By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854
BOOK THIRD.
CHAPTER II, SECTION I.
The historical transactions connected with the redemption of Israel from the land of Egypt, were not immediately succeeded by the introduction of that complicated form of symbolical worship, which peculiarly distinguishes the dispensation of Moses. There was an intermediate space occupied by revelations, which were in themselves of the greatest moment, and which also stood in a relation of closest intimacy with the symbolical religion that followed. The period we refer to is that to which belongs the giving of the law. And it is impossible to understand aright the nature of the tabernacle and its worship, or the purposes they were designed to accomplish, without first obtaining a clear insight into the prior revelation of law, and the place it was intended to hold in the dispensation brought in by Moses.
What precisely formed this revelation of law, and what was the nature of its requirements? This must be our first subject of inquiry; and by a careful investigation of the points connected with it, we hope to avoid some prolific sources of confusion and error, and prepare the way for a correct understanding of the dispensation as a whole, and the proper adjustment of its several parts.
I. There can be no doubt that the word law is used both, in the Old and the New Testament Scriptures with some latitude, and that what is meant by "the law" in one place, is sometimes considerably different from what is meant by it in another. It is used to designate indifferently precepts and appointed observances of any kind, as well as the books in which they are enjoined. This only implies, however, that the things commanded by Moses had so much in common that they might be all comprehended in one general term. It does not prevent that the law of the ten commandments may have been properly and distinctively the law to Israel, and on that account might have a peculiar and preeminent place assigned it in the dispensation. We are convinced that such in reality was the case, and present the following considerations in support of it.
1. The very manner in which these commandments were delivered is sufficient to vindicate for them a place peculiarly their own. For these alone, of all the precepts which form the Mosaic code, were spoken immediately by the voice of God; while the rest were privately communicated to Moses, and by him delivered to the people. Nor were they simply proclaimed by God himself in the hearing of all the people, but that amidst demonstrations of divine majesty, such as were never witnessed on any other occasion. So awfully grand and magnificent was the scene, and so overwhelming the impression produced by it, that the people, we are told, could not endure the sight, and Moses himself exceedingly feared and quaked. That this unparalleled display of the infinite majesty and greatness of Jehovah should have been made to accompany the deliverance of only these ten commandments, seems to have been intended to invest them with a very peculiar character and bearing.
2. The same also may be inferred from their number--ten, the symbol of completeness. It indicates that they formed by themselves an entire whole, made up of the necessary, and no more than the necessary, complement of parts. A good deal of what, if not altogether fanciful, is at least incapable of any solid proof, has recently been propounded, especially by Bahr and Hengstenberg, regarding the symbolical import of numbers. But there are certain points which may be considered to have been thoroughly established respecting them; and none more so than the symbolical import of ten, as indicating completeness. The ascribing of such an import to this number appears to have been of very ancient origin; for traces are to be found of it in the earliest and most distant nations; and even Spencer, who never admits a symbol where he can possibly avoid it, is constrained to allow a symbolical import here. [1] "The ten," to use the words of Bahr, [2] "by virtue of the general laws of thought shuts up the series of primary numbers, and comprehends all in itself. Now, since the whole numeral system consists of so many decades (tens), and the first decade is the type of this endlessly repeating series, the nature of number in general is in this last fully developed, and the entire course comprised in its idea. Hence the first decade, and of course also the number ten is the representative of the whole numeral system. And as number is employed to symbolize being in general, ten must denote the complete perfect being, that is, a number of particulars necessarily connected together, and combined into one whole. So that ten is the natural symbol of perfection and completeness itself--a definite whole, to which nothing is wanting." It is on account of this symbolical import of the number ten, that the plagues of Egypt were precisely of that number--forming as such a complete round of judgments; and it was for the same reason that the transgressions of the people in the wilderness were allowed to proceed till the same number had been reached--when they had "sinned ten times," they had filled up the measure of their iniquities (Numb. xiv. 22). Hence also the consecration of the tenths or tithes, which had grown into an established usage so early as the days of Abraham (Gen, xiv, 20). The whole increase was represented by ten, and one of these was set apart to the Lord in token of all being derived from him and held of him. So this revelation of law from Sinai, which was to serve for all coming ages as the grand expression of God's holiness, and the summation of man's duty, was comprised in the number ten, to indicate its perfection as one complete and comprehensive whole--"the all that a divinely called people, as well as a single individual, should and should not do in reference to God and their neighbour." [3]
3. It perfectly accords with this view of the ten commandments, and is a farther confirmation of it, that they were written by the finger of God on two tables of stone--written on both sides, so as to cover the entire surface, and not leave room for future additions, as if what was already given might admit of improvements; and written on durable tables of stone, while the rest of the law was written only on parchment or paper. It was for no lack of writing materials, as Hengstenberg has fully shewn, [4] that in this and other cases the engraving of letters upon stones was used in that remote period; for materials in great abundance existed in Egypt and its neighbourhood, and are known to have been used from the earliest times, in the papyrus, the byssus-manufacture, and the skins of beasts. "The stone," he justly remarks, "points to the perpetuity which belongs to the law, as an expression of the divine will, originating in the divine nature. It was an image of the truth uttered by our Lord, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled,'"
