Protestent Ten Commandments

[patrick457]

If we divide the imperatives:

I am YHWH, your God, who brought you out of Mitzraim, from a house of slaves:

There will not be for you other gods upon my face.

You will not make for yourself an idol (pesel), and any likeness (temunah) which is in the heavens above, and which is on the earth beneath, and which is in the waters under the earth.

You will not bow yourself down to them,

And you will not serve them: for I, YHWH your God, am a zealous God, registering the iniquity of fathers on sons, upon the third, and upon the fourth of those hating me, and showing loving-kindness to thousands, of those loving me and keeping my commandments.

You will not take up the name of YHWH your God for a falseness, for YHWH will not acquit him who takes up His name for a falseness.

Remember the day of the Sabbath to set him apart [as holy].

Six days you will serve, and you will do all your work, and the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God.

You will not do any work, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant, and your beast, and your stranger who is in your gates, for six days had YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and rested in the seventh day; therefore YHWH blessed the day of the Sabbath, and set him apart [as holy].

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days will be made long on the ground which YHWH your God is giving to you.

You will not murder.

You will not commit adultery.

You will not steal.

You will not answer against your neighbor a lying witness.

You will not crave the house of your neighbor:

You will not crave the woman of your neighbor, and his manservant, and his maidservant, and his ox, and his donkey, and all which is your neighbor’s.

 

[patrick457]

Doesn’t ‘graven’ mean carved (in stone)? i.e. statues? I think photos, digital photos, TV pictures, these things: , and drawings (unless you scratch them into a rockface) are all OK. Actually, I think even graven images are really OK as long as you’re not worshiping them…like your neighboring pagan-clans do.

Glennonite

In the cultural context, yes, the word pesel (translated traditionally as ‘graven image’) does refer to an image hewn from stone or cut from wood - or later, to those cast from metal. Pesel comes from the verb pasal, ‘to hew [into shape]’, ‘fashion by cutting’ or ‘to carve’. Most occurrences of pesel in the Old Testament generally takes it to mean a sort of cultic image and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery (hence the editorial decision of some translations to render it more loosely as ‘idol’).

This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of ‘to hew’ or ‘to carve’. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.

 

[patrick457]

Since we’re talking about pesel, I dug up something I wrote a while back:

Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.

Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, “to hew [into shape]”, “fashion by cutting” or “to carve” in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of “cultic image” (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of “to hew” or “to carve”. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.

The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).

We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen, humans, and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban - and it would seem that the prohibition of representations was less rigid in the preexilic period. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.

http://creationwiki.org/images/thumb/f/f5/Lmlk_seal.jpg/250px-Lmlk_seal.jpg
LMLK stamp
Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.

The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.

The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.

We now need to distinguish between aniconism and iconoclasm, which might help clarify the issue of graven images. Aniconic cults are usually defined as those where there are no iconic representations of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant central or cultic symbol, while iconoclasm is the active, religiously motivated hatred of images, that is, the injunction against making or venerating images within a given religion, as well as the damaging and demolition of images of another religion. We can divide aniconism itself into two categories: (1) de facto aniconism, a more fairly tolerant form, and (2) programmatic aniconism, which moves toward a rigorous iconoclasm but which developed out of the aniconic tendency of an earlier time.

 

[patrick457]

De facto aniconism often merely used symbols, such as a stela or an empty throne, to mark the deity’s presence. Programmatic aniconism meanwhile represents the development from a generally assumed use of empty space or certain symbols to a very explicit stand against any depiction of the deity. In the case of the Israelites, de facto aniconism in the ‘official’ cults was represented both by the cherubim of the Ark and possibly the ‘golden calves’ that Jeroboam erected (1 Kings 12:25-33). Now aniconistic tendencies were not unique to the Israelites, we must remember; there was a was a type of aniconism common in the West Semitic region known as ‘standing stone aniconism’ (where standing-stones or maṣṣeboth have a prominence).



We do not know exactly when the Israelites, which rejected even standing stones in its cult, moved towards de facto aniconism to a programmic one, which according to some was that which made Israelite religion rather distinct. We can already see its signs however by the seventh century BC, when Judean name seals show a clear tendency towards aniconicity, a tendency that is not exclusive but begins even further back and then becomes quite pronounced.

Some, however, think that the best way to interpret the evidence is thus: aniconism was the official, dominant position throughout Israelite history, but it was not totally uniform. From earliest times, the main or official cult of the God of Israel was largely aniconic, as represented in its leaders and its sanctuaries. At earlier times, a number cultic paraphernalia that were later regarded as ‘idols’ seem to have been tolerated in some circles, but were eventually condemned outright by major elements of the official cult (for example, prophets and kings). At the same time, unofficial, domestic cults and extramural shrines were probably more open to iconography and maybe even outright housed images of the Deity - which is also eventually frowned upon.

