Exodus 20:1–21

Original Meaning

The Setting and Prologue (20:1–2)

VERSE 1 POSES a number of puzzles. When precisely does God speak “all these words”? The problem is that 19:25 has Moses coming back down the mountain to speak with the people. Are we to presume that Moses then goes back up, even though a return trip is not mentioned?4 Here it may be helpful to bring 20:18 into the discussion. This verse is worded closely to 19:16 (thunder, lightning, trumpet, smoke/cloud), which suggests that both refer to the same event; that is, 20:18 resumes the action of 19:16 after the “interlude” of the Ten Commandments. This suggests that the Decalogue was given to Moses sometime before his descent in 19:25.

If so, the reason for separating the Ten Commandments from their narrative context would no doubt be to give them greater emphasis, and their resumption of the mountain scene in 20:18 would alert us to this fact. This solution has certain advantages, but in the end may be inadequate, for it makes it difficult to put together the entire complex of events from the end of 19:25 through 20:26 (try it and see!).

Untangling all this is a bit much, which is why this has caused so much scholarly activity. Another solution is simplest of all. Since 19:25 has Moses descending and 20:21 has him ascending, perhaps the intervening material (20:2–17) is spoken by God to Moses and all the people at the foot of the mountain. We must remember that the people are not permitted to ascend the mountain. The people’s reaction in verse 19, “speak to us yourself,” implies that they have just heard God speaking in verses 2–17; they ask Moses to make sure this doesn’t happen again. This is a solution I am willing to live with, for the time being at least, although this, too, may prove difficult to maintain at every point throughout Exodus. As we will see, Moses’ ascents and descents of Mount Sinai are a challenge to keep straight.

Verse 2 is not a commandment itself, but is a prologue that properly sets up the frame of mind from which all the commandments, indeed all of Israel’s existence, should be viewed. It reminds Israel who God is and what he has done. It begins with another “I am Yahweh” assertion (see 6:6; 7:5; also, later, 29:46).5 This God has brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The relationship between them has already been established. Now they are to learn what a redeemed life should look like. The law, in other words, is connected to grace. It is based on God’s gracious act of saving his people; it is not a condition of becoming God’s people, for that has already happened in the Exodus. They now receive rules for holy living, so they can become more and more God’s holy people. This is what God wants for them (see comments on 19:5–6).

In light of this, we can appreciate how inadequate it is to refer to Moses as the “lawgiver” of Israel, as is commonly done. This is not wrong, but it tells only part of the story. Moses does not actually give the law, he relays it. The Lawgiver is God himself—giving the people a piece of himself, a glimpse into the divine mind and will. “Morality is the expression of the divine will.”6 It is a major, concrete step in Israel’s journey toward getting to know their God better and better.

Bridging Contexts

THE BIBLICAL AFTERLIFE of the Ten Commandments. There are two ways of approaching the relevance of Exodus 20. We can treat the topic of law in general (since the topic is introduced here) as it unfolds in the rest of Scripture, or we can focus specifically on the Ten Commandments. The former would be appropriate, since a proper understanding of the function of law in the Old Testament provides a proper framework from which to make suggestions about application of the Ten Commandments. Nevertheless, I prefer to focus more directly on the Ten Commandments themselves and leave general comments on the nature of law for the discussion of the Book of the Covenant (20:22–23:19). For better or worse, the Ten Commandments have taken on a life of their own, detached from the surrounding material and even from the book of Exodus as a whole. My reason for isolating the Ten Commandments here is certainly not to add to this misapprehension, but in part to help correct it.

As implied above, the Ten Commandments should not be understood as isolated moral maxims, instructions for personal piety, commands in order for people to win God’s favor. They are given in a historical and redemptive context and should be understood in that context. They are given to people already redeemed, not so that they might be redeemed. They are also given to the people as a whole, and the actions of individuals have broader repercussions. The focus of many of these commands is to foster social cohesion, which serves not merely to make the Israelites “nice people,” but agents of world change, image-bearers of God to be a light to the nations.

The Ten Commandments are repeated, almost verbatim, in Deuteronomy 5:6–21, at another stage in Israel’s history. There the laws are given to Israel not on Mount Sinai/Horeb, but toward the close of the forty-year desert period (cf. Deut. 1:3). As we read in 29:1, the law of Deuteronomy is a conscious reaffirmation of what had been given forty years earlier: “These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb” (italics added). Although these words describe more directly the laws, blessings, and curses of Deuteronomy 11–28, they also apply to the laws as a whole, including the Ten Commandments.

This truth is strongly suggested by the prologue to the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:1–3:

Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. (italics added)

The commands that follow are given “today . . . in your hearing . . . with all of us who are alive here today.” They are consciously connected to what happened on Mount Sinai.

But if Deuteronomy 5:6–21 is a repetition of Exodus 20:1–17, why are the two versions not identical? This is a good question, though it will not occupy us here (I trust it will be treated in the Deuteronomy volume in this series!).32 Rather, we should note that the Ten Commandments are repeated in Deuteronomy at a crucial time in Israel’s history. These words were first given at the beginning of Israel’s journey to Canaan, a journey that was to take a few weeks at most. Their entrance, however, was delayed by forty years. At the end of this period Moses repeats the Ten Commandments to those living at that time (all those under twenty years old at the time of the desert rebellion, see Num. 14:29).