4. Then, these ten words, as they are called, had the singular honour conferred on them of being properly the terms of the covenant formed at Sinai. Thus Moses, when rehearsing what had taken place, says, Deut. iv. 13, "And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone," Again in ch. ix. 9, 11, he calls these tables of stone "the tables of the covenant." So also in Ex, xxxiv. 28, "the words written upon the tables, the ten commandments," are expressly called "the words of the covenant." It is true, some other commands are recorded in the preceding context; and in the verse immediately preceding the Lord said to Moses, that "after the tenor of (at the mouth of, according to) these words he had made a covenant with Israel." It is true, also, that at the formal ratification of the covenant, Ex. xxiv, we read of the book of the covenant, which comprehended not only the ten commandments, but also the precepts contained in ch. xxi.-xxiii.; for it is clear that this book comprised all that the Lord had. then said either directly or by the instrumentality of Moses, and to which the people answered, "we will do it." But it is carefully to be observed, that a marked distinction is still put between the ten commandments and the other precepts; for the former are called emphatically "the words of the Lord," while the additional words given through Moses are called "the judgments" (v. 3). They are, indeed, peculiarly rights or judgments, having respect for the most part to what should be done from one man to another, and what, in the event of violations of the law being committed, ought to be enforced judicially with the view of rectifying or checking the evil. Their chief object was to secure through the instrumentality of the magistrate, that if the proper love should fail to influence the hearts and lives of the people, still the right should be maintained. Yet while these form the great body of the additional words communicated to Moses and written in the book of the covenant, the symbolical institutions had also a certain place assigned them; for both in ch. xxiii, and again in ch. xxiv, the three yearly feasts and one or two other points of this description are noticed. But still these directions and judgments formed no proper addition to the matter of the ten commandments, considered as God's revelation of law to his people. The terms of the covenant still properly stood, as we are expressly and repeatedly told, in the ten commandments; and what, besides, was added before the ratification of the covenant, cannot justly be regarded as having had any other object in view, in so far as they partook of the nature of laws, than as subsidiary directions and restraints to aid in protecting the covenant, and securing its better observance. The feast-laws, in particular, so far from forming any proper addition to the terms of the covenant, had respect primarily to the people's profession of adherence to it, and gave directions concerning the sacramental observances of the Jewish church.
5. What has been said in regard to the ten commandments, as alone properly constituting the terms of the covenant, is fully established, and the singular importance of these commandments further manifested, by the place afterwards assigned them in the tabernacle. The most sacred portion of this, that which formed the very heart and centre of all the services connected with it, was the ark of the covenant. It was the peculiar symbol of the Lord's covenant-presence and faithfulness, and immediately above it was the throne on which he sat as king in Jeshurun. But that ark was made on purpose to contain the two tables of the law, and was called "the ark of the covenant," simply because it contained "the tables of the covenant," The book of the law was afterwards placed by Moses at the side of the ark (Deut. xxxi. 26), that it might serve as a check upon the Levites, who were the proper guardians and keepers of the book; it was a wise precaution lest they should prove unfaithful to their charge. The tables on which the ten commandments were written, alone kept possession of the ark, and were thus plainly recognized as containing in themselves the sum and substance of what was strictly held to be required by the covenant in righteousness.
6. Finally, our Lord and his apostles always point to the revelation of law engraven upon these stones as holding a pre-eminent place, and, indeed, as comprising all that in the strict and proper sense was to be esteemed as law. The Scribes and Pharisees of that age had completely inverted the order of things. Their carnality and self-righteousness had led them to exalt the precepts respecting ceremonial observances to the highest place, and to throw the duties inculcated in the ten commandments comparatively into the back ground--thus treating the mere appendages of the covenant as of more account than its very ground and basis. Hence, when seeking to expose the insufficient and hollow nature of "the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees," our Lord made his appeal to the testimony engraved on the two tables, and most commonly, indeed, though not exclusively, to the precepts of the second table, because he had to do more especially with hypocrites, whose defects and shortcomings might most readily be exposed by a reference to the duties of the second table, (Matt, xix, 16; Luke x. 25, xviii. 18, &c.) In such cases, as Calvin justly remarks, "Christ speaks of those works by which a man ought to approve himself as just. The obedience of the first table consisted almost entirely either in the internal affection of the heart, or in ceremonies. The affection of the heart was not visible, and hypocrites were diligent in the observance of ceremonies; but the works of charity were of such a nature as to be a solid attestation of righteousness." [5] For the same reason, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, which was chiefly intended to be an exposition of the real nature and far-reaching import of the ten commandments, bears most respect to those commandments which belonged to the second table, and which had suffered most from the corruption of the times. But the prophets of the Old Testament had done precisely the same thing in reproving the ungodliness prevalent in their day. They were continually striving to recal men from the mere outward observances which the most worthless hypocrites could perform, to the sincere piety toward God, and deeds of substantial kindness toward man, required by the law of the two tables; so that the prophets, as well as the law, were truly said to hang upon one and the same commandment of love. [6] In like manner, the Apostle Paul, after Christ, as the prophets before, when discoursing in regard to the law, what it was or was not, what it could or could not do, always has in view pre-eminently the law of the two tables. Without an exception his examples are taken from the very words of these, or what they clearly prohibited and required, (Kom. ii. 17-23, iii. 10-18, vii. 7, xiii. 9,10; 1 Tim. i. 7-10.) This, of course, does not exactly apply to the argument maintained in the epistles to the Galatians and Colossians, where the error met and opposed consisted in an undue exaltation of the ceremonial institutions by themselves, as if the observance of these by the Christian Church were essential to salvation. In this case he could not possibly avoid referring chiefly to precepts of a ceremonial nature, and discussing them with respect to the light in which they were improperly viewed by certain parties in the apostolic church. But when the question was, what the law in its strict and proper sense really required, and what were the ends it was fitted to serve, he never fails to manifest his concurrence with the other inspired writers in taking the ten words as the law and the testimony, by which everything was to be judged and determined.
