Читать книгу The Divine Mandates - Morris A. Inch - Страница 5

The Decalogue serves to introduce the realm of divine mandates. Its importance can hardly be overstated. The rabbis “speculated that it was prepared on the eve of creation in anticipation of subsequent use; they asserted as each commandment was sounded from the lofty height of Sinai it filled the world with a pleasing aroma; they concluded that all nature hushed to hear every word as it was spoken.1

The ten words are apodictic in character, rather than specific instances. In other words, they constitute broad general principles. For instance, “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). As over against, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye,” etc. (Exod. 21:22–24).

The context of the Decalogue follows the pattern of a vassal treaty. In which the Sovereign Lord pledges to intercede on behalf of his chosen people on condition of their faithful observance of the covenant provisions. Initially, the Suzerain announced: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Hence, deserving of their resolute faithfulness.

“You shall have no other gods before me.” “Thus the first ‘word’ takes aim at atheism (we must have a God), idolatry (we must have Yahweh as our God), polytheism (we must have the Lord God alone), and formalism (we must live, fear, and serve the Lord with all our heart, soul and strength, and mind. The ground of all morality begins here”2 Consequently, before me implies that we should not allow for other deities, regardless of their subordinate rank.

If not acceptable to God, then to whom? Either as a consensus, or imposed by those in authority. Which is calculated to serve invested interests. As such, unworthy to be considered as a credible ethic.

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below” as a logical progression. “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

It goes without saying that anything is comprehensive. So when a human agenda is given prime importance, it amounts to idolatry. Recalling the sage observation, “It is not the blatant evil we do, but the lesser good that more likely threatens the greater good.”

The rabbis also reasoned that we should take the greatest of care not to give the impression that we engaged in idolatry. So it was that they counseled that should one drop money before an idol, he or she should turn away before picking it up. They reasoned further that even a legitimate effort to recover their funds might adversely condition them. While this may seem unlikely, it reveals how seriously they endorsed the prohibition.

“The accompanying rationale recognizes the social implications of our actions. That is, whatever we do or fail to do impacts on others. Even so, God promises to restrain evil influence which cultivating the good we do.3 So that while living in a fallen world is not the best of situations, neither is it the worst.

“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Negatively, this precludes taking the name of God casually, hypocritically, or for magical purposes. Initially, one much not employ God’s name thoughtlessly. As is a habitual practice, void of significance.

Nor in hypocritical fashion. “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites,” Jesus admonished his disciples, “for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men” (Matt. 6:5). They have their reward, such as it is; but lack any reason for divine commendation.

Nor for magical purposes. Since magic entails the idea that we can manipulate the powers that be. As such, it not only disarms the Almighty, but is essentially void of moral considerations.

Positively considered, one is to employ God’s name reverently, lovingly, and earnestly. Reverently, because God is both great and good. As sovereign, he is deserving of our respect. As benefactor, he is worthy of our appreciation.

Lovingly, in response to God’s love extended to his fallen creatures. Giving rise to C.S. Lewis’ observation that because God loves us, he endeavors to make us lovable. Serving as a gracious initiative with which we should heartily cooperate.

Earnestly, as one striving for excellence. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize”?” Paul rhetorically inquires. “Run in such a way as to get the prize” (I Cor. 9:24). Which requires strict training in preparation, and vigorous execution.

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant of maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.” Out of deference to the Almighty, and a reminder of the critical role he plays in Life’s equation.

This admonition recalls how God had rested from his creative activity, thus setting a precedent (cf. Gen. 2:2–3). So that in Jewish tradition it precluded anything that might be thought analogous. Such as preparing food, although partaking of food is said to be especially enjoyable in context of the Sabbath celebration.

It was not generally understood that those other than the chosen people were obligated to observe the Sabbath, unless associated with them. Certain rabbis allowed that it was optional. If of intrinsic value, it would seem to be at least permissible. If only a distinctive feature of a select community, then not obligatory.

Thus concludes the first segment of the Decalogue, focusing on the relationship between God and the covenant community. Consisting of singular worship, refraining from the use of idols, prohibition of using God’s name in vain, and the Sabbath observance. Giving the impression that Idolatry would be a continuing temptation that must be strictly rejected. So that the rabbis reason it is the source for evil in its multi-faceted expression.

The second segment addresses the tenuous relationship among humans. As a logical extension of the previous injunctions. In this regard, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar, for anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command, ‘Whoever loves God must also love his brother’” (I John 4:19–21).

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.” This consists of respect, obedience, and meeting their needs, especially during their declining years. First, respect of one’s parents. Since they with God were involved in giving birth, and each has a legitimate invested interest.