In light of this setting, the prologue (Deut. 5:1–3, cited above) is most interesting. It shows that the version of the Ten Commandments given in Deuteronomy is no mere repetition of those given in Exodus. Moses is not saying, “Let me review with you what I told them forty years ago, so you too can hear what they heard.” Moses wants to make the Ten Commandments their own, an immediate possession of those who were not adults at Mount Sinai forty years earlier. This is the meaning of 5:3. If we step back, this is an amazing statement. It was with the “fathers” that God made the covenant, that is, the Sinai covenant. The whole point of the forty-year wandering in the desert was to assure that all those of adult age would not be alive upon entering the land. Hence, most of those standing before Moses in Deuteronomy 5 are by definition not those with whom the Sinai covenant was made.

A similar sentiment is expressed in Deuteronomy 11:2–7. Here Moses recounts the defeat of the Egyptians by God’s hand (vv. 2–4) and the punishment of Dathan and Abiram in the desert (vv. 5–6; cf. Num. 16). He concludes in verse 7: “But it was your own eyes that saw all these great things the LORD has done.” Again, what can this mean? It is most certainly not the people to whom Moses is speaking in Deuteronomy 11, who themselves witnessed the Exodus referred to in verses 2–4. What is going on here?

This is no slip of the pen, nor is the writer a fool. In fact, it seems to be a recurring theme in Deuteronomy that the present Israelite community, those living at the end of the forty-year wandering, are treated as if they were the original community. There is a theologically potent reason for this. Had the desert rebellions not occurred, the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 would have been given within a relatively short time of the Israelite’s triumphant entry into the land. But because of the intervening wandering period, it was necessary not only to recap the commandments for the benefit of the later generation, but to treat that later generation as if they had been present at the foot of Mount Sinai, to “re-create” the original Exodus community when Israel was standing at the brink of the land. Hence, it is with them that God made the covenant at Sinai. It is they who saw the great things God has done.

The Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy, in other words, are more than a restatement or reiteration; they are a recontextualizing of the commands. This new context is a continuation of the redemptive context initiated at the Exodus. The desert period, a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan, is now behind the Israelites. They now revert back to “Plan A,” which is a continuation of the sequence Exodus-Law-Conquest of Canaan. This recontextualization of the law shows, as does the original context in Exodus, that the law is no abstract guide to living a good life, but an integral element of God’s redemptive plan. The Ten Commandments, in both cases, are set in a narrative and redemptive context.

The Ten Commandments can be found either implicitly or explicitly in other parts of the Old Testament. Still, what is striking is how infrequently the rest of the Old Testament seems to make an overt appeal to the ten words. For example, references to the “law of Moses” or a related term are infrequent. Of the prophets, only Daniel 9:11, 13 and Malachi 4:4 use this phrase. Moreover, there are no references at all to Sinai (although Mal. 4:4 does mention Horeb). There are a few references in the historical books, but this number is also not overwhelming (e.g., 1 Kings 2:3; 8:9; 2 Kings 14:6; 18:6, 12; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 7:6; Neh. 1:7; 8:1). The Psalms and wisdom literature make at best allusions to the Sinai law (e.g., Ps. 50:16–20), but even these are few and far between. If Sinai is so central to Israel’s identity as the people of God, why is so little made of it in subsequent books?

Having said this, however, we do find in the Old Testament a degree of reflection on at least some of the Decalogue. Of particular importance seems to have been the first two commandments and the fourth. The ancient Israelites constantly struggled to remain faithful to God. The fact that the first two reiterate a similar point suggests that this most basic element of Israel’s existence—that Yahweh alone is their God—had to be emphasized. Idolatry, whether the worship of other gods or the worship of the true God by means of an idol, was a recurring sin in Israel, denying the very basis of their existence.

The impulse toward idolatry surfaces already in the golden calf episode (Ex. 32). In Numbers 25:1–3, Israel worships Baal of Peor. At the end of Joshua, after the Conquest, Joshua reminds Israel of the need to remain faithful to Yahweh and not to worship other gods (Josh. 24:14–15). But within a generation of their entrance into the land they fall into old habits. The entire cycle of sin, punishment, and redemption in Judges is instigated by forsaking God and serving Baal and Asherah (Judg. 2:10–15). Throughout the monarchy, the kings of Israel and Judah are judged in large part by the degree to which they are faithful in leading Israel in proper worship. The exile of both the northern and southern kingdoms is precipitated by their worshiping false gods (2 Kings 17:7–23; 21:1–15; 23:26). The prophets routinely denounce the kings for their failure to keep the first two commandments.

Although not as widely mentioned, the Sabbath law is also a recurring theme in the Old Testament. We have already seen its importance to Exodus as a whole. We see its importance emphasized again in Leviticus, both as a day of rest for the Israelites (Lev. 23:3, 32) and as applied to “rest” for the land (25:2–7; 26:34). Keeping the Sabbath is also a concern for the Israelites returning from the Exile, as Nehemiah makes clear (e.g., Neh. 10:31; 13:15–22). The prophets make similar pronouncements (see Isa. 56:2, 6; 58:13; Jer. 17:21–27).

