Yahweh spoke with you face to face on the mountain out of the middle of the fire,
(I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to show you Yahweh’s word; for you were afraid because of the fire, and didn’t go up onto the mountain) saying,
“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
“You shall have no other gods before me.
“You shall not make a carved image for yourself—any likeness of what is in heaven above, or what is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them; for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me; and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
“You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who misuses his name.
“Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you. You shall labor six days, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God, in which you shall not do any work— neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm. Therefore Yahweh your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
“Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you; that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.
“You shall not murder.
“You shall not commit adultery.
“You shall not steal.
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Yahweh spoke these words to all your assembly on the mountain out of the middle of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice. He added no more. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and gave them to me.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 21, 22 So plainly that ye need not to doubt thereof.
So plainly that ye need not to doubt thereof.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 22 Deu 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to…
Deu 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
Ver. 4. Face to face,] i.e., Openly, and immediately, by himself, and not by a messenger or mediator. Prosper’s conceit was, that the Israelites were called Iudaei, because they received ius Dei.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 21, 22 Not in a visible shape, which was utterly denied,…
Not in a visible shape, which was utterly denied, Deu 4:12,15; but personally and immediately, not by the mouth or ministry of Moses; plainly and certainly, as when two men talk face to face; freely and familiarly, so as not to overwhelm and confound you. Compare Exo 33:11; Num 12:8.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v6 Here is the repetition of the ten commandments, in…
Here is the repetition of the ten commandments, in which observe, 1. Though they had been spoken before, and written, yet they are again rehearsed; for precept must be upon precept, and line upon line, and all little enough to keep the word of God in our minds and to preserve and renew the impressions of it. We have need to have the same things often inculcated upon us. See Phi 3:1. 2. There is some variation here from that record (Ex. 20), as there is between the Lord's prayer as it is in Mt. 6 and as it is Lu. 11. In both it is more necessary that we tie ourselves to the things than to the words unalterably. 3. The most considerable variation is in the fourth commandment. In Ex. 20 the reason annexed is taken from the creation of the world; here it is taken from their deliverance out of Egypt, because that was typical of our redemption by Jesus Christ, in remembrance of which the Christian sabbath was to be observed: Remember that thou wast a servant, and God brought thee out, Deu 5:15. And Therefore, (1.) "It is fit that thy servants should be favoured by the sabbath-rest; for thou knowest the heart of a servant, and how welcome one day's ease will be after six days' labour." (2.) "It is fit that thy God should be honoured by the sabbath-work, and the religious services of the day, in consideration of the great things he has done for thee." In the resurrection of Christ we were brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore, by the gospel-edition of the law, we are directed to observe the first day of the week, in remembrance of that glorious work of power and grace. 4. It is added in the fifth commandment, That it may go well with thee, which addition the apostle quotes, and puts first (Eph 6:3), that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long. If there be instances of some that have been very dutiful to their parents, and yet have not lived long upon earth, we may reconcile it to the promise by this explication of it, Whether they live long or no, it shall go well with them, either in this world or in a better. See Ecc 8:12. 5. The last five commandments are connected or coupled together, which they are not in Exodus: Neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, etc., which intimate that God's commands are all of a piece: the same authority that obliges us to one obliges us to another; and we must not be partial in the law, but have respect to all God's commandments, for he that offends in one point is guilty of all, Jam 2:10, Jam 2:11. 6. That these commandments were given with a great deal of awful solemnity, Deu 5:22. (1.) They were spoken with a great voice out of the fire, and thick darkness. That was a dispensation of terror, designed to make the gospel of grace the more welcome, and to be a specimen of the terrors of the judgment-day, Psa 50:3, Psa 50:4. (2.) He added no more. What other laws he gave them were sent by Moses, but no more were spoken in the same manner that the ten commandments were. He added no more, therefore we must not add: the law of the Lord is perfect. (3.) He wrote them in two tables of stone, that they might be preserved from corruption, and might be transmitted pure and entire to posterity, for whose use they were intended, as well as for the present generation. These being the heads of the covenant, the chest in which the written tables were deposited was called the ark of the covenant. See Rev 11:19.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 I stood between the Lord and you at that…
I stood between the Lord and you at that time,.... Between the Word of the Lord and you, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; that is, about that time, not at the exact precise time the ten commandments were delivered, for these were spoken immediately to the people; but when the ceremonial law was given, which was ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator, Gal 3:19, and which was at the request of the people as follows, terrified by the appearance of the fire out of which the moral law was delivered:
to show you the word of the Lord; not the decalogue, that they heard with their own ears, but the other laws which were afterwards given, that were of the ceremonial and judicial kind:
Read full note →
for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount; lest they should be consumed by it: and indeed bounds were set about the mount, and they were charged not to break through:
saying; this word is in connection with the preceding verse, the Lord's talking out of the midst of the fire, when he said what follows.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Face to face - Personally and immediately, not by…
Face to face - Personally and immediately, not by the mouth or ministry of Moses; plainly and certainly, as when two men talk face to face; freely and familiarly, so as not to overwhelm and confound you.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv6, 15, 21 Verse 6. I am the Lord thy God] See…
Verse 6. I am the Lord thy God] See these commandments explained in Clarke's notes on "Ex 20:2", &c.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Deu 5:4. The Lord talked with you face to…
Deu 5:4. The Lord talked with you face to face — Personally and immediately, and not by the mouth or ministry of Moses; plainly and certainly, as when two men speak face to face; freely and familiarly, so as not to overwhelm and confound you. It may also signify that they beheld a conspicuous symbol of the divine presence, and heard a divine voice speaking from thence clearly and distinctly.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv6, 22 Compare Exo. 20 and notes.
Compare Exo. 20 and notes.
Moses here adopts the Ten Words as a ground from which he may proceed to reprove, warn, and exhort; and repeats them, with a certain measure of freedom and adaptation. Our Lord Mar 10:19 and Paul Eph 6:2-3 deal similarly with the same subject. Speaker and hearers recognized, however, a statutory and authoritative form of the laws in question, which, because it was familiar to both parties, needed not to be reproduced with verbal fidelity.