Moreover, the rearing of children is a formidable undertaking. Near constant attention early on, and with lingering obligations. Not that parents are without fault, but neither can they be blamed for all that goes wrong It is not simply the circumstances, but how we respond to them that determines the outcome.

While bearing in mind that God as a rule employs imperfect means to achieve his gracious purposes. So that we ought not to demean such as serves his agenda. Nor the parents’ willingness to comply, qualifications notwithstanding.

Second, through obedience. Allowing for the fact that they are more knowledgeable. Along with the realization that what we do or fail to do impacts others. Accordingly, in keeping with their calling as parents.

Obedience extends beyond reluctant compliance to a ready acceptance. Such as is exhibited in the positive attitude we cultivate. While extending to related matters, thought consistent with our obligation.

This is calculated to stand one in good stead as he or she matures. When no longer expected to inquire of one’s parents for their direction, but faithfully applying their teaching to subsequent developments. In other words, making decisions consistent with one’s upbringing.

Finally, in taking care of one’s parents. Not only concerning their physical needs, but social and spiritual as well. In characteristically progressing fashion, as the need increases along with the means to meet it.

Then, when the parents have passed on, to appreciatively remember them and their service. As when one puts flowers on the grave, or simply recalling some pleasant event from the past. As a sage reminder, “gone but not forgotten.”

“You shall not murder.” That is, to take one’s life without due cause. Which assumes that there is justification, and that the means is authorized. It also allows for a distinction between premeditated and accidental behavior.

Undergirding this prohibition is the sanctity of life, as a divine provision. Giving rise to what is identified as the old absolute, as set over against the new absolute. As for the former, “Human Life from conception to natural death is sacred and worthy of protection.” In greater detail, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised” (Job 1:21). As for the latter, “Human life, which begins and ends when certain individuals or groups decide it does, is valuable as long as it is wanted.”4

Recalling John Calvin’s observation that if one can save a life, and fails to do so, he or she has committed murder. Since sins of omission are no more acceptable than sins of commission. Thus leaving persons with difficult decisions concerning the preservation of life, and the risk involved.

“You shall not commit adultery.” While insisting on marital fidelity, this prohibition was thought to extend to a wide variant of unacceptable sexual behavior. For instance, “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations” (Lev. 18:6). As another, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman” (18:22). And still another, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it: (18:23).

In conclusion, “Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with then. I am the Lord your God” (18:30). As otherwise expressed. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is; his good, pleasing and perfect will: (Rom. 12:2). In both instances, persons are enjoined not to continue an unacceptable practice that characterizes the prevailing culture.

Instead, to be transformed by the renewing of one’s mind. Having dwelt on the prophetic word, embrace it. Along with the expectation that this will result in a radical departure from previous ways of thinking and behavior. So likewise convinced that this is not only for the better but without exception the best of alternatives.

“You shall not steal.” “According to rabbinic tradition, one is guilty whether he or she brazenly robs in public or in secret; whether in taking possession from another or kidnapping the person; whether involving much or little; whether outright or with usury; whether concerning property or reputation.”5

In a peasant society, where the margin for survival is minimal, any theft might result in hardship, if not in death. In a covenant community, theft, no matter how otherwise serious, was an affront to God and a denial of life together. Recalling the satirical comments, “What is mine is mine, and what is his is mine as well.”

Theft can be of personal or of corporate nature. As the former, it need not pertain to material possessions, but anything rightly belonging to another. Such as demeaning one’s character or intent. As for the latter, excessive taxation amounts to corporate greed and theft.

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” The seriousness of this prohibition can be seen in that it could result in his or her death. If not, then in lesser punishment. Neither of which was acceptable in a covenant community.

Persons are admonished to tell the truth, the whole truth, an nothing but the truth. The truth in contrast to what is false. If such occurred, report it as having happened. If not, do not pretend that it transpired. When much or little is at stake.

The whole truth without which it is distorted. Which allows for extenuating circumstances. Along with accounting for differences of perception. As a means of reconciliation, where this is feasible. And justice. Regardless of outcome.

Nothing but the truth so not to introduce unrelated matters. Thereby to divorce truth from its essential context. Whether with intent or lack of discipline. In keeping with Augustine’s provocative comment, “All truth is God’s truth.”

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or his donkey or anything that is your neighbor’s” “House means ‘household’, in the early sense of the word, and the thought of ‘wife’ is primary. Ox and ass are the typical wealth of the bronze age peasant or semi-nomad, for whom the perplexities of developed society have not yet arisen. ‘Slaves are the only other form of movable property.”6

This final interdict makes explicit what has been implicit up to this point: our predatory desires give rise to our perverse practices. Recalling the vivid contrast mentioned at the outset between the law of the jungle and sacred canopy. As for the former, where those most fit survive. As for the latter, where life is celebrated as God’s benevolent design, and lived out according to his righteous instructions.