References to the other seven commandments are not forgotten in the Old Testament, though they do take a back page. In a sense the effects of disobedience of all ten can be seen throughout the Old Testament (see, e.g., Ps. 15; 50:16–20; 81:9–10).

More important than which commands are specifically mentioned, where, and how often, is the fact that these commands are given to Israel in order to distinguish them from the other nations. Because Israel is God’s people, they are to reflect God’s nature in their conduct. In this way they will bear witness to the nations that Yahweh is God and no other, which will lead to the nations acknowledging that God exists. It is the redemptive-theological dimension of these commands that must be emphasized. They are given to a redeemed people in order that they may more fully bear the image of God as they live among the nations of the world. They are never intended to make Israel a “nice” nation, nor are they to be imposed on the nations apart from their own prior heartfelt acknowledgment that Yahweh alone is to be worshiped. Israel’s task as a holy nation is to be a light to the Gentiles. The Ten Commandments are a means toward that end.

The Ten Commandments are referred to a number of times in the New Testament. This should cause no surprise. Leaving aside the complex relationship between Israel’s law and the gospel, a reiteration of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament makes sense. The church is the new Israel, and as such, the gift of the law given to the Israelites is transposed into a new context. Moreover, seeing the law reiterated rather than obviated in the context of God’s grace in Christ underscores the proper relationship between law and grace.

If law can be so prominent within the New Testament, it seems difficult to maintain any sort of strict law/grace dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments. Law in the New Testament must be seen in the context of grace, just as it was in the Old Testament. This is why both Jesus (Matt. 5:21–30; 15:1–9; 19:18–19) and Paul (Rom. 13:8–14; Eph. 6:1–4) can call on the new people of God, the church—made up of Jews and Gentiles in fulfillment of God’s plan—to keep these commandments. In fact, Jesus even makes some of them more stringent (Matt. 5:21–30). These commands are not given so we can be good citizens, but so that we can reflect even more fully the image of God in which we participate through our union with the risen Christ.

Contemporary Significance

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TODAY. As we apply the Ten Commandments to our lives as Christians in today’s world, it is important that we keep in mind what they are. They are a charter of conduct for a people already redeemed, who already participate in God’s redemptive plan by being walking and talking examples of what it means to be created in God’s image. They are, in other words, commands of God to be understood in a redemptive context, a context that defines their promulgation in the Old Testament and reiteration in the New.

There is no dearth of popular books and pamphlets on the Ten Commandments and how they can provide guidelines for conduct today.33 These commandments, after all, seem to be a ready and waiting treasure chest of moral principles. My interest here is not to add to (nor to critique) these specific suggestions of how these laws are to be transposed from their ancient setting to today. I would rather make some observations concerning the principle of who should be expected to keep them and why.

Fully in keeping with the way in which commands are articulated in both the Old and New Testaments, we must confess that the Ten Commandments are not bare “guidelines” for how we should act, but are means by which we as God’s people come to understand God better. They are a reflection of him, and since we in Christ are re-created in his image, we ought to honor and keep these laws. As Vern Poythress argues, “all the commandments reflect the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.”34 Rather than “spiritualizing” the Ten Commandments or making them too abstract, such a Christological perspective is the proper starting point from which the church is to view them. Yet, in my view, fundamental misunderstandings surrounding the purpose of the Ten Commandments abound in our society, perpetuated by well-intentioned Christians. I would like to mention two related misunderstandings.

(1) As difficult as it may be to accept, we must remember that the Ten Commandments are not primarily concerned with personal, private morality. To be sure, it is individuals who keep them, but God’s purpose of giving them and implementing them should never be reduced to a simple matter of individual righteousness. As we have seen, there is a corporate dimension involved when God’s people speak of the Ten Commandments. His law is to be followed not so that individuals can show their worth before God, and certainly not so that they can either earn or secure their salvation, but so that God’s people can show the world the kind of God they worship. This God is not always friendly but can be demanding and uncompromising.

Too often, however, we use the Ten Commandments today as a basis by which to judge the “personal morality” of others. This is bad enough when we do this with respect to the church, but it is even worse when we judge those outside of the family of God. The sexual sins of politicians have been a regular theme in the news as I write this, and a number of Christian commentators remark that such activity is against God’s law and should therefore be punished. In fact, there is even a degree of surprise in their voices, as if it is “normal” for Americans to be ready, willing, and able to keep the law. This is misguided. I am neither shocked nor offended when any public official—or anyone else, for that matter—who does not claim the name of Christ (or perhaps does so only nominally) breaks one of the Ten Commandments. Frankly, breaking those laws is the least of their worries.

We should never wonder when God’s law is broken by people who were never intended to keep it in the first place. Moreover, by chiding these individuals for doing so, are we not sending the wrong gospel message, that being right with God is primarily a matter of proper conduct? Are we not, contrary to the place of the law in both the Old and New Testaments, putting the cart before the horse? We are saying to them that God demands a high moral standard apart from the work of Christ, that proper behavior is what makes us right with God. But the opposite is true. Apart from being in Christ first we are incapable of good works that please God. Such legalistic, pull-yourself-up-by-your-moral-bootstraps theology is only too natural for human beings; it is our nature to want to do it ourselves. Should we perpetuate such a thing?