We should despair of proving any thing respecting the Old Testament dispensation, if these considerations do not prove that the law of the ten commandments stood out from all the other precepts enjoined under the ministration of Moses, and were intended to form a full and comprehensive exhibition of the righteousness of the law, in its strict and proper sense. No doubt, many of the other precepts teach substantially what these commandments did, or contain statements and regulations bearing some way upon their violation or observance. But this was not clone with the view of supplying any new or additional matter of obligation; it was merely intended to explain their real import, or to give instructions how to adapt to them what might be called the jurisprudence of the state. We cannot but regard it as an unhappy circumstance, tending to perpetuate much misunderstanding and confusion regarding the legislation of Moses, that the distinction has been practically overlooked, which it so manifestly assigns to the ten commandments, and that they have so generally been regarded by the more learned theologians, as the kind of quintessence of the whole Mosaic code, as the few general or representative heads under which all the rest are to be ranged. Thus Calvin, while he held the ten commandments to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and gave for the most part a correct, as well as admirable exposition of their tenor and design, yet failed to bring out distinctly their singular and prominent place in the Mosaic economy, and in his commentary reduces all the ceremonial institutions to one or other of these ten commandments. They were, therefore, regarded by him as standing to the entire legislation of Moses in the relation of primary elements or heads. And in that case, there must have been, as he partially admits there was, something shadowy in the one as well as in the other. But what was chiefly a defect of arrangement in Calvin and many subsequent writers, has in Bahr been elevated into a formal principle, and is laid as the foundation of his view of the whole Mosaic system. "The decalogue is representative of the whole law; it contains religious and political, not less than moral precepts. The first command is a purely religious one; as is also the fourth, which belongs to the ceremonial law; and, indeed, generally by reason of the theocratical constitution, all civil commands were at the same time religious and moral ones, and inversely; so that the old division into moral, ceremonial, and political, or judicial, appears quite untenable." [7] On this point he even quotes Spencer with approbation, who considered all the different classes of precepts to be exhibited in the decalogue as on a small tablet, or in a brief compend. The majority of continental divines, evangelical as well as rationalistic, and as well in present as in former times, substantially espouse the same view. The mischievous consequences involved in it will appear in the course of our remarks upon some parts of the decalogue itself, and also afterwards when unfolding the relation of the decalogue to the ceremonial institutions. It is such an error as confounds the means of salvation with the great principles of religious and moral obligation, and leaves, if followed out, no solid basis for the doctrine of a vicarious atonement to rest on. With perfect consistence, Bahr constructs his system without the help of such an atonement.
II. We proceed now to consider the excellence of this law of the ten commandments, and to shew by an examination of its method and substance, how justly it was regarded as a complete and perfect summary of religious and moral duty.
It is scarcely possible, even at this stage of the world's history, to consider with any care the words of this law, without in some measure apprehending its high character as a standard of rectitude. And could we throw ourselves back to the time when it was first promulgated--instead of looking at it, as we now do, from the eminence of a clearer and more perfect revelation--could we distinctly contemplate it, as given seventeen centuries before the Christian era, and received as the summary of all that is morally right and dutiful by a people who had just left the polluted atmosphere of Egypt, we could not fail to discern, in the very existence of such a law, one of the most striking proofs of the divine character of the Mosaic legislation. We should be much more disposed to exclaim here, than in regard to the outward prodigy, which first called forth the declaration, "This is the finger of God."
