|  |
Are the Ten Commandments the most important set of rules in History? There are of course other serious contenders; the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the five pillars of Islam, the Noble Eight Fold Path of Buddhism or Jesus’ Golden Rule to name but a few. But given the historical and cultural importance of the 10 Commandments it is hard to see a true rival.
So why are they so special? They represent a summary of the Law of God, traditionally believed to have been given to Moses directly on Mt. Sinai. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) of course contains a huge number of Mizvot (laws) for people to obey; 603 commandments. But the Ten are special: They concern matters that are fundamental to theological certainty and an ordered society. They are not a detailed as other rules in the Torah as they do not specify the punishment to given for breaking them and seem to be intended as universally applicable, regardless of time, place or situation; in this way they are absolutist (http://awgford.weebly.com/blog/category/absolutism). Their centrality is affirmed by that fact that in Exodus 31:18 they are said to have been “written with the finger of God” onto stone tablets that Moses then took to the Jewish people.
So why are they so special? They represent a summary of the Law of God, traditionally believed to have been given to Moses directly on Mt. Sinai. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) of course contains a huge number of Mizvot (laws) for people to obey; 603 commandments. But the Ten are special: They concern matters that are fundamental to theological certainty and an ordered society. They are not a detailed as other rules in the Torah as they do not specify the punishment to given for breaking them and seem to be intended as universally applicable, regardless of time, place or situation; in this way they are absolutist (http://awgford.weebly.com/blog/category/absolutism). Their centrality is affirmed by that fact that in Exodus 31:18 they are said to have been “written with the finger of God” onto stone tablets that Moses then took to the Jewish people.
Sodom and Gomorrah: Evidence of God's Hypocrisy? There are a number of things we could discuss about the 10 C’s: Their (re)interpretation by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, if they apply to all people or just the Jews who received them first or their historical role in forming the laws that most developed nations follow today. But I just want to say a few words about their absolutist nature and especially of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. I often find that students, especially lower down at school will quote the Ten Commandments at you as an argument against any form of killing, they will also say that God must be a hypocrite for killing all those people in the Flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah and that he is breaking his own commandments. I would argue this is to misinterpret the imperative of this law.
The commandment is instead an imperative against unlawful killing that would result in bloodguilt – the killing of the innocent and defenceless. In reality there are many cases of justified killing sanctioned in the Torah.
In the very next chapter of Exodus, straight after the Ten Commandments are given, it states “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death” (Ex. 21: 12). It is therefore very clear that the commandment cannot be seen as an absolute. There are numerous other justified killing scenarios set out including killing in warfare, in response to crime and when an intruder enters your home. If it is so obvious that the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” is not an absolute why do so many people believe that it is?
Perhaps it is easier to explain it in these terms to our children when they are growing up? Perhaps people want the answers to be simple and straight forward and this is why absolutism appeals?
The commandment is instead an imperative against unlawful killing that would result in bloodguilt – the killing of the innocent and defenceless. In reality there are many cases of justified killing sanctioned in the Torah.
In the very next chapter of Exodus, straight after the Ten Commandments are given, it states “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death” (Ex. 21: 12). It is therefore very clear that the commandment cannot be seen as an absolute. There are numerous other justified killing scenarios set out including killing in warfare, in response to crime and when an intruder enters your home. If it is so obvious that the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” is not an absolute why do so many people believe that it is?
Perhaps it is easier to explain it in these terms to our children when they are growing up? Perhaps people want the answers to be simple and straight forward and this is why absolutism appeals?
RSS Feed