Expecting unbelievers to keep God’s law, or even to respect it, blurs the sharp divide between those who are God’s people and those who are not. Even if they can keep the law in an external, superficial way, this is not to say that they do what really matters, which is to keep the law in a manner pleasing to God. To single out the Ten Commandments and set them up as a standard of conduct for unbelievers or American society in general indicates not only a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Ten Commandments, but of the good news itself. Christ died and rose to provide another way. We should do nothing to make that way obscure.

(2) This brings us to another example: the Ten Commandments in public schools. This is another hot-button issue that will quickly make you lifelong enemies if you say the wrong things in the wrong company. At the risk of losing a friend or two, let me say that I do not think the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public schools. By this point it should go without saying that I feel strongly that they should be kept (although precisely how they should be kept is a matter of constant reflection). The point, however, is that they should be kept by the right people and for the right reasons. It is not really for me a matter of the “separation of church and state”—a wonderful idea in its original intention, but one that has been distorted in our day—as much as a matter of the separation of those who are in Christ from those who are not.

What do we hope to accomplish by imposing God’s law on those who do not know him? To make better citizens? To make better-behaved children? Neither of these goals is wrong. In fact, they are important. They are not, however, the goal of the gospel, which is to change those who are not God’s people into those who are. Better people and citizens, these things are by-products (again, important ones) of the spread of the gospel.

If I may put the matter somewhat differently, placing the Ten Commandments in public schools represents a misuse and misunderstanding of the purpose of these laws; it is, therefore, tantamount to promoting a false religion. It is not Judaism, and it certainly is not Christianity. It may be a “Judeo-Christian ethic”—a thoroughly nonbiblical concept—but such an ethic has no life if it is presented as anything other than the gift of God for those already redeemed by grace. God’s laws are for his people. Those who do not know him are walking tombs. They do not need whitewashing but complete renovation, from the inside out. They do not need their moral gyroscopes pushed in the right direction, but the Spirit of the risen Christ breathed into them.

Original Meaning

The Ten Commandments (20:3–17)

WE COME, THEN, to the Ten Commandments themselves. To be honest, so much thoughtful work has been done on them over the centuries that I hesitate adding my own comments to this “great cloud of witnesses.” I will take the commandments one at a time without feeling an obligation to treat them fully. For more information, please consult the works cited in the footnotes. I will focus on some elements that I have found particularly relevant for forming a picture of how they may have been understood by the ancient Israelites.

(1) First commandment (v. 3). This command follows naturally the prologue (v. 2). Because Yahweh is the Savior of Israel, Israel is to have no other gods. It is not so much the case that Israel “owes” it to God. It is more a matter of Yahweh’s demonstrating his incomparable might and love, his faithfulness to the promises he made to his people beginning with Abraham. This is not payback for God’s deliverance; rather, God is worthy.

This command also sets Israel apart from the surrounding nations in a manner that would be immediately striking to them. In distinction to every other people of the ancient world, they are to worship one and only God, Yahweh. In this way, Israel’s uniqueness, her absolute “holiness” and separateness vis-à-vis the surrounding nations, is broadcast loud and clear. The appeal to have one God, of course, is to Israel alone. It is they who are to be different. Eventually this allegiance to the one true God will become the confession of the other nations. But for that to happen, the elect of God must first learn the lesson: There is no other god but Yahweh.

The phrasing of this commandment helps us see how the ancient Israelites may have understood it. It is striking to me that verse 3 does not say, “There are no other gods before me, therefore do not worship them.” It simply says, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Some have suggested that the first commandment is not an explicitly monotheistic statement but a command to be monolatrous. (Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God; monolatry implies the existence of more than one god, but we must worship only one.)

As foreign and “idolatrous” as this may seem to our ears, there is something to be said for interpreting verse 3 in the latter way. From a grammatical point of view, this seems to be what the text is saying. The Hebrew idiom hayah l^e suggests language similar to forming a covenant or entering marriage.7 In other words, “Your allegiance, Israel, is to one God.” Of course, one can argue that the nonexistence of other gods is assumed. But is it? Besides the fact that the ancient world was replete with religious systems that supported a vast array of gods and goddesses, we must remember that Israel had just spent several hundred years in Egypt, living among a polytheistic people.

I am certainly not suggesting that verse 3 teaches the existence of a multiplicity of gods, nor am I suggesting that Israel is correct in assuming such a state of affairs. Rather, here, in Israel’s infancy, God is teaching them about himself in a way that speaks to them most directly. He is not yet declaring with blazing clarity that he and he alone is the only God in the universe. For such a declaration we will have to wait for another stage in Israel’s journey (e.g., Isa. 40:18–20; 44:9–22). For now, God speaks in a manner that his infant people can readily identify with. He is not giving them the entire story at once, and he is certainly not launching a religious discourse on the merits of monotheism.

We should remember, too, what God did in Egypt. As we have seen, the plagues and the crossing of the sea were concrete demonstrations to the Israelites that their God defeated the gods of Egypt, declaring them impotent against his might. The conclusion is never drawn, however, that these gods do not exist. He simply says to Israel, “Look at what I did to the gods of Egypt. I beat them at their own game, on their own turf. I and I alone am worthy of worship.” This first commandment gets to the heart of what it means to be God’s people, not only in terms of what the Israelites have left, but also in terms of where they are going—to another polytheistic land, Canaan. When they get there, they are to remember what their God does to those, both divine and human, who oppose him.8

This first commandment is a fitting way to begin. It is the basis from which the other nine derive their meaning. If the prologue provides the motivation for obeying the commandments, the first commandment provides the conceptual framework from which the others are to be understood. Yahweh alone is God, and he is speaking to the people who belong to him.