A remarkable testimony was given to the general excellence of the decalogue, and its vast superiority as a code of morality, to any thing found among the native superstitions of the East, in the language of those Indians referred to by Dr Claudius Buchanan: "If you send us a missionary, send us one who has learned your ten commandments." [8] If modern idolaters were thus taken with the divine beauty and singular preciousness of these commandments, we know those could have no less reason to be so, to whom they were first delivered. For the land of Egypt, out of which they had recently escaped, was as remarkable for the grossness of its superstition as for the superiority of its learning and civilization. As far back as our information respecting it carries us, at a period certainly more remote than that in which Israel sojourned within its borders, the Egyptians appear to have been immersed in the deepest mire of idolatry and its kindred abominations; and on them, in an especial sense, was chargeable the guilt and folly of "having changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." Not satisfied even with this wide range of image-worship, they multiplied to themselves idols of monstrous forms, such as to their vain imaginations seemed fit symbols, through which to contemplate and adore the objects of their worship. And the kind of worship they paid their idol-gods, it is now ascertained, was connected with the foulest pollutions and most vicious excesses. There are not wanting indications of this in Herodotus, and several allusions are also made to it in the Books of Moses. But one of the most profound inquirers into the religion of the ancients, has recently shewn, on evidence the most complete, that the worship of ancient Egypt was essentially of a Bacchanalian character, full of lust and revelry; that its most frequented rites were accompanied with scenes of wantonness and impure indulgence; and that it sometimes gave rise to enormities not fit to be mentioned. [9]
Such was the atmosphere in which the Israelites had lived during their abode in Egypt; and it was when fresh from such a region, that the law of the ten commandments was proclaimed in their hearing, and laid as the foundation of their entire polity,--- a law which unfolds the clearest views of God's character and service--which denounces every form and species of idolatry as inconsistent with the spirituality of the divine nature--which, enjoins the purest worship and the highest morality, and in its very form is a model of perfection and completeness. Wisdom of this kind Moses could least of all have learned from the Egyptians; nor could it have been his, unless it had descended to him from above. [10]
1. Let us look first to the perfection manifested in the beautiful order and arrangement of these commandments. They were written on two tables, and fall into two grand divisions corresponding to these--the first comprehending our duty to God, and the second our duty to man. This is admitted on all hands, though there is some diversity of opinion where the one terminates and the other begins. Discarding the view adopted by the Roman Catholic, and generally also by Lutheran writers, which, by arbitrarily throwing the two first commandments into one, and splitting the last into two, places only three in the first table and seven in the last; the division most commonly adopted by Protestant divines, is that of four in the first and six in the second table. Yet this division does not appear to accord with the significance manifestly attached to the number ten, in which the whole are comprised, and which, in the case of a division into two great parts, we might naturally have expected to fall into two fives-- two equal, incomplete halves. This also is what Josephus testifies to have been done, for he affirms that there were "five commandments upon each table, and two and a half upon each side of them." [11] We are certainly not disposed to regard his testimony as by any means conclusive but it is so far entitled to weight, as it no doubt expresses the current opinion or general tradition of his countrymen. And a more careful consideration of the nature of the fifth commandment will be found to vindicate its title to a place in the first rather than in the second table. For if the sum of the second table be, "Love thy neighbour as thyself," as is clearly implied in both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures (Lev. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 39), the command to honour parents can scarcely with propriety be included in it, as they do not stand on a footing of equality, in the relation of "a neighbour," strictly so called. They are rather, according to the scriptural view, to be regarded as representatives of God, to whom he delegates a portion of his authority, and for whom he consequently exacts a portion of the honour due to himself. Hence the apostle Paul directs, that children should be taught "to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents,"--thus making filial reverence and dutiful regard to parents of the essence of religion. "The fifth commandment," says Baumgarten, excellently, "enjoins the honouring of parents; but Jehovah alone is entitled to honour, and a man as such has no honour before others as such. If, however, the word here is of an obligation to give honour to men, this is what they could only have from God. Parents are therefore regarded as those whom God appoints to receive honour from their children. Nor is there any difficulty in understanding how it should be so; for the creative power of God, on which all life depends, is communicated to the children through their parents; so that God, as the creator of life, appears to the children primarily in the parents, as the earthly divinities (the diis terrestribus), to use the language of Grotius. We can thus readily explain why the command to honour parents has been assigned to the first half of the ten words, which expressly refers to Jehovah, as we also find in each one of those five first words the designation, 'The Lord thy God.' But since the relation between parents and children is the basis of all the divinely constituted relations of human society, which involve stations of superiority and inferiority, as the nam.es also of father and mother have been made to stretch over the whole natural circle (Gen. xlv. 8; Judg. v. 7), it is certainly in the spirit of the law to explain this command, with Luther, in reference to the sphere of the civil life. Now, to this command, as Paul specially notices, Ep. vi. 2, is attached a promise, as being properly the first, and so the only one among the ten, that has a promise connected with it. For the promise at the second is only to be regarded as an appendage to the threatening which precedes, and stands in immediate connection with the prohibition. But that the command is here first coupled with a determinate promise, arises from the circumstance, that in this word the honouring of God is first brought out into the circle of the natural life, to which the Old Testament with its promises everywhere primarily refers." [12]
These considerations are amply sufficient to remove Calvin's objection to this view, as "confounding the distinction between piety and charity." [13] And it might be farther confirmed by pointing to the close connection established in other parts of the books of Moses, between God and the constituted authorities in the land, as if the one were in a sense identical with the other. Thus, in Deut. xix. 17, we find it ordained, that the men at strife with each other should "stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges;" and in Ex. xxi. 6, the master of a servant is directed, in certain circumstances, to "bring him unto the judges," as it is in our version, but literally, unto God--the authority of the judges being regarded as that of God. So, again, in Ex. xxii. 8; and in v. 28, it is said, "Thou shalt not revile God (not gods as in our version), nor curse the ruler of thy people"'---where the visible representative of God is coupled with God himself, and the offence committed against the one is held to be a dishonour done to the other. It is precisely in the same way, that the honouring of parents is placed among the things due to God himself. And by this arrangement we discover a beautiful order and gradation in the successive commands of the first table: Give God the honour and glory due to him, 1. In regard to his being, as the one living God; 2. to his worship; 3. to his name, or the outward manifestations he gives of himself; 4. to his day of rest; 5. to his representatives. Nor is it unworthy of notice to mark the gradual merging of the duties of the one table into those of the other-- observable first, in the fourth commandment, which bears an especial respect to the condition of servants, and demands their release from ordinary labour every seventh day--but again, and more especially in the fifth, which has respect to men--to men, indeed, as God's representatives, and, as such, clothed with a portion of that authority which properly belongs only to him--but still in such a sense to men, that the transition appears most natural and easy, from such honour paid to God in them, to the kind and upright behaviour due from one man to another, in the ordinary intercourse of life.