The meaning and function of the absence of images is less certain. The attachment of the prohibition of pesel to the prohibition against the worship of other gods suggests that at least one function of the commandment was to ensure and safeguard exclusive worship of YHWH. The associations of other nations’ gods with pesel meant that a representation of deity could always be potentially another deity. The aniconic tendency was therefore, a feature of the conflict - divergence and differentiation of YHWH vis-a-vis other, false deities. Another function could be that it helped preserve the transcendence of God as well as the proper form of God’s immanence in the world, as the book of Deuteronomy implies.

Yet another suggestion is that the ban was closely linked to socio-political and economic realities. The close association of conceptions of kingship and deity in the ancient world, may have been a factor for this. The king was regarded in the ANE as the earthly representative of the gods, and as such the divine image was regarded as a symbol of the legitimacy of the earthly king. Images of gods was thus treated and pictured as kings, therefore serving as a reminder of the king’s divinely-given authority. The resistance to pesel may have therefore been linked to a distinctive feature of Israel’s early social structure: a resistance to kingship. The images on thrones were gods and kings; having a physical image of YHWH on a throne could have served to suggest and legitimize a leadership foreign to Israel’s social structure.

 

[patrick457]

The Hebrew word “mitvos” and “mitzvah” (if I have that right so far) are one the singular and the other the plural for commandment. The idiomatic meaning of the word is “blessing.” They consider they are blessed by performing a commandment. As the case may be, they even pray before the performance of a commandment.

Indeed (for the record, mitzvos is the Ashkenazic pronunciation; you can also find it transliterated as miṣwoth or mitzvot).

Though I must note that in Hebrew as well as in Greek, the Ten ‘Commandments’ are called Asereth ha-D’bharîm (or Asereth ha-Dibroth) and Dekalogos respectively: the Ten Words.

When compared to the whole canon of Jewish law, the Ten Words are not given any greater significance in observance or special status. In fact, when undue emphasis was being placed on them in ancient times, their daily communal recitation was discontinued and discouraged. Jewish tradition does, however, recognize them as the ideological basis for the other mitzvot. Rabbinic Jewish belief is of the opinion that these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jews, and that the laws incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws - which do overlap with the Ten Words at times.

 

[patrick457]

Also, the depiction of the tablets with curved tops is merely an artistic embellishment that came along a couple hundred years ago, they were previously depicted on rectangular stones. The curved top tablets have even been picked up by the Jews, but it is not significant in a doctrinal or historical fashion, that I am aware of. It simply becomes a logo for the ten commandments, if I may use the term.

Yes. It begins to appear AFAIK in medieval art, but most earlier depictions (mostly Christian) show them like normal writing tablets: perfect rectangles.

A Jewish legend has it that the Tablets of the Law were actually were cubes made of sapir (sapphire/lapis lazuli) as a reminder of the heavens (cf. Exodus 24:9-10), six tefachim (handbreadths; 1 tefach=8-10 centimeters) long and wide, and three tefachim thick. The words were not just engraved on the surface, but rather were bored fully through the stone (cf. Exodus 32:15, “on the one side and on the other were they written”), yet both sides appeared normally instead of the reverse side being a mirror image as one would expect.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2730/75823226.png

Here is my own rendition of the tablets as described in Jewish lore, courtesy of Google Sketchup. Note however that the tablets were supposed to contain “all the precepts of the Torah in all their particulars,” categorized according to their respective commandments and that they can be rolled up like a scroll, despite of them being hewn out of stone (Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews III; Exodus Rabbah VIII).

Some scholars think however, that it is most likely that the Tablets were actually much smaller ostraca (singular ostracon; a piece of pottery or stone usually containing scratched-in words or other forms of writing). In Egypt, anything with a smooth surface could be used as a writing surface. Because papyrus was too valuable and costly, people in those days usually scribbled short notes and matters of no lasting value (say, sketches, receipts or scribal exercises) on broken pottery or in flakes of stone chipped out of rocks. Modern scholars are grateful for this economic attitude, since these hard surfaces lasted longer than papyrus, which rotted in damp areas. Ostraca have been very valuable resources in researching human society and behavior in ancient cultures: some of these have been found to contain ancient literary texts, stories or folk songs.

