4:44–49 The second address of Moses conveys the Torah that he set before Israel. The phrase “this is the law” identifies a document referred to eighteen times in the book of Deuteronomy. The first superscription introduces the topic of the book: “Moses undertook to explain this law” (Deut. 1:5). This law was a document the king needed to keep at his side (17:18–20); it was to be read to all the people at the end of every seven years, in the year of release of debt, during the Feast of Tabernacles (31:9–13). This law was on a scroll written by Moses, entrusted to the priests and kept with the ark (30:10; 31:24, 26). The original scroll must have contained the second address of Moses introduced in this superscription (4:44). The contents named in the superscription apply generally to the entire address from 5:1 to 26:19. Deuteronomy 4:44–45 provides a broad outline of the second address. The Torah of verse 44 consists of the hortatory instructions in chapters 5–11 and the stipulations, rules, and regulations Moses gives Israel in chapters 12–26. The second section is sometimes called the Deuteronomic Code.

5:1–5 “The statutes and the rules,” which Moses speaks in the hearing of the people, is a word pair occurring fourteen times in Deuteronomy. It describes the substance of the hortatory address (4:1, 5, 8, 14). In the second address of Moses these words frame the two main units of the speech: the prologue in 5:1; 11:32 and the Deuteronomic Code in 12:1; 26:16. Although these terms are complemented with “testimonies” in the superscription of 4:45, the two are joined consistently as a phrase in marking the beginning and end of the main sections of the book of this law in Deuteronomy.

The events that took place at Mount Sinai instituted a covenant between the Lord and the people Moses is addressing in the valley facing Beth-peor. Moses’ authority in mediating this covenant and the distinct nature of the rules and regulations governing the covenant relationship needed to be established. The voice of God in the ears of the people was critical in establishing both points. Moses reminds these people that his appointment as intermediary was at their request; they feared a continuing encounter with God. Although the people heard the voice of God, the actual content of the words was relayed by Moses, as clarified in verse 5. This is consistent with the depiction of the scene at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:9, 19. The people had promised to obey all of the instructions revealed on the mountain.

The rules, regulations, and commandments that Moses teaches Israel have their source and sanction in the God of the covenant. This point is important, because they are unlike any other law code. In Mesopotamia, the home of the fathers of Israel, the law was conceived of as the embodiment of cosmic truths (Hb. kinatum; sing. kittum). Shamash, the god of justice, was merely the custodian of these laws. The ideal of the law was above both gods and humans. However, the actual author of the laws embodying the cosmic ideal was the king. The laws were his, and the stele on which they were inscribed was called by his name. In the world around Israel, the king was the authority behind the written law. Deuteronomy shows a marked contrast to this in its insistence that the king must keep at his side a copy of the divine law, because both he and the people are subject to it. Moses as the intermediary teaches the law, but his authority is limited to that role.

5:6–10 The words of the covenant written on stone and given to Moses are counted as ten (Deut. 4:13; 10:4), but there is no original indication as to how the actual text of the Decalogue is to be divided into this number. The Masoretic Text, which serves as the basis of the ESV, indicates the separation of each of the Ten Words by a short space within the text called a setumah. These divisions make verses 6–10 the first word. The Masoretic Text further makes a separation between coveting the wife of another man and coveting anything of his property or servants in 5:21. However, this is not the only division of the Ten Words. Verse 6 appears to be an introduction to the Ten Words as well as to the first word, which prohibits any other gods besides Yahweh. The church fathers united verses 6–7, separating “You shall have no other gods” from the making of idols. This is also indicated by a vocalization within the Masoretic Text. Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Lutherans regard the injunction to have no other gods and not to make any idols as one word. They then separate “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” from “You shall not desire your neighbor’s house” or any of his other property. This is the division of the Masoretic Text. This commentary will follow the church fathers in the enumeration of the Ten Words, which is the Reformed tradition.