Read full note →
Deu 5:12-15
The exhortation to observe the Sabbath and allow time of rest to servants (compare Exo 23:12) is pointed by reminding the people that they too were formerly servants themselves. The bondage in Egypt and the deliverance from it are not assigned as grounds for the institution of the Sabbath, which is of far older date (see Gen 2:3), but rather as suggesting motives for the religious observance of that institution. The Exodus was an entrance into rest from the toils of the house of bondage, and is thought actually to have occurred on the Sabbath day or “rest” day.
Deu 5:16
The blessing of general well-being here annexed to the keeping of the fifth commandment, is no real addition to the promise, but only an amplification of its expression.
Deu 5:21
The “field” is added to the list of objects specifically forbidden in the parallel passage Exo 20:17. The addition seems very natural in one who was speaking with the partition of Canaan among his hearers directly in view.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 To us. Hebrew and Septuagint, "to you." --- Face…
To us. Hebrew and Septuagint, "to you." --- Face to face, in such a manner that no doubt could be entertained of his presence. (St. Augustine) --- God addressed the decalogue to all the people, who saw no similitude. But to Moses he delivered the rest of his ordinances, with as much familiarity and condescension as one friend would use in speaking to another, Exodus xxxiii. 2. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22 The Lord talked with you face to face in…
The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount--not in a visible and corporeal form, of which there was no trace (Deu 4:12, Deu 4:15), but freely, familiarly, and in such a manner that no doubt could be entertained of His presence.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 22 4. The Lord talked — Jehovah, in person, addressed…
4. The Lord talked — Jehovah, in person, addressed the “ten words,” or commandments, to the people. Other precepts were given through Moses.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 4. face to face] i.e. person with person, without…
4. face to face] i.e. person with person, without the intervention of another. The metaphor is hardly an instance of the tendency of D’s style to hyperbole2[120]. For although all that the people perceived was a voice, or sound, of words (Deu_4:12), this came at first directly to the whole people, and it was because they feared the effect of its directness that they begged Moses to mediate (Deu_5:22-27). But if not a hyperbole the phrase face to face needs qualification—it was only with Moses that God talked (morally speaking) face to face (Deu_34:10, Exo_33:11); and so a qualification is given immediately in parenthesis in the next verse.
[120] It is, however, an interesting illustration of how an O.T. writer (like so many of the prophets), while forbidding strenuously the representation of the Deity in any material form, does not hesitate to use anthropomorphisms in describing His appearances to men. Ch. Deu_4:12; Deu_4:15 emphasise that Israel saw no manner of form in the Mount; while Deu_5:4 now asserts that God spake face to face with the people. What is denied in fact, so as to exclude every excuse for plastic representations of the Deity, is allowed in metaphor.
Read full note →
out of the midst of the fire] So in Deu_4:12 (but without the phrase preceding in the mount), 15, 33, 36; and Deu_5:22; Deu_5:24, Deu_9:10, Deu_10:4.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22 (4) The Lord talked with you face to face.—Yet…
(4) The Lord talked with you face to face.—Yet they saw no manner of similitude (Deu_4:12), i.e., no visible form: but the very words of God reached their ears. So in Exo_20:22, “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.”
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Vers. 4, 5. The Lord talked with you face…
Vers. 4, 5. The Lord talked with you face to face. God spoke to them immediately, in their presence and to their face, from the mount, as one person might to another. There is a slight difference in form between the phrase here and that in Exo_33:11 and Deu_34:10, where it is used in reference to Moses, but it is so slight ( instead of that no difference of meaning can be elicited. God spake directly to the people, as he did to Moses, only Moses was admitted to closer communion with him than the people were. This difference is sufficiently indicated in ver. 5, where the mediatory function of Moses, in the promulgation of the Law and the making of the covenant, is described as necessitated by the fear of the people, and their not going up into the mount (cf. Exo_19:19, etc.) This is referred to more fully afterwards (ver. 23, etc.). I stood between the Lord and you; i.e. acted as mediator; LXX, eiJsthkein ajnason. (cf. Gal_3:19)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 I am the Lord thy God.
Deu_5:6
I am the Lord thy God.
Read full note →
The mission of law
In a general sense law is the manner in which an act shall be performed. In civil life it is a legislative declaration how a citizen shall act; in morals it is a rule of conduct proceeding from one who has the right to rule, and directed to those who have the ability to obey. In this sense laws are mandatory, prohibitory, permissive, according to the object to be obtained, commanding what shall be done, forbidding what shall not be done, permitting what may be done. There is an antagonism prevailing in our country and in other lands against the authority of these old mandates received by Moses from the hand of the Almighty. It is difficult to understand that some who assert the uniformity of nature, or what they are pleased to call material law, yet seek to emancipate themselves from moral obligation, which is natural law. They declare for absolute liberty; that man should be governed by his own tastes, desires, and passions; that he should gratify himself without interference from society or the restrictions of law. It is enough to say that man is not constituted for such conditions of liberty, for restraint seems to be as beneficial as law itself. Man is organised restriction, ever subject to consequences and penalties. He cannot pass a certain boundary without peril; he is a living code of law. Unlimited gratification is the right of no man. Such is his constitution that man can think so far, can see so much, can eat and drink to such a degree, can sleep so long, endure so much, and beyond this he cannot go. He is ever within the embrace of law--Thus far shalt thou go, and no further. It is true of him in his worst and in his best estate. The law of limitation is as prevalent as law itself. Atoms and worlds, liquids and solids, plants and animals are bounded by limitations. Flowers bloom, trees grow, fish swim, birds fly, beasts roam, lightnings flash, thunders peal, winds blow, oceans roll, all within limitations. The gem is crystallised, the dewdrop is moulded, trees are carbonised, rocks metallised, clouds become rain, and the sun sends forth his wealth of health and beauty, all within limitations. Throw off this law of restriction, and the roots of the trees would take hold of the foundations of the earth and their branches would sweep the stars; throw it off, and mans growth would be perpetuated until his brow reached the heavens. Throw it off, and the planets would rush in wildest confusion. Man is no exception in this higher nature; excess is ruin. He must not encroach upon the domain of the Infinite. His vices are bounded by consequences and penalties. Excessive gratification multiplies his sorrows and hastens him to a premature grave. He is boundless in nothing but intelligence and virtue; in these he can approach the Infinite, but never reach Him. This is his highest ideal. Man hates restraint; his foolish cry is, Give us liberty or give us death; but such liberty is without order. Natural liberty is acting without the restraints of nature; civil liberty is acting