(2) Second commandment (vv. 4–6). This commandment goes into greater detail than the first, and it seems to follow it logically. But its meaning is not entirely clear. The basic prohibition is against making an idol in the form of any created thing. But does “idol” refer to an idol of one of the gods spoken of in verse 3, or does it include any sort of representation of Yahweh himself? The commandment certainly entails at least the former. Idols that the Israelites had seen were idols of other gods, a ubiquitous ancient custom. The second commandment, therefore, is to be understood within the framework of the first.9 It expands the first, which is why the first two commandments have sometimes been thought of as one.10 The Israelites are not to worship other gods; therefore, they are not to make any idol of any kind. They are not to represent these other gods by any earthly, created form.

But are we to conclude that this prohibition allows the Israelites to make idols of Yahweh? Absolutely not! Part of this command is also to prevent Israel from identifying the true God with any created thing. To identify God with any created thing is merely one step from thinking of God in terms of that image. It would be creating God in the image of his creation, which would put Israel’s God on par with the gods of the nations.11 Thus, I suggest that this command has a twofold thrust: Israel is not to do as other peoples do by worshiping the idols of their gods, nor are they to do as other nations do by worshiping their own God that way.

This command is longer than the first, for it includes a threat to those who disobey and a promise to those who obey. God is jealous for his people to remain truly faithful to him. When that jealousy is roused through disobedience, it leads to punishment; but when roused through obedience, the result is blessing. This jealous God will “visit” (paqad) the sin of the fathers upon future generations. The verb paqad has heretofore been used to describe God’s visitation of Israel as an act of punishment toward Egypt (3:16; 4:31; 13:19). Now, in a striking reversal, God will “visit” Israel if they disobey this command. A lot is at stake in Israel’s fidelity in not making idols.

As for the punishment, the fact that children might suffer for their parents’ actions (which is what v. 5 implies; see also 34:7) is contrary to explicit statements made elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 24:16; Ezek. 18:4). The former reads, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Sarna suggests, with typical honesty, that “the intensification of the problem of evil led to revision of this view,”12 an approach even made explicit in the Talmud. In other words, the ideal of 20:5 could not be carried through because Israel became too sinful. No one would be left.

As unsatisfying as this solution seems to me, I am hard pressed to think of a better one. I do not want to argue that God doesn’t really mean what he says here. In fact, the threat of punishment may be more severe than a surface reading of verse 5 lets on. “Third and fourth generation” need not be taken literally. For example, the refrain in Amos 1–2 (“for three sins . . . even for four”) is not to be understood as literally only “three or four” sins. It means simply for all their many sins. Moreover, the blessing of Exodus 20:6 going to “thousands of generations” likewise means more than just literally thousands, but a lot, perhaps even never-ending.13

In view of this, it seems that the second commandment is teaching that both obedience and disobedience have far-reaching implications for Israel’s life as God’s covenant people. If they disobey, the effects will be felt for a long, long time.14

But this still does not answer the question concerning the contradiction between this command and Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:4. How can this be reconciled? Or can it? As I mentioned above, Sarna’s explanation is not out of the question. I would suggest (and only suggest) an alternative, however. Both Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:4 refer specifically to acts of the individual, crimes apparently punishable by death. Also, the reciprocity in these passages goes both ways: The father will not die because of the children, and the children will not die for the father. The intent of Exodus 20:5–6 seems less intensive. It communicates the fact that the degree to which Israel obeys the commandments—in this case, the second commandment—will affect the long-term vibrancy and health of the community. In other words, I take this to be a statement of corporate responsibility, that the disobedience of one or a few (see Josh. 7) affects the whole, not of literal blood descendants paying for their father’s sins.

(3) Third commandment (v. 7). What’s in a name? Plenty. The name of God, the tetragrammaton YHWH, is God’s name. It is the name whose significance was patiently explained to Moses in chapters 3–4. It is the name whose very mention connected the Exodus community to the patriarchs. It is God’s salvation name (3:15; 6:6; 15:3), and as such must be treated with highest respect. Even today, many Jews make no attempt to use or even pronounce the name, referring to God simply as Hashem (Heb. for “the name”). And since it is God’s name, it is an indication of the intimacy between God and his people. Other nations may refer to him as God or the God of Israel, but not as Yahweh.15 This is the name by which Israel, the saved people of God, his treasured possession, his holy people, know him. This is why his name is to be treated with utmost respect.

But what specifically is prohibited in the third commandment? Opinions vary. It may mean to use the name flippantly, pointlessly—the Hebrew root šawʾ, translated “misuse” in the NIV. This root is used again in 23:1, where it seems to mean “false” (as in a false report spread about someone). If we may transport that meaning to here (which is by no means automatically legitimate), it may suggest that the third commandment prohibits saying something false about God, something untrue that compromises his honor.