Verses 6–10 are a conceptual unity that is not affected by the different ways in which they have been divided. Nothing can be more fundamental for faith and life than understanding Yahweh, the Lord of the covenant. Theses verses are, in effect, a monotheistic statement, though they do not explicitly deny the existence of other gods, as expressed in 4:35–39. Other powers could be referred to as “gods,” but their existence is of no relevance when the person of God is known to be the Creator, who holds absolute domain over his earth and has extended his redemption to the people who have entered the covenant. Fear of any other power is a rejection of the fear of the Lord. Knowing the sovereign power of God should engender fear, and the redemption of God should provoke love. The fundamental requirement, therefore, is for the people of the covenant to fear the Lord and to love him (10:12). Exhortations to fear the Lord are found on eleven other occasions in Deuteronomy and exhortations to love the Lord another eight times. Usually these exhortations are accompanied by the requirement to observe the commandments Moses has taught.

The making of any kind of object to represent Yahweh is a further misunderstanding of the God of Mount Sinai. The likeness or form of such an object in the ancient world was deemed to represent a god, though the representation was not that of physical appearance. Statues of Baal depict him in the form of a human with a club in one hand (to represent thunder) and a sprig or lightning bolt in the other. Baal is the rider of the clouds to bring rain and fertility. His image, however, is that of a calf. Baal may be depicted as standing on the back of a calf, which acts as a pedestal, because Baal is the god of fertility, bringing prosperity. The object of a calf, therefore, is an “image” or “likeness” of Baal because it represents him. The function of the image is to confess the power of the god and to seek his presence. Such objects are categorically forbidden for Israel. The only form or likeness that can represent God is the one he created, namely, living human beings. At Sinai, Israel is declared to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6). To make some other object in order to represent the Creator is to subvert the very function for which God has ordained his people. The rule of God on earth is represented in the tabernacle (or temple), but this depiction of the palace of God with all of its attendant ritual is a far more complex confession of the person and presence of God than any object. Idols are therefore abhorrent.

The God of Mount Sinai cannot be anything other than a “jealous God.” This is not a statement of envy but rather serves to express the possibility of insult. Israel would not be tempted to deny God outright; the danger was in having “other gods before me,” that is, in opposition to the God of the covenant. Any such god must be in opposition to Yahweh because of the absolute nature of his rule. There can be no place for subservience to some other power; the notion that there could be some other contributing power to the redeemed people is an affront and provokes the jealousy of God. The consequences of such compromise are not limited to the offender. Sin always affects those associated with the sinner, particularly the immediate family, which may extend to three or four generations in a household. Conversely, individual fidelity to the life-giving Creator has a benefit to one’s family. In judicial affairs, the law of Moses will strictly limit responsibility to the offending individual, but the life of a covenant people is never a matter of individual independence. Divine judgment on an individual will affect the whole community, most immediately the family of the offender.

5:11 The third word forbids false oaths. To “take the name” is a metaphor for speaking, taking God’s name on one’s lips (Ps. 16:4). To take the name “of the Lord your God in vain” is to declare an oath falsely. Hosea condemns Israel for unfaithfulness because of its “swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery” (Hos. 4:2). This reference in Hosea employs the Hebrew ʾaloh wekahesh (“to curse and to lie”). Jeremiah asks, “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely?” (Jer. 7:9); to swear with a lie (sheqer) is the equivalent of taking the name in vain (shaweʾ).

Accepting the covenant was done with an oath. At the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses “took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people” (Ex. 24:7). The “blood of the covenant” (Ex. 24:8) was then sprinkled on the people. In the seventh century Josiah would renew this covenant by reading “the Book of the Covenant” to the people as he “made a covenant before the Lord” (2 Kings 23:2–3).29 When Asa renewed the covenant with all Israel, they “swore an oath to the Lord” and “rejoiced over the oath” because they had sought the Lord with their whole desire (2 Chron. 15:14–15). The third word follows naturally from the confession that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel.

In a temple liturgy, the psalmist asks who may ascend the “hill of the Lord” (Ps. 24:3). The answer is that only one with a pure heart who has not staked his life on what is vain (shaweʾ) may so ascend, one that does not “swear deceitfully” (Ps. 24:4). In this psalm the third word is contextualized in temple ritual. Worship demands fidelity to the oath sworn in covenant allegiance to the Lord.