The wisdom manifested, however, in the order and arrangement of the decalogue, not only appears in the contents of the two tables, but also in the relative position of these tables themselves --the first comprising the duties we owe to God, and the second those we owe to men. The forms and manifestations of love to God occupy the first rank of duties, and then, in a secondary place, but still in very close connection with the other, those expressive of love to man. Here, as well as in the Gospel, religion was made the foundation and root of morality. We must first stand, it was in a manner declared, in a becoming relation to God, and be rightly affectioned toward him, otherwise it will be vain to expect that we shall act our part aright toward our fellow-creatures. If our hearts have not come into fellowship and harmony with the great Head of the family, it is impossible, in the nature of things, that we should feel and act as brethren toward its members. And the principle of loving obedience to him must ever be, as Augustine has well expressed it, "in a sense the parent and guardian of all the virtues." [14]
There may, no doubt, be some measure of love and kindness between man and man, where there is no love, but only deep and rooted enmity toward God. Were it not so, society in irreligious countries would fall to pieces. But in such cases, there can be no love of the right kind--no love to men as the offspring of the Creator, made in his image; nor can it exist in the proper degree, but must, in many respects, be partial, defective, and erring in its manifestations. It was, therefore, in consistence with the highest wisdom, that the things which belong to God should in this grand summary of duty be exalted to the first place; and in farther demonstration of their pre-eminent rank and importance, it is to the commands of this table, and to these alone, that there are attached special reasons for God's exacting and man's giving the obedience required. The five commands of the second table are all of them simple and brief enunciations of the will of God as to the path of duty.
2. It is of more importance, however, to have a correct view of the perfection of the decalogue as to the summary of duty contained in it. Does it really prove itself, on examination, to be a full and comprehensive statement of all obligation of duty toward God and man? and that with respect to the heart, as well as the outward walk and conduct?
An extremely low estimate, in this respect, is formed of the ten commandments by Spencer and his school, as well as of the other portions of the law of Moses. Spencer himself smiles at the idea of all religious and moral obligation being contained here in its fundamental principles, and affirms that such an extent of meaning can be brought out of it only by forcing on its words an import quite foreign to their proper sense. He can find nothing more in it than a few plain and disconnected precepts, aimed at the prohibition of idolatry and its natural effects. [15] "In the Mosaic covenant," says one, who here trod in the footsteps of Spencer, "God appeared chiefly as a temporal prince, and therefore gave laws intended rather to direct the outward conduct than to regulate the actings of the heart. A temporal monarch claims from his subjects only outward honour and obedience. God, therefore, acting in the Sinai covenant as king of the Jews, demanded from them no more." [16] What! the living and eternal God stoop to form such a mock-covenant as this, and resort to such a wretched expedient to uphold his honour and authority! Was it for him to descend from heaven and invest himself with the most imposing emblems of divine power and glory, that he might proclaim the terms of a covenant, the only aim of which was to draw around him a set of formal attendants and crouching hypocrites--men of show and parade--the mere ghosts and shadows of obedient children! It is the worst part of an earthly monarch's lot to be so often surrounded with creatures of this description; but to suppose that the living God, who from the spirituality of his nature must ever look mainly on the heart, and so far from seeking, must positively abhor any profession of obedience, which does not flow from the wellspring of a loving heart--to suppose that he should have actually entered into a covenant of blood to secure such a worthless display, betrays an astonishing misapprehension of the character of God, and the most shallow and unsatisfactory view of the whole transactions connected with the revelation of Moses. [17]
Indeed, if no more had been required by God in his law than what these divines imagine, the commendations bestowed on it, and the injunctions given to study and weigh its precepts, as a master-piece of divine wisdom, could only be regarded as extravagant and bombastical. What, on such a supposition, could we mate of the command laid upon Joshua to meditate in it day and night (Josh, i. 8), or of the celebration of its matchless excellence and worth by the Psalmist, as better than thousands of gold and silver (Ps. cxix. 72), or of his prayer, that his eyes might be opened to behold the wondrous things contained in it? (Ps. cxix. 18). Such things clearly imply a great depth of meaning, and a vast breadth of requirement in the law of Moses, and pre-eminently in that part of it which formed the very heart and centre of the whole--the decalogue. Nor would the low and shallow views respecting it, on which we have animadverted, ever have been propounded, if, as Calvin suggests, [18] men properly considered the Lawgiver, by whose character that of the law must also be determined. An earthly monarch who is capable of taking cognisance only of the outward actions, must prescribe laws which have respect simply to these. But, for a like reason, the King of heaven, who is himself a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, can never prescribe a law but such as is spiritual, and has respect peculiarly to the thoughts and affections of the heart---to the outward behaviour no farther than this may be expressive of what is felt within. And it is justly inferred by Bahr from this view of God's character even in regard to the ceremonial part of the law of Moses, that the outward observances of worship it imposed could not possibly be in themselves an end; that they must have been intended to be only an image and representation of internal and spiritual relations; and that the command not to make any likeness or graven image is of itself an incontestable proof of the symbolical character of the Mosaic religion. [19]
Perhaps nothing has tended more to prevent the right perception of the spirituality and extent of the law of the ten commandments, than a mistaken view of the prevailingly negative tone of the precepts, as if they were simply to be regarded as restraints against the doing of what is formally prohibited. If this, however, were the right view of the matter, there manifestly would have been no exception to the negative form of the precepts; they would all have possessed the character merely of prohibitions. But the fourth and fifth have been made to run in the positive form, and one of these, the fourth, in both the negative and positive form, to render it manifest, that along with, the prohibition of the specified sins, each precept was to be understood as requiring the corresponding duties. In truth this predominantly negative character is rather a testimony to their deep spiritual import, as opposing at every point the depravity and sinfulness of the human heart. The Israelites then, as professing believers now, admitted by sovereign grace into a covenant-relation to God, and received to an interest in his inheritance, should have been disposed of themselves to love and serve God; they should not even have needed the strict constraint and binding obligations of law to do so. But as a solemn proof and testimony how much the reverse was the case, the law was thrown chiefly into the prohibitory form: "Thou shalt not do this or that;" as much as to say, thou art of thyself ready to do it--this is the native bent of thy inclination--but it must be restrained, and things of a contrary nature sought after and performed.
