bugs me that some of these people think they speak for God when they don't have a clue what the Bible really meant. Some of them wouldn't recognize Jesus or Moses if they were standing right in front of them. Now that I think of it; they'd probably crucify him because he was too "liberal."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dr. Schenck,
More than likely you don't remember me but I was in your Philosophy class @ IWU when I was a sophomore back in 2000, I'm Erik Timmons. We didn't get to know each other very well through that time but I have always respected you greatly and I love reading your blog.
I just wanted to make a quick comment about this 10 Commandment post because it was very well put. I have been struggling with the 10 Commandment "movement" lately and how people are so focused on making sure they stay in courthouses, not that I condemn what people are standing for but I take issue with people who are unloving in order to stand up for something. Even if someone is offending our Savior we should still treat them with love, He did.
Also, I don't really understand why Christians seriously think that non-believers would act any other way. We want to banish people from the kingdom who were never a part of it in the first place, this is in spite of the fact that we should be loving people and leading them to the cross, not to the tablets of the 10 Commandments.
Anyway, I hope I made a little sense. Thanks for your insight into things, I appreciate it very much.
Hey Erik! Great to hear from you and thanks for putting up with my rantings and ravings. To be fair, I actually liked what I heard of what they were saying at the Supreme Court today. I do really think it's appropriate to have the 10 commandments in our courthouses. But I get so embarrassed and irritated with the "this is a Christian nation so we should have the 10 commandments in our courthouses to show it." Talk about a one way ticket never to have them put up in any courthouse!
Dr. Schenck,
Seems to me that we must first identify the ten commandments as being distinctly Jewish. Considering we gentiles have been adopted by God into His family the ten commandments are of course of importance to the Church as well. My question may take you into territory you did not intend to cover with this post but I am wondering where you stand in regards to what laws (if any) Christians are required to keep from the Old Testament. As persuasive as Dr. Lennox is, I still have the tendency to want to "hold on" to the laws that seem to be associated with morality in the Old Testament. It seems to me that we find ourselves in a position from which we are unable to defend certain absolutes once the OT laws are disregarded in entirety (pending the principle of love of course). If this is not an area you wish to venture into simply ignore this comment! I will not be offended at all. Thanks!
~Ben Robinson
Thanks Ben, glad to blab.
My point was really to expose the dynamics of so many pop Christian leaders thinking they speak for God, claiming the Bible as their authority, when they don't even really understand the Bible.
But I would say that the New Testament 1. retains some Old Testament commands and 2. redirects/filters others.
Jesus clearly agrees with and even extends the commands against murder and adultery in Matthew 5. Jesus, Ephesians, etc. clearly consider truthtelling an important thing for a Christian, although the ninth commandment was originally about a court situation rather than lying in general... :) Rahab is consistently commended for her lying to the leaders of Jericho.
Paul uses the command against coveteousness in his argument in Romans 7, implying that he saw it as valid. And 1 Corinthians 8 clearly agrees with the "no other gods before me" commandment.
But (and here everyone should read an implied slam at Calvinism) the Bible's teaching doesn't reduce to some neat system. Paul abandons the Sabbath law, food laws, circumcision, etc. for Gentiles without a second thought. He retains the sexual prohibitions of Lev. 18 also without a second thought. While the distinctions between things like these are easy for us, some Jewish Christians clearly thought Paul was dropping pretty important stuff (Acts 21).
Christians of the second century would make a distinction between "moral law" in the OT and "ceremonial law" in the OT. But this is an after the fact distinction. I don't think it would have made any sense to a Jew of Paul's day.
So I would say that the OT is not directly authoritative over a Christian except 1. as mediated through the NT and 2. as God has lead/is leading the church to appropriate it.
Schenck thoughts...
Post a Comment