“When people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, ‘Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.’” Thus were they overwhelmed with God manifesting his presence among them.

“Do not be afraid,” Moses encouraged them. “God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” So that the awesome impression of this event would be passed down from one generation to the next, as a cherished but solemn legacy.

At this juncture, the text turns from general principles to select instances (cf. 21:1). As an example: “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put to death” (21:12–14).

The vassal treaty concludes with a warning should the chosen people fail to keep their covenant obligations, a promise of blessing should they do so, and the prospect of covenant renewal. In the first instance, “The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice: ‘Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts a idol—a thing detestable to the Lord, the craftsman’s hands—and sets it up in secret’” (Deut. 27:15). In secret presumably because this seemed more acceptable than in public.

“Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’” Thus voicing their hearty agreement that this is unacceptable and calculated to result in calamity.

In like manner, “Cursed is the man who dishonors his father and his mother.” Again soliciting a favorable response from the populace.

By way of contrast, should they obey the Lord: “You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country. The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock. You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out.”

Thus recalling the motif of two ways: that of the righteous and that of the wicked. As for the former, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of scorners” (Psa. 1:1). Implying a progression from bad to worse. “But his delight is in the laws of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Such resemble trees planted having ready access to water.

“Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away.” Without root or substance. At the mercy of the elements.

Two ways, no more or no less. There is no neutral ground. But there is an option. So choose well!

There remains the provision for covenant renewal (cf. Deut. 29), which anticipates both change and continuity. Change to accommodate different circumstances, as when the chosen people took up resident in the promised land. Continuity with the covenant principles. Soliciting the sage observation, “The more some things change, the more other things appear constant.”

Here we take leave of the Mosaic Covenant, to consider God’s covenant with Noah—as concerns the Gentiles. Which was thought to be a renewal or extension of his original covenant with Adam. In particular, “Adam taught his children the Seven Universal Laws: not to worship idols, not to curse God, not to kill, not to steal, not to engage in sexual immorality, not to eat the limb of a living animal, and to establish courts of law to enforce these laws.”7

Concerning idolatry. The essence of the Seven Universal Laws is said to be the prohibition against idolatry. This pertains to any aspect of creation. Nothing in the natural world around us: neither plants or animals, neither terrestrial nor celestial, neither individual or groups. Not that which we produce: whether a material object or appealing ideology, whether for a fleeting moment or extended time, whether or not approved by others.

A person may learn from his or her observations without falling prey to idolatry. For instance, the sage enjoins: “Go to the ants you sluggard, consider its ways and be wise!” (Prov. 6:6). Recalling a time as a child I intently watched ants scurrying back and forth. Not only was I impressed by their industry, but their seemingly cooperative endeavor.

The Jewish tradition was not uniform concerning whether it is permissible to believe that other gods exist, so long as one does not worship them. Some thought this was acceptable, while others rejected the notion. Abraham serves as an example, in that commentators disagree as to whether he allowed for the existence of other gods, while agreed that he was committed to Yahweh.

There was also conjecture as to whether persons were obligated to lay down their lives rather than compromise their convictions. While permission to do so was readily granted. Resulting in some ambiguity at this point.

In any case, persons are warned not to delve into idolatry—lest led astray. One’s interest might pick up in the process. Accordingly, Jesus taught his disciples to petition: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13). Idolatry being a prime example.

Concerning blasphemy. “Are you still holding on to your integrity?” Job’s wife incredulously inquired of him. “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9)

“You are talking like a foolish woman,” the patriarch replied. “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” Soliciting the commendation, “In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.”

Blasphemy was thought to fall into the category of revenge. “When someone is harmed by a person and seeks revenge, he may shout at the person or curse him. If the harm is great, the one seeking vengeance may not be satisfied by words alone but may physically strike out at the one who harmed him. In extreme cases, the vengeful person may not be satisfied till he kills.”8

Such is vengeance among humans. The situation differs concerning God. Whereas humans cannot physically assault the Almighty, let alone kill him; they can only express their hostility. Consequently, blasphemy is viewed with the intent to hurt God, even to erase his existence.

Blasphemy expresses itself most vividly when humans attribute evil to God . Recalling the faulty reason of an acquaintance, who protested: “If God gave me a mind, and I conclude that he does not exist, he is at fault.” Not unlike Adam, who excused his transgression with the observation: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it (Gen. 3:12).

In more subtle fashion, blasphemy was thought involved whenever one fails to give God the recognition due him. Whether this pertains to his sovereign authority, or his benevolent design. Consequently, by challenging the assertion that God is good, and does good.