It was precisely on this account, as Hengstenberg has conclusively shewn in opposition to Bahr, that the law in general, and pre-eminently the law of the ten words, was called the testimony. This, in the language of the books of Moses, does not mean simply that they testified of God's mind and will, or constituted the revelation he was pleased to give of man's duty; but a testimony containing such a revelation of his holiness, as at the same time brought to light the sins of his people--his witness against the depravity and corruption of the human heart. Hence, when the law or any part of it is spoken of as a testimony, it is usually coupled with the accessory idea of a conviction of sin--a witnessing against them for transgressions committed (Deut. xxxi. 19, 26, 27; Josh. xxiv. 22.) And hence also, as the Lord's testimony against his people's sinfillness, it was placed under the covering of the mercy-seat, and is once and again mentioned in that connection--such a symbolical covering being necessary to render it possible for the righteous Jehovah to meet on terms of peace and friendship with those against whom his law was ever uttering, in a manner, such heavy tidings in his ears (Ex. xxv. 21, 22; xxvi. 34; Lev. xvi. 13.) [20] So that this law was of so pure and searching a nature, that its first effect upon the conscience was necessarily, like the work of the Spirit, "to convince of sin." And it bore the impress of this upon the very form of its precepts.
The more closely we examine these precepts themselves, the more clearly do we perceive their spiritual and comprehensive character. That they recognise love as the root of all obedience, and hatred as the root of all transgression, is plainly intimated in the description given of the doers and transgressors of the law in the second commandment; the latter being characterised as "those that hate me," and the former as "those that love me and keep my commandments," And that the love required was no shallow and superficial thing, finding its developement only in a few easy, external acts, that, on the contrary, it embraced the entire field of man's spiritual agency, and bore respect alike to his thoughts, words, and deeds, is manifest from the following analysis of the second table, which we present in the words of another: [21] "Thou shalt not injure thy neighbour, 1. in deed, and that (1) not in regard to his life, (2) not in regard to his dearest property, his wife, (3) not in regard to his property generally [in other words, in regard to his person, his family, or his property.] 2. In word, ('Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.') 3. In thought, ('Thou shalt not covet.') While it may be admitted, however, that the prohibition of lust or covetousness has an internal character, it may still with some plausibility be maintained, that on this very account the preceding commands are to be taken externally--that we are not in them to go beyond the word and deed--that the mere outward acts, for example, of murder and adultery, are prohibited, so that the four first precepts of the second table may be satisfied without any inward feeling of holiness, this being required only in the last. There is certainly some degree of truth in this remark. That a special prohibition of sinful lust should follow the rest, shews that what had been said in reference to word and deed, primarily has respect to these. Still it must not be overlooked, on the other hand, that precisely through the succession of deed, word, and thought, the deed and thought are stript of their merely outward character, and referred back to their root in the mind, are marked simply as the end of a process, the commencement of which is to be sought in the heart. If this is duly considered, it will appear, that what primarily refers only to word and deed, carried at the same time an indirect reference to the emotions of the heart. Thus, the only way to fulfil the command, 'Thou shalt not kill,' is to have the root extirpated from the heart, out of which murder springs. Where that is not done the command is not fully complied with, even though no outward murder is committed. For this must then be dependent upon circumstances which lie beyond the circle of man's proper agency."
There is no less depth and comprehensiveness in the first table, as the same learned writer has remarked, and a similar regard is had in it to thought, word, and deed, only in the reverse order, and lying somewhat less upon the surface. The fourth and fifth precepts demand the due honouring of God in deed; the third in word; and the two first, pointing to his sole Godhead and absolute spirituality, require for himself personally? and for his wor- ship, that place in the heart to which they are entitled. Very striking in this respect is the announcement in the second commandment, of a visitation of evil upon those that hate God, and an extension of mercy to thousands that love him. As much as to say, It is the heart of love I require; and if even my worship is corrupted by the introduction of images, it is only to be accounted for by the working of hatred instead of love in the heart. So that the heart may truly be called the alpha and the omega of this wonderful revelation of law; it stands prominently forth at both ends; and, had no inspired commentary been given on the full import of the ten words, looking merely to these words themselves, we cannot but perceive that they stretch their demands over the whole range of man's active operations, and can only be fulfilled by the constant and uninterrupted exercise of love to God and man, in the various regions of the heart, the conversation, and the conduct.