Others suggest that this commandment refers not to saying something false about God, but using the name in a harmful way towards others, that is, using God’s name to curse others.16 In the end, this is a command that contains a fair amount of ambiguity. Durham’s comments come as close as any to stating the general principle behind the commandment.

The third commandment is directed not toward Yahweh’s protection, but toward Israel’s. Yahweh’s name . . . must be honored, blessed, praised, celebrated, invoked, pronounced, and so shared. To treat Yahweh’s name with disrespect is to treat his gift lightly, to undermine his power, to scorn his Presence, and to misrepresent to the family of humankind his very nature as “The One Who Always Is.”17

The Jewish practice throughout history of not at all pronouncing YHWH is no doubt a safeguard against any possibility of breaking this commandment. Its ambiguity perpetuates zealous adherence.

(4) Fourth commandment (vv. 8–11). This and the fifth commandment are the only two positive commands among the ten. This one is given in three parts: the command itself (v. 8), specification of what it means to keep the commandment (vv. 9–10), and the reason for the commandment (v. 11). The apparent emphasis placed on this commandment, suggested by its length, is in harmony with the foreshadowing of this commandment in 16:26 as well as the reiteration of the importance of the Sabbath in 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 (see comments). Clearly, the issue of the Sabbath is of special concern for the writer.

As for the commandment itself, the Israelites are told to “remember” the Sabbath day. This is not merely a cognitive exercise, any more than remembering your wedding anniversary means simply recalling it. As any forgetful husband can well attest, some concrete demonstration of remembrance is expected. Biblical remembrance requires action. In Exodus, we have seen this already in 2:24 and 6:5, where God remembers Israel in their slavery. There, too, remembering means more than just recalling that the Israelites are slaves. It means delivering them from Egypt. Likewise, by remembering the Sabbath, the Israelites are no doubt required to act in a certain way, a notion supported not only by the alternate phrasing of Deuteronomy 5:12 (“observe”), but by the explicit instructions that follow in Exodus 20:9–10.

The actual phrasing of the commandment is also worth noting. The NIV has, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.” The Hebrew, however, suggests an alternate translation: “in order to keep it holy” (l^eqadd^ešo). I take the lamed preposition (l^e) to indicate purpose, that is, “in order to.”18 The NIV translation equates “remembering” and “keeping holy,” that is, the latter explains the former. I suggest, however, that the explanation for the commandment is addressed in verses 9–10. “Keeping holy” should better be understood as the resulting effect of remembering. “By remembering the Sabbath, Israel, you are treating the day as separate from the other six days. You are treating it as holy.”

But how should this remembering and hallowing of the day be done? This is answered in verses 9–10. Work six days, but on the seventh no one in the Israelite community—not even servants, animals, or aliens19—is to work. But what is work? This question, unfortunately, the commandment does not answer. We do not know whether the ancient Israelites understood it completely either.

The history of Judaism has gone to great lengths to specify precisely what requirements are involved here. Jeremiah 17:22, 24 seem to add some specificity (no loads are to be brought through the city gates on the Sabbath), but this can hardly be understood as other than a specific application of this commandment. Likewise, in Exodus 16:26 the rules about gathering manna do not help us in answering the question of what types of things are and are not covered. In 23:10–11 the law of the Sabbath day is applied to the “Sabbath year” (leave the land unplowed in the seventh year), but this does not help us understand the manner in which the Sabbath day should be observed. In 23:12 the Sabbath command is simply repeated with no further elaboration. The question of how the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath has baffled interpreters for centuries and will not be answered here.

Verse 10 hints at a possible humanitarian motive for the Sabbath—to allow servants and others to rest—although the commandment as given in Deuteronomy 5:14–15 makes this motive much more explicit and central. But even if a similar motive is suggested in Exodus 20:10, the explicit motive given in verse 11 is dominant. The pattern of six days of work followed by one day of rest is to be maintained by the Israelites because this is the pattern of creation. Their “work week” is a reflection of the original work week. Whatever else we might glean from this pattern, one thing is striking especially in light of the author’s use of the creation theme throughout Exodus: Israel’s day-to-day life is a re-creation. God saved Israel to be a new creation community whereby all things would become new.

This is a reconnection with the Garden of Eden as Israel sits poised to enter the land of Canaan, the new garden. As God ordered the universe in Genesis 1, he is now giving Israel order in its existence amid the chaos of the world around them. By resting on the seventh day, Israel is not just following God’s command, but actually following God’s lead. They are doing what he himself did first. This pattern, therefore, is not a burden but a delight and high honor. By ceasing his own work on the seventh day, God declared it to be different, separate—or, as the commandment puts it, “holy.” The Israelites, too, are to “keep it holy” (v. 8) by remembering it.

The first four commandments concern our conduct toward God; the remaining six concern our conduct toward others. But we should not force too sharp a distinction between these two foci, as if the first four are “religious” and the last six “social” or “ethical.” The laws concerning conduct toward others are still commands from God. They are still his laws, so that breaking any commandment, even one against a fellow Israelite, is an offense toward God. That is, there is no sphere in ancient Israelite life that is “secular.”

