Decalogue
Central Verse:
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;” Exodus 20:2 NRSV
Central Truth:
There has always been a tension within the church in relation to the law and grace. As Christians we tend to swing too far one way or the other. We are constantly in danger of being legalistic, that is focusing primarily and exclusively on the letter of the law, then the flip side is we risk erring on the side of no personal responsibility for actions. The Decalogue has always had a special place in this conversation about law and grace. Even some of the biggest founders of Protestantism had divergent views on how to deal with the Decalogue. Martin Luther says, “The Ten Commandments have no right to condemn that conscience in which Jesus dwells, for Jesus has taken from the Ten Commandments the right and power to curse us.” . John Calvin states “We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform.” John Wesley preaches, “The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He (Christ) did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken…Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.” Just in those three alone you can see great variance for how to approach the Decalogue.
The Ten Commandments are given in an event where God is directly speaking to the people of Israel. The opening of the verses roots the laws not in an immutable law of nature or of God. God’s law is rooted within his saving act of the people of Israel. These laws are not given in such a way as to say detailed yes and no’s to certain behaviors. For instance, the law does not detail out what it means when it says, “you shall not steal.” This are guiding principles being establish that are then left to a later date for clarification.
Many Rabbi’s taught a simplified version of the ten commandments and the way they did that was what we see exemplified in Jesus’ teaching. When asked about the commandments Jesus responds, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and Love your neighbor as yourself.” This is a simplification of the Decalogue, the first few laws focus on our relationship with God while the remaining laws focus on our relationship with others.
Our relationship today with the Decalogue is often forced into being more literalistic than Jesus was in their interpretation. We must be cautious in applying to much of a literal lens to the Decalogue. For those that tend to say the only way to understand them is literally you must examine how then the clear admonition to “not covet” involves elements of seeing women as property as well as slaves.
Food For Thought: (questions about the text)
Decalogue – special name for the Ten Commandments There are different versions of the Ten Commandments, see Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 34. The discrepancies between the different versions should at least suggest to us that there is to be some fluidity in how we understand the Decalogue. Deuteronomy 6:5 – The Shema – a scriptural example of summing up the Decalogue and how it is to be treated. Connections: (time with our society)
We have two types of law makers in American society. There are those who see the U.S. Constitution as a document to be understood literally in its context and translated as such when it is quoted and applied. The other side of the spectrum in understanding the law is to interpret the law based on the spirit of the law and not what it literally says. An instance of this is the discussion about the right to bear arms. The first group would argue that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that we have the right to own and use military weapons. The second would argue that in the time the Constitution was written the founding fathers could not have predicted a world with weapons capable of the destruction they unleash. Given recent events in our country this argument is beginning anew in the public sphere.
This serves as an example of asking what we mean when we approach the Decalogue in scripture. There are Christians who strive to live out the law to the letter. Unfortunately, this can give rise to a spirit of legalism that fails to take into account the grace that was the original inspiration for the law. God saved the people of Israel, out of that salvation God gave the law as a guideline for our rule of life. Jesus exemplifies the second school of interpretation more. When we are encouraged view our interaction with God through the lenses of love and our interaction with others through that same lens it keeps us from being legalistic and encourages grounding in grace.
I believe if we try and live out the original intent of the Decalogue by focusing on the spirit of the law, which Christ didn’t abolish, as opposed to the letter of the law, we will be more gracious and loving people. This spirit of grace and love has the power to change the world and change each one of us.
Application:
Questions:
Discussion:
Look at Deuteronomy 6:5 and Luke 10:27. How would you re-write the Ten Commandments? Try this with individual commandments before attempting something like Jesus does. When you seek to clarify/rewrite the commandment what does your word choice say about you and what you believe?
Close in prayer:
Comments