Concerning murder. In this connection, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen 9:6). Not only is murder a disregard for the sanctity of life, but an affront to God—in whose image man is created.

The implications are extensive. For instance, “Abortion of a fetus, even in the most sophisticated of ancient societies, was a health risk for the mother. For this reason, the author believes that the Old Testament is concerned with the practice of infant sacrifice, which might be considered the Canaanite counterpart to abortion.”9

Or should a person leave someone to starve, it was said to constitute murder. Assuming that he has available means or could secure it to save the person’s life. Again, emphasizing the culpability of sins of omission.

If death occurred unintentionally, the perpetrator was to be provided security. Since retaliation might be expected. Bringing to mind the sage counsel, “Two wrongs do not made a right.”

Concerning theft. Of all the commandments, the prohibition against theft was thought the most difficult to obey. Largely because one is inclined to further his or her own interests at the expense of others. And then to justify the abhorrent behavior in some acceptable manner.

One was liable to punishment whether he or she brazenly robs in public, or sneaks into a house under the cover of darkness. Regardless from whim one steals, or the amount taken. As when failing to provide a reasonable wage. Whether deliberately or not recognizing the implications.

In Talmudic times, a fair amount of profit was thought to be one-sixth. However, it was allowed that the percentage would have to be adjusted occasionally, while weighing in the contributing factors. Falling prey to man’s predatory nature.

The prohibition against theft was best served by not coveting that which belongs to another. Instead, rejoice in his good fortune. And seek to emulate his industry, while being generous to a fault.

Concerning sexual immorality. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:23). “In antiquity, parents arranged marriages at significant financial cost, and the groom’s parents might easily have thought that they had authority over their son despite the marriage. Therefore the son must leave his parent in order to break the authority line to them, and honor his wife as is true counterpart, the central person in his life.”10

Sexual purity was to be maintained in this context. As a commitment, for better and for worse. Until life’s termination. Not begrudgingly but with hearty approval, as unto the Lord.

Divorce, although discouraged, was allowed in more exceptional instances. Resulting in a wide range of application. In some instances, restricted to adultery and in others for less compelling reasons.

It was thought that those involved in illicit sex would eventually come to realize the folly of their behavior, and complain against those who encouraged them. Once they realize the risks involved, and its meager compensation.

Concerning forbidden food. “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you,” the Lord allowed. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it” (Gen. 9:3–4). Explicit in this prohibition is partaking of a living animal. Implicit is the notion of humane treatment. In brief, “Animals, birds, and fish may be killed for food in any way that man deems to be efficient and it should be done as humanely as possible.”11

Such as violated by the crowded condition to which animals are subject. Moreover, the crude slaughtering procedures so often employed. Not only with concern for the animals, but its adverse effect on the humans involved.

By way of extension, showing consideration for all forms of life. The beasts of the field, the birds overhead, and the foliage surrounding us. As a good steward of God’s creation, rather than a ravaging plague.

Concerning courts of law. Such as further the cause of justice, and cultivate moral behavior. As a deterrent to evil, and a means of cultivating a healthy society. As a task of prime importance, to be zealously pursued.

Worthy of note, the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was meant to discourage extreme forms of punishment. Conversely, it allowed for extenuating circumstances. By which justice is served.

The provision for courts of law allowed for variety. Providing this was deemed in keeping with basic moral principles. So that while what constituted modesty might legitimately differ from one culture to the next, a concern for modest behavior ought to prevail regardless of cultural distinctive.

There were many factors to bear in mind. For instance, the judge should not assume the merits of the case on the basis of the good or bad reputation of one of the litigants. Since either or both might be at fault.

Nor should the judge unnecessarily delay the proceedings, by lengthening the time of testimony or cross-examination. Such as calculated to increase the distress of those implicated. While serving no legitimate purpose.

Thus have we explored the realm of divine mandates. First concerning the Mosaic Covenant and then God’s covenant with Noah. As for the former, said to set forth 613 regulations, but reduced to 7 in the latter instance. Although the latter are for the most part more general, and thought to be roughly equivalent. While focusing our attention on man’s relationship to the Sovereign Lord, and life together.

1. Inch, Scripture As Story, 35.

2. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics, 85.

3. Inch, Scripture as Story, 36.

4. Watkins, The New Absolutes, 65.

5. Inch, Scripture as Story, 37.

6. 7. Cole, Exodus, 161.

7. Clorfene and Togalsky, The Path of the Righteous Gentile, 8.

8. Ibid., 74.

9. Hoffmeier, “Abortion and the Old Testament Law,” 53.

10. Hartley, Genesis, 63.

11. Clorfene and Rogalsky, The Path of the Righteous Gentile, 98.