A twofold division of the law may be suggested by the fact that there were two tablets (cf. 34:1), but such a common view is not problem-free. For one thing, the fourth commandment already contains both “social” and “religious” dimensions, so the hard and fast division is not so clear-cut. Moreover, we are nowhere told what exactly was written on the two tablets. The popular assumption is that the first four commandments were written on the first tablet and the last six on the second, but this is nowhere stated or even implied in the Old Testament. Some have suggested that all ten were on each of the two (i.e., Moses received two copies). This suggestion is based on an analogy with Hittite legal treaties, where two copies of a treaty were made, one for each party. Douma considers this option too speculative, particularly since both tablets were deposited in the ark (Deut. 10:1–5).20 It seems best to leave this matter open.

One thing that is striking about the latter six commandments is their relative brevity, a point that leads to a number of interpretive challenges, especially an ambiguity about precisely how they are to be obeyed. This is not a factor exclusive to these six. We have seen already that the third and fourth commandments are not very explicit either. But the ambiguity of these six commandments is exacerbated precisely because they are so brief.

(5) Fifth commandment (v. 12). Fretheim suggests that the commandment to honor one’s parents is the first one of the second table because it is the most basic of human relationships.21 Even if we assume a four/six division of the commandments (cf. above), this is not entirely convincing. One might think that marriage is “more basic,” especially in view of Genesis 2:20–24. Perhaps the parent/child relationship is basic in another way. It is the most potent human analogy for understanding Israel’s relationship to God, especially since Israel is God’s son (Ex. 4:22–23). In any case, such deliberation is speculative.

Many have suggested over the long history of interpretation that honoring “your father and your mother” necessarily extends to other people of authority in the community. This seems somewhat justifiable in light of the fact that the titles “father” and “mother” were applied to individuals other than parents (e.g., Judg. 5:7; 1 Sam. 24:11; 2 Kings 5:13). But expanding the areas of application does not help us in understanding the essence of the command itself. Various questions arise: What does “honor” of one’s parents mean? Does it mean doing what they say no matter what? What if the parents are wrong? Is there ever a time when children outgrow this commandment?

In light of the ambiguity of this and other commandments, it seems to me that we may be asking too much from them. The Ten Commandments are consistently ambiguous, and I suggest this is not just the case for us but for the ancient Israelites themselves. The purpose of the Ten Commandments is to tell us God’s “pattern of conduct.” They reveal to the Israelites a bit of who God is, knowledge that must translate into appropriate behavior on their part. In other words, as glimpses into the nature of God and his relationship with his people, the Ten Commandments are not exhaustive pieces of legislation that account for each and every contingency and possibility. They are to be obeyed, but as to how, that is a matter of continual reflection by the Israelites as they continue to live and grow in the shadow of God’s love and protection. Examples of specific applications of these commandments are found in chapters 21–23.

As Paul notes in Ephesians 6:2, this is “the first commandment with a promise.” Honoring one’s parents means long life in the land. But this should not be understood in an individual sense. In other words, dishonoring one’s parents does not mean that a child (whether young or old) will die before his or her time. Rather, the reference to length of stay in the land is a warning to the Israelites as a whole (cf. Deut. 4:40; 5:32–33), a fact that underscores just how important this command is. By breaking God’s commands, the people will jeopardize their possession of the land God has given them. This “promise” is not personal blessing, but a blessing for a people to possess a land under God’s rule and thus become a light to the nations.

(6) Sixth commandment (v. 13). The next four commandments are briefer than the fifth. They contain no explanation or threat of consequences. In each, the general gist is clear enough, but they defy a definitive, fuller explication.

A prohibition against murder is nothing new. Murder was reprehensible before this command was given, not only in the Pentateuch as far back as the story of Cain and Abel but in the ancient Near Eastern world as well. This is another reminder that the Ten Commandments were not new, but reiterations of what was known on some level before.

The command clearly does not mean that any taking of a human life is wrong. Killing is something both God and the Israelites, by God’s approval, do throughout the Old Testament. So what is meant here? Only “wrongful” killing of another? If so, what does that mean? What of unintentional killing? Does it pertain only to the killing of human beings, or are animals included in the prohibition? Perhaps only the killing of fellow Israelites is in view. A number of specific situations are addressed in 21:12–36, but they can hardly be thought to be exhaustive. The full implications of this command are made explicit neither here nor in the chapters that follow.

The Hebrew word translated “murder” in the NIV (raṣaḥ) is a common one in the Old Testament. It is a restricted term, generally referring to the killing of someone who is not an “enemy” of the people. In other words, it is not used in contexts of war or just punishment for a crime.22 It can, however, refer to unintentional killing (e.g., Deut. 4:41–43), a circumstance in which “murder” is not an appropriate term. Thus, perhaps, murder is not as straightforward a translation as might be assumed. If the circularity is not too frustrating, at the very least we can state that there is legitimate and illegitimate killing in the Old Testament and that this commandment refers to any type of killing that God disallows. Just what that means is, again, a matter of wise reflection on the part of the Israelite leaders.

Life is something that the God of Israel does not treat lightly, and it is thus incumbent on his people to behave likewise. W. Harrelson puts the entire matter in a helpful perspective:

In short, the sixth commandment stakes out the claim of God over all life and serves notice to all human beings—but especially those who claim the biblical heritage as binding upon them—that God’s claim upon life is to be given priority in the decisions taken by a community of its individual members.23

To what extent we can extrapolate from this commandment the full manner in which the Israelites are obliged to obey remains a matter of ongoing debate.