5:12–15 The observance of the Sabbath is a confession of covenant fidelity. The significance of the Sabbath as a sign is explained in Exodus 31:12–17, where the explanation concludes the instructions given on the mountain for the function of the tabernacle and the rituals of the priests. The Sabbath is a sign “that I, the Lord, sanctify you” (Ex. 31:13). At the mountain the Lord made a covenant with Israel to make them a “treasured possession among all the peoples,” to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:5–6). As a sign of the covenant, the Sabbath testifies that Israel is set apart to represent all peoples to God as a priestly nation. They are holy in their function because they have the role of representing the rule of God to all other peoples as priests. The Sabbath is to be the sign of the covenant people for all time.

The Sabbath has always been controversial in its observance. In Numbers 15:32–36 the case of a man gathering wood is brought before Moses and Aaron. The Torah specifically forbids the making of a fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2–3), but not the gathering of wood. The man is placed in custody because it is not clear what should be done. The question appears to be what penalty should be meted out rather than whether the act itself is a covenant violation. The divinely determined penalty indicates that this case is a flaunting of the covenant vow, apparently on the analogy of the gathering of manna in Exodus 16:27–29. If gathering food necessary for life is not to be done on the seventh day, then gathering wood used to boil manna rolls (Num. 11:8) is equally prohibited on the seventh day. The stipulation of the Sabbath penalty is given in the context of the building of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:14; 35:2–3). The inference seems to be that not even the need to build the tabernacle could preclude the sanctity of the Sabbath. Observance of the Sabbath is sacred above all duties because it gives testimony to trust in God and to faithfulness to the covenant vow.

Given the high value placed on the sanctity of Sabbath observance, it is remarkable that no regulation is found concerning its observance. No definition is provided for what constitutes proscribed labor. The Torah mentions several kinds of tasks that should not be done on the Sabbath: leaving one’s abode to gather food (Ex. 16:29), agricultural work (Ex. 34:21), lighting a fire (Ex. 35:3), and gathering wood (Ex. 35:3). The rabbis inferred that any task involved in the building of the tabernacle was work forbidden on the Sabbath because the instructions for tabernacle construction in Exodus 25:1–31:11 were concluded by the Sabbath sign in Exodus 31:12–17. The acts of labor prohibited on the Sabbath were forty categories less one (Mishah, Shabbat 7:2). Jesus, however, correctly interprets the fourth word of the Decalogue: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). As with the other words, time and circumstance determine how the imperative stated is to be upheld. Work was never meant to be toil, such as Israel endured in Egypt. The Sabbath confession of redemption requires that toil of life be set aside on the seventh day.

5:16 Honoring parents serves as a connecting link between the affirmation of a relationship with God and the values governing relationships within the community. The latter are dependent on the former; unless exclusive allegiance to the Creator is pursued, as confessed in the first four words, the requirement to maintain relationships of integrity within creation is meaningless. The authority of the God of the covenant rests on the truth of his claim that “all the earth is mine” (Ex. 19:5). The truth of this claim is seen in how God delivered Israel from the Egyptians: “I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Ex. 19:4). The God of all peoples grants human life through father and mother. Parents must hold to the values of God, who has given them life. Children receive the gift of life from parents. Because father and mother are subject to an authority above that of all human authority, they in turn constitute an authority to be respected by their children.

Leviticus 19:2–3 joins together three commands: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths.” Observing the Sabbath as a means of honoring God has its counterpart in honoring parents. Isaiah 58:13–14 calls for the Sabbath to be honored (Hb. kabad). Leviticus in turn commands each person to respect (yaraʾ) his or her parents, while the command in Deuteronomy is to honor parents (kabad). The former forbids a person to contradict parents in their words or to try to take their place, while the latter includes taking care of them in terms of food, clothing, and shelter.

The reward for care of parents is longevity in the land. Property is fundamental to family life. Torah makes provision for families to retain property perpetually, even in situations of debt or death. The right and ability of children to inherit property depends on the integrity of the family. While the keeping of the covenant is necessary for long life in the land (Deut. 4:40), this promise is particularly pertinent to the command to honor parents. The right of future generations to inherit the land from their parents is contingent on the generations’ honoring them.