with abridged natural freedom; moral liberty is acting within the limitations of moral law. There is a difference between the power to disobey and the right to disobey. A citizen may have the power to take the property of another, but not the right. There is nothing more wholesome for a man to realise than the certainty of law, immutable, inflexible, inexorable. Law is a Shylock; the consequences of violation are sure to come. There is nothing more majestic and solemn than the eternity of law. Human enactments are repealed, human obligations are for a term of years; but the obligations of the law of God will last while He is on the throne of the universe. In our aversion to restraint we are tempted to ask, Who is Jehovah, that we should obey? What is the ground of obligation to Him? Civil government has authority over us, because of the social relations which the Creator has established between man and man, and because of common consent; parental authority springs from relationship, but Gods authority has its source in absolute possession. He made us, and not we ourselves; we are the offspring of His power--Ye are not your own. Herein is the eternal fitness of things. From this is the greatest good. The power to enforce His commands may be the subordinate reason for obedience, but it is not the highest. A giant is not necessarily a ruler; might is not right. We must look for a more beneficent reason. Certain special duties may derive their apparent obligations from certain relations. Endowed with intelligence, I should adore God for His wonderful works. Possessing life, reason, and affections and other sources of happiness incident to my being, I owe Him gratitude founded on natural sentiment and demanded by all that is reasonable. But these relations are not necessarily the reason of obedience, nor does His right to rule me and my duty to obey Him flow out of His will. Why has He the right to will me to do thus and thus? But if we look a little deeper, a little closer, we shall discover that His right to will and my duty to obey are from His absolute possession. That right has no limitation. It can never be transferred, or alienated, or destroyed. The heavens are Thine, the earth also is Thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, Thou hast founded them. It is a law of nations that the first discoverer of a country is esteemed the rightful possessor and lord thereof; that the originator of a successful invention has unquestionable dominion of the property therein on the score of justice; that the author of a beneficent truth, whether in the domain of science, government, or religion, has priority of claim to the honour and benefits thereof. These things have reached the majesty of international law; hence the long and vexatious controversies touching the relative claims of Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci as to the discovery of this country; the rival claims of Gutenberg and Faust touching the invention of the art of printing; the first demonstration of the circulation of the blood, whether Harvey or Fabricius or Padua; who first identified lightning and electricity, whether Abbe Nollet or our own Franklin, and whether Darwin or Wallace is the author of the theory of natural selection. Men and nations have jealously guarded and vindicated this right of priority of claim; for its maintenance battles have been fought and empires have toppled to their fall. When a man comes into the possession of a block of marble by discovery or presentation or purchase, and adds to its value by his deft fingers with mallet and chisel, and sculptures thereon some bird, or man, or angel, it is the consent of mankind that he has an additional claim to that piece of marble growing out of the right of possession and the success of his skill. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. (J. P. Newman, D. D.)
Gods laws of life
In the present day we hear and read a great deal concerning law. The laws of nature is a much more common expression now than in the days of our forefathers; for the study of nature, the investigation of its wonders, and the examination of its phenomena are now more thorough and general and successful than they used to be; and the progress of science has made this expression very familiar to us. All things are in subjection to law, in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath; all things, from a world to a sand grain, from a mighty constellation to a rounded pebble, from the great and wide sea to the tiny dew drop, from the giant banyan tree to the lowly shrub, from behemoth to the insect, are subject to law. The laws of nature, instead of excluding the God of nature, are the beautiful expression of His thought and will. The order of the universe has originated ill the mind of Him who created it. As Hooker finely said, Law has its seat in the bosom of God, and its voice is the harmony of the world. Gods moral law was given to man as an intelligent and moral being. This law is written in mans nature. A philosopher said that two things filled his soul with awe--the starry heaven above, and the moral law within. But if the law was already found in mans conscience, what need was there to proclaim it on Mount Sinai?
1. First, because the record was becoming obscure through growing depravity; the letters were defaced, the moral sense was blunted. Sir Walter Scotts Old Mortality renewed the inscriptions on the old moss-grown tombstones, cut out with his chisel and hammer the letters which time and decay had nearly obliterated. But there was no teacher among the heathen that could renew the inscription on mans nature, and restore the defaced letters, and remove the grime that had gathered around them. The conscience, like all the other faculties, needed education and training.
2. Secondly, it was necessary that Israel should have a Divine standard of conduct. Having just been delivered from the house of Egyptian bondage, and having been contaminated by the influence of Egyptian idolatry, it was necessary that they should have a rule of life that was clear and unmistakable. They needed a revealed and written standard of duty.
3. Thirdly, it was necessary, in order to preserve to all coming ages Gods judgment of what man ought to be, Gods ideal of mans life. A revelation by word of mouth would not suffice; for oral tradition would in time be corrupted. There are some human laws that are necessary for some peoples, and not for others; but this is the same in every climate and country--among the Esquimaux in the land of everlasting snows, and among the dusky tribes of Africa, among the civilised nations of Europe, and among savages, among rich and poor, learned and unlearned, Jew and Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free. And this law is unchangeable in its character. Physical laws may be suspended by other or higher laws; as animal food is preserved by salt, and gravitation is overcome by life. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I fear that in the present age we are in danger of losing sight of God as our Ruler. We dwell, and rightly, on the revelation of the Fatherhood of God. Our Father. What name so attractive and beautiful and helpful as this? But He is also King; He sways a sceptre of righteousness; He exercises dominion; He claims obedience; He demands service. I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. And God spake all these words. God is the Eternal Home of righteousness, and He has made known His righteous will to men. God spake. Sin had put an end to the communications between earth and heaven; but God broke the silence. It would be terrible to think of God dwelling in the heavens, and not saying a word to us. The Psalmists cry was, Be not silent to me, lest I be like them that go down into the pit. In this introduction or preface to the words of the law we see the grounds on which He claims authority over men, and demands their obedience and homage and service; these grounds are--His relation to them, and His merciful deliverance of them.