The fact that the Tablets were made of stone suggest that they were quite larger than many clay tablets (another popular writing medium in the Ancient Near East - and one that is also considered by a few such as Giovanni Garbini to be candidates for the Tablets of the Law), though some inscribed pieces or tablets of stone were still small enough to fit the human palm, convenient for holding with one hand while writing on it with the other. The Gezer Calendar (10th century BC), for example, is only 11.1 centimeters long and 7.2 centimeters wide.

Writing on the front or back was not unusual (again Exodus 32:15, “on the one side and on the other were they written”). When the scribe reached the end of one side, he would often continue around the bottom edge and then move onto the second side. Even flakes that fit in the palm could contain around 15-20 lines or more.

http://historyofscience.com/G2I/timeline/images/gezer_calendar.jpg
The Gezer calendar (c. 10th century BC), discovered in Gezer by R.A.S. Macalister in his excavations between 1902 and 1907, is a tablet of soft limestone inscribed in a “Phoenician” or what has been called paleo-Hebrew script. The calendar describes monthly or bi-monthly periods and attributes to each a duty such as harvest, planting, or tending specific crops. The text could either be a schoolboy’s memory exercise or perhaps the text of a popular folk song or even a mnemonic designed for the collection of taxes from farmers.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/903/359pxostraconmentioning.jpg
A hieratic ostracon mentioning officials involved with the inspection and clearing of tombs during the time of the 21st dynasty, circa 1070-945 BC. Originally from Thebes.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/images/ps331488_m.jpg
Ostrakon containing the final lines of The Tale of Sinuhe (29.5 cm x 17 cm) probably from Thebes, c. 1250 BC

 

[patrick457]

How many commandments were contained in one tablet was a matter of debate, even for the rabbis. In the Mekhilta (an early midrashic collection on Exodus ascribed pseudonymously to Rabbi Ishmael, AD 90-135), Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel is quoted as expressing: “How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on one tablet and five on the other. ‘I am the Lord’ was written across ‘You shall not murder’…but the Sages say ten on one tablet and ten on the other”. These two traditions are maintained in Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, sec. 47.6, where the same controversy is ascribed to the Amoraim, Rabbi Judah (arguing for five on each) and Rabbi Nehemiah (saying there were ten on each).

St. Augustine, meanwhile, was of the opinion that (Sermo 33,2,2L 38,208, quoted in the Catechism, paragraph 2067):

As charity comprises the two commandments to which the Lord related the whole Law and the prophets…so the Ten Commandments were themselves given on two tablets. Three were written on one tablet and seven on the other.

Both the arrangements proposed by Rabbi Hanina and St. Augustine seem to be more a theologically-oriented parsing of the Commandments: one category identifies our relationship with God, and the other our relationship with our neighbors:

Talmudic Division

God

1.) I am the Lord your God.
2.) You shall have no other gods before me.
3.) You shall not misuse the name of your God.
4.) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
5.) Honor your father and mother. (Was it grouped here because, after all, God is our Father?)

Neighbor

6.) You shall not murder.
7.) You shall not commit adultery.
8.) You shall not steal.
9.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.) You shall not covet.

Catholic Division (as per St. Augustine)

God

1.) I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me.
2.) You shall not misuse the name of your God.
3.) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Neighbor

4.) Honor your father and mother.
5.) You shall not murder.
6.) You shall not commit adultery.
7.) You shall not steal.
8.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Which brings us to the ten-ten arrangement favored by the earlier Sages (pre-Mishna). This belief has a curious resemblance to customs practiced in the Ancient Near East during treaties made between two or more parties. It is customary for every written treaty to be issued in duplicate, each party receiving a complete copy. One example of this is the treaty containing the pact made between Ramses II and the Hittite King Hattusilis III, c. 1270 B.C. The Egyptian copy was found in Egypt, and the Hittite one in the capital of the Hittites, in eastern Turkey. The contents of both copies are identical.

Thus, we can say that one tablet was Israel’s copy of the covenant, while the other was God’s. It is obvious that the Lord’s tablet had to be deposited where the Divine Presence is, but what about Israel’s tablet?

When a covenant was struck between parties of unequal status, the lesser partner, or vassal, would place his copy of the pact in the temple of his god, the reason being that the vassal had then to take an oath in the name of his god to the sovereign. Depositing a copy in the temple of the vassal strengthened the vassal’s obligation to the greater king. In addition, sanctity was ascribed to the treaty itself, because the gods of each side were witness to the agreement. Since the Israelites were the lesser partners to the covenant, it was natural to file their copy under the feet of the God of Israel - within the Ark which symbolizes His throne and footstool.

http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Eros_Cherub-Seraph_files/image042.jpg

Also, the fact that both these two copies of the covenant were contained inside the Ark further symbolized the Ark’s role as a point of contact between God and His people, the place where His relationship with them was symbolized by the Law, obedience to which linked Israel to God and vice versa.