We have commentaries, however, both in the Old and the New Testament Scriptures, upon the law of the Ten Commandments, and such as plainly confirm what has been said of its perfection and completeness as a rule of duty. With manifest reference to the second table, and with the view of expressing in one brief sentence the essence of its meaning, Moses had said: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev. xix. 18); and in like manner regarding the first table, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. vi. 5). It is against all reason to suppose, that these precepts should require more than what was required in those, which formed the very groundwork and heart of the whole Mosaic legislation. And we have the express authority of our Lord for holding, that the whole law, as well as the prophets, hung upon them (Matt. xxii. 40). Nor only so, but, as already noticed, in the Sermon on the Mount he has himself given us an insight into the wide reach and deep spiritual meaning of the ten commandments, clearing them from, the false and superficial glosses of the carnal Pharisees. That this is the true character and design of that portion of our Lord's discourse, that it was intended to bring distinctly out the full import of the old, and not to introduce any new and higher legislation, is now generally admitted by the sounder portion at least of exegetical writers. [22] And, to mention no more, the apostle Paul, referring to the law of the ten commandments, calls it "spiritual," "holy, just, and good,"--represents it as the grand instrument in the hands of the Spirit for convincing of sin,--and declares the only fulfilment of it to be perfect love (Rom. vii. 7-14; xiii. 10).
In conclusion, we trust we have established the claim of the
law of the ten commandments, to be regarded in the light in which it
has commonly been viewed by evangelical divines of this country, as a
brief but comprehensive summary of all religious and moral duty. And as
a necessary consequence, the two grand rules with which they have been
wont to enter on the exposition of the decalogue, are fully justified.
These rules are, 1. That the
same precept which forbids the external
acts of sin, forbids likewise the inward
desires and motions of sin in the heart,--as also, that the precept
which commands the external acts of duty, requires at the same time the
inward feelings and principles of holiness, of which the external acts
should only be the fitting expression. 2.
That the negative commands include in them the injunction of the
contrary duties, and the positive commands the prohibition of the
contrary sins, so that in each there is something required as well as
forbidden.--Nor is the language too strong, if rightly understood,
which has often been applied to this law, that it is a kind of
transcript of God's own pure and righteous character; i. e. a faithful
and exact representation of that spiritual excellence which eternally
belongs to himself, and which he must eternally require of his
accountable creatures. The idea which such language conveys is
undoubtedly correct, if understood in reference to the great principles
of truth and holiness embodied in the precepts, though but very
imperfectly true in regard to the formal acts in which those principles
were to find their prescribed manifestation. For the actual operation
of the principles had of necessity to be ordered in suitable adaptation
to men's condition upon earth, to which, as there belong relations, so
also relative duties, not only different from anything with which God
himself has properly to do, but different even from what his people
shall have to discharge in a coming eternity. There
such precepts as the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, or the eighth, as
to the formal acts they prohibit or require, shall manifestly have lost
their adaptation. And of the whole law we may affirm, that the precise
form it has assumed, or the mould into which it has been cast, is such
as fitly suits it only to the circumstances of the present life. But
the love to God and man, which constitutes its all-pervading element,
and for which the several precepts only indicate the particular ways
and channels it is outwardly to take, this love man is perpetually
bound in all times and circumstances to cherish in his heart, and
manifest in his conduct. For the God, in whom he lives, and moves, and
has his being, is love; and as the duty and perfection of the creature
is to bear the image of the Creator, so to love as he loves--Himself
first and supremely, and his offspring in him and for him, must ever be
the bounden obligation and highest end of those whom he calls his
children.
1. De Leg. Heb. iii. Light-foot, Hor. Heb. in Matth. xxv. 1:
ISTumero denario gavi&a pliirimiim est gens Judaica et in sacris et
in civilibus. But see the proof fully given in Bahr, Symb. i. p. 175
ss. Among other ancient authorities he produces the following: Etymol.
Mgn. s. v. *** ...
2. Symbolik, i. p. 175.
3. Sack's Apologetik, p. 180. As further examples of the Scriptural import of ten, we might have mentioned the ten men in Zechariah laying hold of the skirt of a Jew, ch. viii. 23, the parable of the ten virgins, and the ten horns or kingdoms in Revelation.
4. Authentie, i. p. 481 ss. So Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. i. p. 606: Argumento vero id etiam erat, perennem istam legem esse atque perpetuam, &c, and Calvinistic divines generally.
5. Inst. B. ii. c. 8, § 52.
6. See especially Ps. xv. xxiv, which describe the righteousness
required under the covenant, by obedience to the ten commandments, and
more particularly to those of the second table--specially indited, no
doubt, to meet the tendency which the more attractive and orderly
celebration then introduced into God's service was fitted to awaken;
see also Ps. xl. 1. Ii.; Isa. i. Ivii, &c, Micah, vi.1
7. Symbolik, I.
p. 384. He elsewhere, p. 181, seeks to justify this view from the
number ten, In which the law was contained; and which number he
considers to have been employed in the promulgation of this law,
because "it was the fundamental law of Israel, in a religious and
political respect, the representative of the whole Israelitish
constitution." We hold this to be a most arbitrary interpretation,
having
nothing to justify it in the law itself, and disproved by the several
considerations adduced above, for the peculiar position of the
decalogue. We conceive it also to be a departure from his own view of
the symbolical import of the ten --which he justly regards as
indicating perfection and completeness; whereas, in attributing to the
decalogue a representative value, and making it stand for the whole, he
gives it the import of the tenth. If the whole law had been comprised
in ten groups, and the decalogue had consisted of one from each group,
we could then, but only then, have seen the force and justice of his
interpretation.