I. His relation to them. I am the Lord thy God. He was the God of their fathers; He had called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees from among idolaters; He was the fear of Isaac; He was the helper of Jacob. And here He says to their descendants, I am the Lord thy God, or I am Jehovah, thy God. This was the name by which He made Himself known to Moses from the burning bush. God was now about to unfold the meaning of the name in the history of His people. It denotes His eternal self-existence. I am Jehovah, I change not. Change is essential to finite beings; to their glory, and blessedness, and peace. Without progress--and progress implies change--a mans life anywhere would be wretched. Thank God we may be changed; for to be fixed in our present state of ignorance and sin and weakness would be untold misery. But God changes not; and this is His glory. He is so perfect that no change could make Him wiser, or holier, or more blessed than He is. Like the fire in the bush, His glory is flaming through the universe; but it does not depend upon the universe for its existence. And this name not only denotes essential existence, but it was also the covenant name of God, and contained the promise of future manifestation; and this was very appropriate on the threshold of Jewish history, when the horde of Egyptian slaves were about to be converted into an army of brave men. I am Jehovah, thy God. He was entering into a close relation to them. And He is now entering into a covenant relation with all who trust in His name. Our God. Jehovah, our God! The Self-existent, our God! The Ruler of all things, our God! The All-sufficient, the Eternal on our side! What grander revelation can we have than this? The unity of the nation is indicated in the use of the singular pronoun, I am Jehovah, thy God, which have brought thee out. The Psalmist said, I will sing praise to my God. And this was the keynote of many of the Psalms. My God--mine personally, mine consciously, mine forever. One man claiming God as his own! You may tell me that God is ruling the universe, guiding the stupendous worlds. But what about me? I have my sorrows, my burdens, my hopes, my grave before me. Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none on the earth that I desire beside Thee.
II. The other ground on which He claims authority over men is found in the merciful deliverance He has wrought out on their behalf. Which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Egypt was the home of civilisation, of culture, of art, of power. Into Egypt Abram came in his wanderings; the children of Jacob went down there in time of famine; Joseph ruled as prime minister there; it was the nursery of Abrahams race; and there they grew to be a great people. What was the object of mentioning this event in the introduction to the law? Was it not to show that Gods claims to obedience are based on His faithfulness, and that love is the parent of law? The people were first freed, and then they received the law. God manifests Himself on our behalf, and then claims our obedience. We cannot liberate ourselves from the bondage of sin; for this is a slavery which neither millions of money nor the exploits on battlefields can destroy, a slavery which no Emancipation Act can terminate. But One has interposed for us; the Paschal Lamb has been offered; Christ our passover was sacrificed for us. According to the course of history, the law precedes the Gospel; but in the experience of the saved sinner the Gospel precedes the law. There is gratitude felt for the redemption from bondage, and that gratitude leads to obedience and consecration. His delight is in the law of the Lord. (James Owen.)
The preface to the Decalogue
I. He makes way to the obeying of His laws by propounding His sovereign power: I am the Lord thy God, I am Jehovah, the only true God; I am self-existent, and I give being unto all things. My essence is eternal and unchangeable; I do what I please in heaven and earth; My power and dominion are infinite. This is a very suitable introduction to the commandments. It is a prevalent motive, a powerful argument to induce us to yield obedience to whatever God shall be pleased to propound as our duty. Besides, Thou signifies the equality of the obligation; God speaking to all the people as to one man, that every person may think himself concerned to obey, and that no man may plead exception. This Lord, this Jehovah, who here speaks, is God over all; His authority and sovereignty are unlimited.
II. Not only the sovereignty, but the goodness of God is mentioned here as an argument of obedience--I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. We have by the gracious undertakings of Christ been brought out of the house of bondage, delivered from that captivity and slavery wherein Satan and our own guilt had involved us. This Divine philanthropy, this transcendent beneficence, together with all the other blessings, mercies, and favours conferred upon us, are forcible engagements, yea, strong allurements to obedience. (J. Edwards, D. D.)
Introduction to the Decalogue
The Ten Commandments stand alone, not only in the Old Testament, but in the moral development and education of our race. They form the groundwork, the bedrock, on which all goodness and morality are built.
I. Some interesting particulars in the record of these Ten Commandments.
1. There are two distinct versions, differing considerably in detail, yet in substance identical. Inspiration is concerned with great realities, not with trivialities; and both Exodus and Deuteronomy are right when they tell us these were the words God spake, if we do not interpret that statement to mean that it pledges us to believe the verbal accuracy of each record. Two accounts of the same occurrence may be absolutely true, and yet differ considerably in mere verbal correctness.
2. They are never called the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, usually The Ten Words, or The Testimony. This fact is not unimportant, for the term word conveys a richer idea of a revelation from God than the word commandment. A commandment is a law binding on those who hear it, but is not necessarily a revelation of the character of the person who gives it; but the word of the Lord is not merely an utterance of God, but a revelation from God. The same truth is conveyed in the name most frequently given to the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, The Testimony. It is Gods own utterance of His will to His people, of His revelation concerning Himself, of what He bids them do.
3. The number of the commandments is significant. There are ten, and ten is the only complete number. After we count ten we begin again, for ten completes the number of the primary digits.
(1) The law God gives to His people is a complete code of moral goodness. The law of the Lord is perfect, as the Psalmist sings; it lacks nothing; it is full, and rounded, and complete; and if we keep this law we shall be perfect men.
(2) The natural division of the number ten into two halves of five each suggests, I think, a second truth. If ten be the symbol of completeness, five must necessarily be an incomplete number, for it wants the other five to make it complete; and so the one half of the Decalogue is incomplete without the other. No one who is religious without morality is a good man; no man who is moral without being religious is a good man.