 

[PJM]

=patrick457;8019808]Nuh-uh. The ‘Protestant’ (sic) division of the Commandments - more properly called the Philonic Division - actually has quite an ancient pedigree: in fact, it is found in the writings of Philo and Josephus, who both employ this reckoning long before Protestantism even existed.

Now the most excellent five were of this character, they related to the monarchial principle on which the world is governed; to images and statues, and in short to all erections of any kind made by hand; to the duty of not taking the name of God in vain; to that of keeping the holy seventh day in a manner worthy of its holiness; to paying honour to parents both separately to each, and commonly to both. So that of the one table the beginning is the God and Father and Creator of the universe; and the end are one’s parents, who imitate his nature, and so generate the particular individuals. And the other table of five contains all the prohibitions against adulteries, and murder, and theft, and false witness, and covetousness.

• Philo, De Decalogo 12.51

Having said this, he led the people forward, together with the women and children, so that they might hear God converse with them concerning what they must do, in order that the excellence of spoken words might not be harmed by a human tongue in being transmitted to their knowledge. All heard a voice coming from on high to all, so that none of the ten sayings escaped them that Moyses left inscribed on the two tablets. It is not permitted for us to speak them openly verbatim, but we shall reveal their contents.

The first saying teaches us that God is one and that it is necessary to worship him alone. The second bids us to make an image of no living being or to worship it, the third to swear by God on nothing insignificant, the fourth to observe the seventh days by ceasing from all work, the fifth to honor parents, the sixth to desist from murder (φόνου), the seventh not to commit adultery, the eighth not to engage in theft, the ninth not to bear false witness, and the tenth to desire (ἐπιθυμίαν) nothing belonging to another.

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3.89-92 (5.5)

We cannot say it was done for iconoclastic purposes or that each and everyone of those who use the division are ‘iconoclastic’, since we would have to accuse the Eastern Churches* - which use imagery as well and have themselves took a good deal of damage during the Iconoclast heresy in the 8th-9th centuries, as well as Origen (who did adopt it in his Homilies on Exodus, Homily 8 On the Beginning of the Decalogue), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (The Decalogue of Moses) and St. Jerome (Commentary on Ephesians 6) of being iconoclastic themselves.

• Yes, ladies and gents: this is the way the Ten Words are divided in the East!

***The REASON WHY seems to me to be a mute point.

Either 2nt. Tim.3:16 is correct or the Bible is ueless for teaching and or learning one/s faith.

To agree that it is ONLY Correct selectevly [and of corse I get to pick it] is illogical and foolish. It puts unecessarly SOULS at risk.***

God Bles,
Pat

 

[patrick457]

***The REASON WHY seems to me to be a mute point.

Either 2nt. Tim.3:16 is correct or the Bible is ueless for teaching and or learning one/s faith.

To agree that it is ONLY Correct selectevly [and of corse I get to pick it] is illogical and foolish. It puts unecessarly SOULS at risk.***

God Bles,
Pat

I’m very sorry if I sound too slow, but what exactly do you mean?

 

[PJM]

=patrick457;8026996]I’m very sorry if I sound too slow, but what exactly do you mean?

Originally Posted by PJM
The REASON WHY seems to me to be a mute point.

Either 2nt. Tim.3:16 is correct or the Bible is ueless for teaching and or learning one/s faith.

To agree that it is ONLY Correct selectevly [and of corse I get to pick it] is illogical and foolish. It puts unecessarly SOULS at risk.

God Bles,
Pat

2Tim.3: 16 to 17 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

THANKS for asking

Comon sense - logic holds the the ENTIRE Bible is Inspired by God and therefore must absolutely be TRUE. [But not always factual].

The MOST important truism of correct understanding of the Bible is that NEVER can one section contradict a TEACHING of another section. WERE THIS POSSIBLE it would make the Bible useless for teaching or learning the Faith of Christ.

It is extremely dangerous to one’s personal salvation to pick this or that verse, cull it out of context and them attempt to build a theological position around it. Even more dangereous is NOT accepting Christ own WORDS and Teaching as SPOKEN, rather than attempting to reinterpret them to a completely foreign meaning.

**2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 ** “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

ACTS 8: 29-32 “And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.”

Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;* that through the church ***[SINGULAR: THEE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

God Bless you friend,
Pat