5:17 “Murder” is the correct translation of the Hebrew ratsakh in the sixth word, but it is inclusive of every type of homicide. The verb ratsakh is used for an unintentional homicide, referring to the person protected in a city of refuge (Deut. 19:4); accidental actions cannot be prohibited, but the action is still homicide. Numbers 35:27 uses ratsakh to refer to an avenger of blood’s lawful killing of a “manslayer” outside a city of refuge. Further, Numbers 35:30 states that a murderer shall be put to death (ratsakh) on the evidence of witnesses. Proverbs 22:13 puts ratsakh in the mouth of a lazy person who makes the excuse that a lion will “kill” him in the street. All other occurrences are used in a legal context and mean either “murder” or “manslaughter.” In English as well the generic word “kill” takes on more specific associations of criminal guilt in phrases such as “No one witnessed the killing” or “They found the killer.” While the verb has a broader meaning, certain constructions limit the sense to a more refined and specific meaning.30 The intent of this word is to protect human life from conspired attack. The prohibition does not pertain to executions or death in warfare, which are other kinds of homicide.

5:18 Adultery is the violation of marriage by engaging in sexual relations with another man’s wife or a woman engaged to be married. If a married man has relations with an unmarried woman before the bridal price is paid, he is obligated to pay the dowry and marry her (Ex. 22:16–17). There is a presumption of consent on the part of the woman; in the circumstance she has agreed, she is not in any sense coerced. If the father does not agree to the marriage, his daughter is free to marry again without suffering financial loss.

The prohibition of adultery is to protect the family. Family integrity is critical to the well-being of the entire covenant community. Violation of family sanctity is an offense so severe it is punishable by death (Deut. 22:22). Stable families provide for the security and education of children, as well as the continuing possession of property for economic well-being.

5:19 The most severe form of theft is the kidnapping and selling of a fellow human as a slave, a crime punishable by death (Ex. 21:16). All stolen property is to be fully restored, including payment for damages (Ex. 22:1–4, 7–9). Property is essential for life; nothing less than the full restoration of stolen property could be considered justice.

5:20 Words determine relationships. Sometimes words are a direct testimony against another, such as the words Amos was commissioned to speak against Israel concerning its sin (Amos 3:13). Deuteronomy expresses this uniquely; such testimony must not be vain (Hb. shaweʾ), the same word used in connection with taking oaths (Deut. 5:11). In the case of an oath, shaweʾ has the sense of being ineffectual. It might carry that same sense here by defining false testimony as any circumvention of the truth. But the primary force of this prohibition is against making false statements about another person, as is clear in the vocabulary of Leviticus 19:11, which repeats this prohibition using two words for “lie” (tekahashu; teshaqeru). The people of Israel must not be deceitful or false in their dealings with each other.

5:21 Scholars debate whether the tenth word prohibits the bare desire of what belongs to another or merely the actions taken to fulfill such a desire. The word must at least include the contemplation of such actions. The tenth word in Deuteronomy is different from Exodus in two important respects. Coveting the wife of one’s neighbor is distinguished from all other desires, set apart by use of two different verbs in separate sentences. The second verb (Hb. ’awwah) has the sense of “crave,” suggesting that coveting itself is a violation, whether or not any action is taken. The clause sequence of Deuteronomy differs dramatically from Exodus in naming the wife of another household first. House is then listed along with fields and other properties. “House” in Deuteronomy has the restricted definition of a dwelling rather than a home. These differences are significant in ensuring a respected place for women within the household.

There is always a tendency for men to be oppressive of women, as declared in Genesis 3:16. Moses begins the Ten Words by declaring that the source of authority is the Lord who has brought Israel out of the house of bondage (Deut. 5:6). Including a wife as part of a household could empower a husband to engage in the kind of bondage that Pharaoh exercised over Israelite homes. Redemption from Egypt must deliver every Israelite from the Egyptian type of slavery.

Coveting may be a purely mental activity or may refer to concrete actions. Exodus 34:24 warns against making plans to take over the field of a neighbor when he goes to the central place of worship three times a year. A possible move to acquire the property of another is to shift the original boundary line (Deut. 19:14). However, the prohibition of the tenth word precludes even schemes or plots to acquire another’s property, not merely maneuvers or deliberate actions to carry them out.