4. It is hardly correct to say that the first five commandments relate to duty to God, and the second five to the duty to man, for the Fifth Commandment touches the honour due to parents; but, on the other hand, there is another simple and underlying principle that explains and justifies the division of the Ten Commandments into two equal halves of five each. There was a well-known and rational division in ancient ethics between piety and justice. Piety always included in ancient morals the idea of filial reverence. Reverence itself is perhaps the better word for the goodness in the first five commandments; righteousness is the better word for the goodness commanded in the second five. If we bear this in mind we shall at once discern the reason for the division of the two laws into two equal halves. The first five inculcate reverence to God, and to those who on earth represent God in the human relation; the second five teach the duty of righteousness--that is, of right conduct as between man and man. And notice that not one of the commandments of the second table, as it is called, that which touches human duty, has any sanction attached to it. On the other hand, in the first half, the commandments which concern reverence, we find a sanction attached to the second, third, fourth, and fifth laws, while in the second table there is none. The reason for this is obvious. All human duty and human rights are reciprocal. They need nothing more than their own statement to secure their obligation.
II. The limitations, from an ethical standpoint, of the Ten Commandments.
1. With the exception of the last, the Tenth Commandment, all deal with actions alone, and it is remarkable that the only one of the ten that does pass beyond external action, and forbids evil thought, Thou shalt not covet, was the commandment that led to St. Pauls conversion, or at any rate to his conviction of sin (Rom_7:7).
2. The Ten Commandments, with two exceptions, are negative in form. Thou shalt not occurs eight times, Thou shalt only twice. To forbid wrong-doing is absolutely necessary, but the not doing of wrong is not the highest ideal of morality.
III. The incompleteness and limitations and defects of the Ten Commandments are best seen if we take one of them and compare it with the law of Christ. Thou shalt do no murder, for example, is one of these Jewish laws as necessary and as binding today as when it was first spoken. But now compare it with the law of Christ, as declared in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat_5:21-22). We see at once the contrast. Christs law is higher and more spiritual than the law of Moses. And so with all these Ten Commandments. The Decalogue does not from any point of view represent an ideal and perfect code of ethics. As moonlight or starlight is to sunlight, so the Ten Commandments are to the law of Christ. One often wonders what would be the effect on the moral life of the Church if at the regular services on the Sunday there was the recital, week by week, of the laws of Christ, or, at any rate, of some of them, followed each one, it may be, by the prayer, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law,
IV. Notice the significant fact that the Law of God was not given to His people until their redemption from Egypt was completed. This is the Divine order--redemption by the passover sacrifice, and shedding of the blood of the innocent lamb, then the giving of the law. This was the order in Judaism, and in Christianity the same significant order is preserved. We are first redeemed by the precious blood of Christ from the curse and power of sin, from death; and then we are bidden to keep the law of Christ. The Divine order is not, Do this and live, but, Live and do this: redemption first, obedience afterwards. This order is not an arbitrary and unmeaning one. It lies in the eternal necessities of our being. Can a dead man do anything? Can a corpse obey a single command? Can it even hear one? And if we are dead in trespasses and sins, our first need is not a law, but a life: first deliverance from the doom of sin, first redemption, and then, and not till then, the sinner, saved from the prison house of death, falls at his Lords feet and cries, Lord, I am Thy servant, I am Thy servant, Thou hast loosed my bonds. (G. S. Barrett, D. D.)
The preface
I. The Lawgiver is their God. Men are naturally religious; that is, they have a fear of, a reverence for, some powerful Being who has power to do them good or evil, and whose favour they wish to enjoy; that Being is their God, and they are His people. The gods of the heathen are false gods. There is but one living and true God, the God of the Bible, the God of Israel. Whom should Israel obey but their God? He has made them, rules over them, has care of them; He knows their nature, knows what is good for them, knows what they should do and be; He will seek only their good and their perfection; He will speak only what it is best for them to hear.
II. The Lawgiver is their Redeemer. This is an additional reason for obedience. For who can so well rule and govern the free as He who made them free? And whom are freemen bound to obey but Him who redeemed them? But someone may ask, Why should there be laws for the free? Why combine law and freedom? Is it for the mere exercise of arbitrary power as sovereign Lord? He is Sovereign, and is the source of all power and law. But He has mans good in view. Laws are needful for the imperfect. Children get rules; as they grow up into the mind of the father, minute and multiplied rules begin to cease, because the law is now in them, and is, as it were, part of them.
III. The Lawgiver is Jehovah. This name conveys a third reason for obedience. It indicates that God is self-existent, eternal, and unchangeable (Mal_3:6). Surely, then, Jehovah is a precious covenant for Israels God, and for Israel to know Him by. It speaks of Him as the eternally unchangeable One, and therefore ever faithful and true, to be trusted most fully. Conclusion--
1. Freedom and law are both of God, and therefore perfectly compatible and harmonious.
2. Freedom and holiness go together. (James Matthew, B. D.)
The Decalogue
I. There is first to be noted, the aspect in which the great Lawgiver here presents Himself to His people: I am Jehovah, thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Jehovah, the unchangeable and eternal, the great I am; this alone, had it been all, was a lofty idea for men who had been so long enveloped in the murky atmosphere of idolatry; and if deeply impressed upon their hearts, and made a pervading element in their religion and polity, would have nobly elevated the seed of Israel above all the nations then existing on the earth. But there is more a great deal than this in the personal announcement which introduces the ten fundamental precepts; it is His faithful love and sufficiency for all future time, to protect them from evil or bring them salvation.