(7) Seventh commandment (v. 14). Whereas the fifth commandment treats one vital human relationship, this commandment treats another, that between husband and wife. Yet even this is not as straightforward as it might seem at first blush. How did the ancient Israelites understand adultery? It seems that this sin is committed when and only when a married or betrothed woman is involved.24 A married or unmarried man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman had not committed adultery, although this is not to say that there were no consequences of such actions (see Gen. 38; Judg. 16). In such cases, the man would normally be expected to marry the woman (see Ex. 22:16–17). If he already had a wife, he would acquire a second one, since polygamy is not prohibited in the Old Testament.

The focus of the command is physical adultery. True, Jesus later will reveal that the full implications of this commandment includes adultery in the mind, but that is not in view here. God wants the physical intimacy of the marriage bond to be maintained. To say that such a nonspiritual understanding of adultery minimizes the command is not justified, as anyone who has been harmed by adultery can attest. Maintaining the physical sanctity of marriage is a central element in the maintenance of social cohesion, which is not a small consideration in light of Israel’s impending entrance into the land, but it is also an earthly symbol of the intimacy between God and his people. This is why failing to obey Yahweh is described as adultery in Hosea 1–3.

(8) Eighth commandment (v. 15). This commandment is developed somewhat in chapters 21–22. Although the references to stealing are not exhaustive in these chapters, it does give us a framework from which to understand how the Israelites may have heard this command. Stealing includes kidnapping (21:16) in addition to taking animals (22:1, 12) and material things (22:7). Clearly the Israelites have some notion of ownership and rightful property for such a command to make sense. Stealing from one’s “neighbor,” as with the seventh commandment, is a threat to society. It breeds distrust and strife. Little explanation is given perhaps because little is needed.

(9) Ninth commandment (v. 16). Giving “false testimony” (ʿed šeqer) is explained, at least in part, in 23:1–2, 6–8, where the context is clearly legal. It refers not to lying in general but to bearing false testimony in court.25 Israelite justice depended on witnesses to a much larger extent than in modern times.26 Without surveillance cameras or DNA tests, establishing guilt or innocence depended on honest witnesses and their integrity. Some of these matters are elaborated in Deuteronomy. For example, a death sentence is so important it requires two or three unanimous witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). In addition, anyone who accuses another of murder must cast the first stone (17:7). If the accusation is “false,” the accuser bears the punishment the accused would have borne had the accusation been accurate. No frivolous lawsuits in ancient Israel!

As with the other commandments, the focus of this one is not solely on “personal morality” for the sake of being good. It is rather on how one’s behavior affects the health and well-being of the fledgling Israelite community as a whole. When people in a public setting are in a dispute over land or property and, in the course of seeking a fair and just resolution, the parties involved or witnesses intentionally distort the truth, perhaps for personal gain, social cohesion is threatened. God is preparing his people not just to be nice to each other. He is training them to be his people in Canaan, to be order amid chaos, to be a holy people and a kingdom of priests so that by looking at them, the nations will come to know the true God.

(10) Tenth commandment (v. 17). The last commandment is the only one that seems to be restricted to the heart rather than to actions. Coveting (ḥamad) refers to an inward desire that, if fanned, will lead to action.27 Still, the command is concrete, not abstract. In driving home the importance of this command, the Israelite is taken on a tour of his surroundings. Look around you: your neighbor’s wife, his servants, his animals—in fact, anything that belongs to him. Coveting his wife will lead to adultery and the breaking of the seventh commandment. Coveting his servants, animals, or other property will lead to breaking the eighth commandment. In this sense, the tenth commandment may be thought of as a “summary commandment.”28

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the command concerning one’s neighbor’s wife is specific. The command is not given in the reverse, since this specific sin is committed only when a married woman is involved (see comments on the seventh commandment). It stands to reason, in the original context of this commandment, that desiring an unmarried woman (i.e., one who does not “belong” to a man) is not coveting. Moreover, the command does not address a woman, married or unmarried, desiring the husband of another woman. This is not to say that the Bible condones such behavior, only that such behavior is not treated in the Ten Commandments. They have not been designed to address the full scope of human actions.

It is again worth pointing out that the precise manner in which this desire is manifest is not made clear. How does one monitor whether one is coveting? What has to “happen” in order for the commandment to be broken? Is there a public dimension that might make the matter more open to general scrutiny? Or is this essentially a private matter? If answers to these and other questions were available, much less would be written on the subject.

What seems to me to be of great help in understanding the original purpose of the Ten Commandments is their function in the community. These are commands given by a saving God to a recently saved people for whom he has a national purpose. In this sense, the traditional twofold division of the commands—the first four directed toward God and the last six toward the community—can be justified, at least in part. As God’s people, his special possession, the Israelites must know what he requires of them. Being an Israelite is not a matter of private, personal piety. It has vertical and horizontal dimensions, and obedience to God is required on both fronts. After all, if Israelites cannot behave properly toward their God and cannot treat each other as “special people,” as God treats them, how can they ever be a light to the Gentiles? How can they ever be a kingdom of priests in a world that does not know the true God?