8. Essay on the Estab. of an Episcopal Church in India, p. 61.
9. Creuzer, Symbolik, i. p. 448, ss.; comp. also. Hengstenberg, Authentie, i. p. 118, ss.; Egypt and Books of Moses, p. 203, ss.
10. It is one of the few correct things which Tacitus states concerning the religion of the Jews, that they counted it profanity to make images in the likeness of man, and that they worshipped only one supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and everlasting God (Hist. v. 5). It would be difficult, however, to throw together a larger amount of ignorance and error in the same space, than is expressed in this and the preceding chapter, by Tacitus, respecting the religious customs and rites of the Jews.
11. Ant. B. III. c. 6, § 5.
12. Commentar, ii. pp. 12, 13. This last thought, which the learned author goes on to amplify, scarcely touches the exact bearing, we think, of the promise. It has respect rather to continuance in the land than to the possession of life--"that thy days may be long upon the land"--that thou mayest continue long in the enjoyment of what God promised to thy fathers. It is the great objective blessing of the covenant--the inheritance, which is appended by way of promise to this fifth commandment; and appended to it, we conceive, on this account especially, because it is with the authority of God as delegated to these earthly heads, that we come first and most directly into contact; and in them also it is associated with so much that is fitted to win and captivate the heart, that here peculiarly it may be said, "If we do not love (so as to obey) those whom we have seen, how can we love God, whom we have not seen?" The Lord hung the people's whole interest in the inheritance on the due fulfilment of the duties growing out of the parental relation, in the confidence that if these were neglected, nothing connected with his glory would be rightly attended to. According to this view, "a promise of long life and prosperity" hardly comes up to the full import of the encouragement either for Old or New Testament times.--The division of the two tables into two fives, has also been espoused by Hengsteiiberg, Authentie, II. p. 605, and others on the continent.
13. Inst. B, II. c, viii. § 12.
14. De Civ. Dei, L, xiv. c. 11. Mater quodammodo est omnium custosque virtutum.
15. De Legibus Heb. L. I. c. 2. i
16. Theol. Dissertations by Dr John Erskine, p. 5, 37.
17. It is strange that this notion so unworthy of God, and so
obviously inconsistent with the nature of the law itself, and the
recorded facts of Israelitish history, still holds its ground among us.
The shades of Spencer and Warburton still rest even upon many minds of
vigorous thought. The covenant of law is with the utmost confidence,
and with the tone of one who had made a sort of discovery in the
matter, represented by Mr Johnstone in his Israel after ilie Flesh, as
a simply national covenant, having no other object than to maintain the
national recognition of God, and no respect whatever to individuals
(ch. i.) Even Mr Litton, in his able work on the Church of Christ,
says, "If we look back to the proAdsions of the law when it was first
promulgated, we find in them little or no reference to anything beyond
the national worship of Jehovah, as the tutelary God of the nation" (p.
105). He allows, indeed, that "the \awimplicitty enjoined the spiritual
service of the heart," but the actual requiring of this "was an
extension of its meaning reserved for future revelations" (p. 107). Not
revelations, we should say, but spiritual thought and
self-application--these certainly were necessary, but no more than
these were necessary, to find in the law a great deal more than what
related to the outward conduct, or the national acknowledgment of
Jehovah. Why, only the first com- mandment of the ten properly referred
to such an acknowledgment. And then, if that was all they required, how
could the Israelites in the wilderness have been treated as guilty of a
breach of the covenant for simply failing to exercise faith in a
particular word of God? Or, how could our Lord charge the Scribes and
Pharisees of his time with being condemned by their law, while they
rigidly adhered to the acknowledgment of God? Besides, the law is not
now, and never was intended, to be viewed as standing by itself. It was
a mere appendage to the covenant of Abraham, and the revelations
therewith connected. And if these were express on any point, it Avas,
as we have shewn in vol. 1st, on the necessity of personal faith and
heart-holiness, to fulfil the calling of a son of Abraham. If the law
did not require spiritual service, it must have been a retrogression,
not an advance in the revelation of God's character.
18. Institutes, B.
II. c. 8, § 6.
19. Symbolik, I. p. 14.
20. Authentie, II. p. 598, 640, comp. Bahr's Symbolik, I. p. 83, ss.
21. Hengstenberg, Authentie, ii. p. 600. Substantially the same analysis was made by Thomas Aquinas, in a short but very clear quotation given by Hengstenberg from the Summa, i. 2. q. 100, 5.
22. Tholuck, indeed, as usual on such points, holds a sort of middle opinion here in his Comm. on the Sermon on the Mount, although he is substantially of the opinion expressed above, and opposed to the view of Catholic, Socinian, and Arminian writers. See, however, Baumgarten, Doc. Christi de Lege Mosaica in Oratione Mon., with whom also Hengstenberg concurs, loc. cit.