II. Yet it did not the less on that account assume--being a revelation of law in form as well as substance, it could not but assume--a predominantly stringent and imperative character. The loving spirit in which it opens is not, indeed, absent from the body of its enactments, though, for the most part, formally disguised; but even in form it reappears more than once--especially in the assurance of mercy to the thousands who should love God and keep His commandments, and the promise of long continuance on the land of rest and blessing, associated respectively with the second and the fifth precepts of the law. But these are only, as it were, the relieving clauses of the code: the law itself, in every one of the obligations it imposes, takes the imperative form--Thou shalt do this, Thou shalt not do that; and this just because it is law, and must leave no doubt that the course it prescribes is the one that ought to be taken, and must be taken, by everyone who is in a sound moral condition. Still, the negative is doubtless in itself the lower form of command; and when so largely employed as it is in the Decalogue, it must be regarded as striving to meet the strong current of evil that runs in the human heart. III, Viewing the law thus, as essentially the law of love, which it seeks to protect as well as to evoke and direct, let us glance briefly at the details, that we may see how entirely these accord, alike in their nature and their orderly arrangement, with the general idea, and provide for its proper exemplification. As love has unspeakably its grandest object in God, so precedence is justly given to what directly concerns Him--implying also that religion is the basis of morality, that the right adjustment of mens relation to God tends to ensure the proper maintenance of their relations one to another. God, therefore, must hold the supreme place in their regard, must receive the homage of their love and obedience; and this in regard to His being, His worship, His name, and His day. The next command may also be taken in the same connection--a step further in the same line, since earthly parents are in a peculiar sense Gods representatives among men. This, however, touches on the second division of moral duty, that which concerns mens relation to each other; and according to the particular aspect in which it is contemplated, the fifth command may be assigned to the first or to the second table of the law. Scripture itself makes no formal division. Though it speaks frequently enough of two tables, it nowhere indicates where the one terminates and the other begins--purposely, perhaps, to teach us that the distinction is not to be very sharply drawn, and that the contents of the one gradually approximate and at last pass over into the other. And finally, to show that neither tongue, nor hands, nor any other member of our body, or any means and opportunities at our command--that not these alone are laid under contribution to this principle of love, but the seat also and fountain of all desire, all purpose and action--the Decalogue closes with the precept which forbids us to lust after or covet wife, house, possessions, anything whatever that is our neighbours--a precept which reaches to the inmost thoughts and intents of the heart, and requires that all even there should be under the control of a love which thinketh no evil, which abhors the very thought of adding to ones own heritage of good by wrongfully infringing on what is anothers. Viewed thus as enshrining the great principle of love, and in a series of commands chalking out the courses of righteous action it was to follow, of unrighteous action it was to shun, the law of the two tables may justly be pronounced unique--so compact in form, so orderly in arrangement, so comprehensive in range, so free from everything narrow and punctilious--altogether the fitting reflex of the character of the Supremely Pure and Good in His relation to the members of His earthly kingdom. (P. Fairbairn, D. D.)
Rules for the understanding of the Decalogue
For the right understanding of the Ten Commandments these rules are to be observed--
I. That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof and unto entire obedience forever, so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty and to forbid the least degree of every sin.
II. That it is spiritual and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as words, works, and gestures.
III. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.
IV. That as where a duty is commanded the contrary sin is forbidden and where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded: So, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.
V. That what God forbids is at no time to be done; what He commands is always our duty, and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.
VI. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
VII. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.
VIII. That, in what is commanded to others, we are bound according to our places and callings to be helpful to them, and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden. (Thomas Ridglet, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v22 AFTER the ten commandments, Deuteronomy, like Exodus, next indicates…
THE MEDIATORSHIP OF MOSES
Deu_5:22-23
Read full note →
AFTER the ten commandments, Deuteronomy, like Exodus, next indicates that for all of legislation, exhortation, and advice that follows, Moses was to be the mediator between God and the people. He is represented as Yahwehs prophet or speaker in all that succeeds; the Decalogue alone is set forth as the direct Divine command. Evidently a great distinction is here notified, and what it exactly was may be best explained by reference to the history of Roman law. In the earliest times that consisted of Fas, Jus, and Jus moribus constitutum. In chapter 4 Professor Muirheads description of fas has been given at length, so that we need not repeat it here. The point to remember is that it consisted of universal precepts such as the Decalogue contains, given direct by God. Jus again was, according to Breal, the Divine will declared by human agency, and it occupied much the position which law does in civilized states now. Finally, Jus moribus constitutum, or boni mores, was customary law, which had a twofold function. It was
(1) a restraint upon the law, condemning, though it could not prevent, the ruthless and unnecessary exercise of legal right.
(2) It was a supplement to law (Jus), requiring things law did not, e.g., dutiful service, respect and obedience, chastity, fidelity to engagements, etc.
Now it is a striking fact that, though there can be no question of imitation here, the legislation of Deuteronomy falls naturally into these very divisions; and that fact of itself gives strong support to the belief that here in Israel, as there in Rome, we have the recorded facts of the earliest efforts at the regulation of national life. The fas, then, corresponds to the Decalogue. The Jus runs exactly parallel with the laws in the strict sense of the term, those which Moses received from Yahweh and afterwards promulgated. Lastly, the boni mores are represented in Deuteronomy by those beautiful precepts which limited the exercise of legal right, and, going far beyond law, demanded of Israel that they should make good their claim to be Yahwehs people by justice, charity, and purity.
To some it may seem that we do no service to Scripture by insisting upon such a parallel. They will feel as if thereby the unique character of the religion of Israel as a revealed religion were obscured, if not obliterated. But nothing can be imagined which could confirm us in belief of the substantial accuracy of what we find narrated of early times in Scripture, more than the discovery that, without any possibility of collusion, the earliest records of civilization elsewhere give us precisely the same account of the forms in which law first makes its appearance. Surely we ought now to have learned this lesson at least, that it is no disparagement to a Divinely given system of law and religion, that its growth and development run in the same channels as the growth and development of similar systems which have none of the marks of a Divine origin. Revelation always seizes upon mind as it is, and makes that a sufficient and effective channel for itself. However it is to be explained, it is true that Divine action generally seeks to hide itself in the ordinary course of human things as quickly as possible. It is only at the moment of contact, or at the moment when it has burst forth in some flower of more than earthly grace and loveliness, or when it has overturned and overturned until that state of things which has a right to endure has been attained, that the Divine force reveals itself. For the most part it sinks into the general sum of forces that are making for the progress of humanity, and clothes itself gladly in the uniform of other beneficent but natural influences. Consequently it ought to be a welcome fact that so close a parallel exists between the origins of Roman law and the origins of Hebrew law. The one great gain already mentioned, that it explains the early appearance of the Decalogue, and shows that some such laws would naturally be among the primary laws of Israel, would be sufficient to justify that view; while in addition the distinctions from the early laws of Rome help us to classify in clear broad masses the somewhat disordered series of Deuteronomic laws.
On one point only does the parallel seem questionable. If we followed it alone as our guide, we should have to set down the mediator-ship of Moses, as a mere part of the method, as belonging to the formal side only of the great revelation. In other words, we should have to ask whether the statement we have in Deu_5:22-30 is only an emotional and pictorial way of setting forth the fact that, following and supplementing the elementary and Divinely given Hebrew fas, there was also a Divinely given but humanly mediated jus. But clearly it means much more than that. By the earlier prophets, and generally in all earlier delineations of him, Moses is regarded as a prophet who had more direct and continuous access to the Divine presence than any other prophet of Israel. Moreover he had always been represented from the earliest times as standing between Yahweh and His people, holding on to the one and refusing to let the other go. In the great scene, taken from the earliest constituents of the Pentateuch and narrated in Exodus 32, we see him anticipating by centuries the wonderful picture of the Servant of God in Isaiah 53, and by a still more amazing stretch of time, that Divinest wish of St. Paul, that he himself might be accursed even from Christ for his brethrens sake. He thus stood between Yahweh and His people both as the organ of Revelation and as the self-forgetting intercessor, who suffered for sins not his own, as well as for sins which his connection with his nation had brought upon him; who, instead of repining, was willing to be blotted out of Gods book if that could benefit his people.
This representation of Moses is not accidental. It is in complete accord with a characteristic of Israelite literature from beginning to end. In the earliest historical records we find that the chief heroes of the nation are mediators, standing for God in the face of evil men, and pleading with God for men when they are broken and penitent, or even when they are only terrified and restrained by the terror of the Lord. At the beginning of the national history we see the noble figure of Abraham in an agony of supplication and entreaty before God on behalf of the cities of the plain. At the end of it, we see the Christ, the supreme "mediator between God and man," pouring out His soul unto death for men "while they were yet sinners," dying, the just for the unjust, taking upon Himself the responsibility for the sin of man, and refusing to let him wander away into permanent separation from God. And all between is in accord with this. For it is not Moses only who is regarded as having a mediatorial office. The very people: itself is set, by the promise given to Abraham, in the same position. As early at least as the eighth century it was put before Israel, that their calling was not for their own sakes only, but that in them all nations of the earth might be blessed. And at their highest moments the prophets and teachers of Israel always recognize this as their nations part. Even when they were being scattered among the heathen, it was that they might be the means of bringing the knowledge of Yahweh to the nations. From end to end of Scripture, therefore, this conception is wrought into the very fiber of its utterances. It is of the essence of the Biblical conception of God that He should work among men by mediators. In no other way could the primary Divine message be set forth than by the prophetic voice; in no other way than by the intercession and the suffering of those most in harmony with the Divine will could any effective hold upon God be given to His people. Only by those who thus proved that they had seen Yahweh could His character be expressed. Further, it was in this way that Moses and the prophets, the rulers and the saints of Israel, were types of Christ.
They were not mere puppets set forth in certain crises of Israels history to go through a certain career, live a certain life, and pass into and out of a number of scenes, in order that they might afford us, upon whom the end of the world has come, pictorial proofs that all things in this history were pressing towards and converging upon Christ. That would be a very artificial way of conceiving the matter. No, each of these types was a real man, with real tasks of his own to accomplish in the world. Not only were they all real men, they were the leading men of their various times. They bore the burden of their day more than others; they were the special organs: of Divine power and grace; and their lives were spent in giving impulse and direction to the movements of their peoples life towards the strange, unlooked-for consummation appointed for it. They were types of Christ, they gave promise of Him, not because of mere arbitrary appointment or selection, but because they did in their day, in a lower degree and at an earlier stage, the very same work that He did. Further, the whole nation was a type of Christ in so far as it was true to its calling at all. It was the prophet and the priest among nations. It spread abroad the knowledge of Him, and it died at last as a nation that life might be given to the world. Both Israel and all the men who truly represented it were partakers in the labors and in the sufferings of Christ beforehand, just as Christians are said to fill up the measure of His sufferings now. The mediatorial character of Moses, therefore, was essential. It is no merely formal thing, nor an afterthought. He would have been no fit founder of the mediatorial nation had he not been a mediator himself, for not otherwise could he have helped to realize the Abrahamic promise.
But there is another subsidiary reason why a mediator was necessary to Israel at this stage. Behind all that Moses taught his people lay necessarily the ancient popular religion of the Hebrews. Now, except in so far as it may have been changed in Egypt, that was in its main features the same as the religion of the other nomadic tribes of Semitic stock, for the Abrahamic faith was, clearly, known but to few. But the names given to their deities by these people-such as Baal, Adhonai, Milcom, etc.-"all expressed submission to the irresistible power revealing itself in nature," just as "Islam," which means "submission," indicates that Mohammedanism is a mere perpetuation of this view. Consequently the Israelite people were unable to conceive God save as a devouring presence, before which no man could live. The Mosaic view was, in itself, immeasurably higher, and, besides that, it opened up the path to attainments then inconceivable. Moses therefore had to stand alone in his new relation to God, while the people cowered away in terror, dominated entirely by the lower conception. They could not stand where he stood. They were unable to believe that power was not Yahwehs only attribute; while Moses had had revealed to him, in germ at least, that God was "merciful and gracious, long-suffering and slow to anger," and that a life passed in His presence was the ideal life for man. Both the Yahwistic narrative in Exodus and the repetition of it in Deuteronomy give the same representation of the events at Sinai, and indicate quite clearly that, while the old relation to God was in itself good so far, it was to be superseded by that higher relation in which Moses stood. That is the meaning of the words in Deu_5:28-29 : "And Yahweh said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken unto thee; they have well said all that they have spoken. Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments, always, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!" The parallel passage in Exodus is Exo_20:20 : "And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come toprove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not." In both, the standpoint of fear is approved as relatively good and wholesome. It was well that the people should have this awestruck fear of the Divine, for it would act as a deterrent from sin. But it was not sufficient. It was only the starting-point for the attainments which Yahweh by Moses, and in Moses, was about to call and incite them to. Moses therefore had to stand between Israel and Yahweh in this too, that he had entered into and lived in relations with his God which they were as yet unable either to conceive or to endure. It is well to add, also, that in giving approval of this kind to fear as a religious motive these early teachers were entirely in accord with the final development of Israelite religion in the New Testament. The modern view that any appeal to fear in religion or morality is degrading would have been simply unintelligible to the Biblical writers. Even now, the whole fabric of society, the state with its officials and the law with its penalties, are a continual protest against it in the realm of practical morality. In truth the conflict raised about this matter in modern times is simply a conflict between superfine theories and facts. Now the Old Testament is throughout supremely true to the facts of human nature and human experience. It is practically a transcript of them as seen in the light of revelation. In a time, therefore, when in morals and religion physical fact is being allowed to override or pervert psychical fact, the Old Testament view is peculiarly wholesome. It helps to restore the balance and to keep mans thoughts sane.
Another point on which this narrative of Deuteronomy corrects and restores that which the tendency of modern thought has perverted is an even more important one. We have seen that the Old Testament view, as stated here, and as it is interwoven with the central fibers of the Old Testament conception, is that all men who are called to the task of permanently raising the level of human life and thought must give not only their light to, but their life for, those whom they seek to win for God. They must ask nothing from mankind but ever widening opportunities for service and self-sacrifice. But in our modern day this has been precisely reversed, and men like Goethe and Schopenhauer, and even Carlyle, have demanded that mankind should yield service to them, and then, by the furtherance and development they thereby attain, they promise to work out the deliverance of men from superstition and unreality and the bondage of ignorance. Goethe in this matter is typical. He preached and practiced in the most uncompromising manner the doctrine of self-development. He thought that he could serve humanity in no way so well as by making every one he met, and all the experiences he encountered, minister to his own intellectual growth. Instead of saying with Moses, "Blot me out of Thy book," but spare these dim idolatrous masses, he would have said, "Let them all perish, and let me become the origin of a wiser, more intellectual, more self-restrained race than they." He consequently pursued his own ends relentlessly from his early years, and attained results so immense that almost every domain of thought, speculation, and science is now under some debt to him. But for all purposes of inspiring moral and spiritual enthusiasm he is practically useless. His selfishness, however high its kind, accomplished its work and left him cold, unapproachable, isolated. This want of love for men made him the accurate critic of human nature, but left him blind in great degree and hopeless altogether in regard to those possibilities of better things which are never wholly wanting to it. The result is that, notwithstanding his heroic powers, his influence is today rather a minus quantity in the spiritual and moral life. No one who has not warmth from other sources pouring in upon him can have much communion with Goethe without losing vitality, and in his presence the Divine passion of self-sacrificing love looks out of place, or even slightly absurd. His power is fascinating, but it freezes all the sources of the nobler spiritual emotions, and ultimately must tend to the impoverishing of human nature and the lowering of the level of human life. No; men are not to be reached so if it is wished to raise them to their highest powers, and all experience proves that the New Testament was right in summing up the teaching of the Old by the words, "He that saveth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it."
"That is the doctrine, simple, ancient, true;
Such is lifes trial, as old earth smiles and knows.
If you loved only what were worth your love,
Love were clear gain and wholly well for you;
Make the low nature better by your throes!
Give earth yourself, go up for gain above!"
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v22 Admonition to Heed the Law
Admonition to Heed the Law
v. 22. These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, Exo 19:16-19; and He added no more, only the Decalogue was given in this manner. And He wrote them in two tables of stone and delivered them unto me, Exo 24:12; Exo 31:18.
Read full note →
v. 23. And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes and your elders;
v. 24. and ye said, Behold, the Lord, our God, hath showed us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth, Deu 4:33; Exo 20:18-19.
v. 25. Now, therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord, our God, any more, then we shall die. The consciousness of their sinfulness would rest upon them so heavily as to make them die for fear and dread of God’s majesty.
v. 26. For who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire as we have, and lived? Flesh in itself, natural man in his inherited sinfulness, to which is added the guilt of the many transgressions in thought, word, and deed, is opposed to the holiness of God, is conscious of the fact that the punishment upon sin is death, Joh 3:6.
v. 27. Go thou near and hear all that the Lord, our God, shall say; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord, our God, shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it and do it, Exo 20:19. They were altogether ready to accept the service of Moses as mediator between the Lord and themselves. Note that the speeches are here given in their full form, since Moses was speaking to the children of those who actually spoke these words at Mount Sinai.
v. 28. And the Lord heard the voice of your words when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken unto thee; they have well said all that they have spoken. Their plea had been prompted by the consciousness of their unworthiness before the Lord; it showed a condition of the heart which was peculiarly receptive to the precepts which Jehovah was about to give.
v. 29. O that there were such an heart in them that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them and with their children forever! The state of mind which Israel showed here is best adapted to heed the commandments of the Lord and to follow the directions of His holy will. But even here there seems to be a show of apprehension concerning the lasting qualities of the professed feeling.
v. 30. Go, say to them, Get you in to your tents again, since their petition was granted.
v. 31. But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. In this way Moses became the formal mouthpiece of the Lord, the recognized mediator between Him and the people, at their own request.
v. 32. Ye shall observe to do, therefore, as the Lord, your God, hath commanded you; ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
v. 33. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord, your God, hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. The picture is that of a straight road, every deviation from which will plunge the wayfarer into destruction. It will be the aim of every Christian to follow the narrow pathway and to enter in at the strait gate which leads to eternal life, through the mercy and power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 General Information:
General Information:
Moses continues speaking to the people of Israel.
Read full note →
face to face
Use your language's idiom for two people who are close to each other and looking at each other when they are speaking to each other. (See: Idiom)
on the mount
"on the mountain"
at that time
Moses is referring to an event that happened about 40 years earlier.
out of the house of slavery
Here the metonym "house of slavery" refers to Egypt where the people of Israel had been slaves. AT: "out of the place where you were slaves" (See: Metonymy)
translationWords
Yahweh
face
fire
reveal
word
fear
Egypt
house
servant
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 5:9 The children of sinful parents are not punished…
5:9 The children of sinful parents are not punished for the wrongdoings of their mothers and fathers, but the sins of any generation have consequences that last for generations (see 2 Sam 12:10). • The term reject (literally hate) does not relate to having bitter and hostile feelings but to forsaking a relationship.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.