Misreading the commandments

The S.C. House’s understandable, though perhaps politically motivated, 97-2 decision to OK the posting by state agencies and universities of what are commonly called the Ten Commandments is misguided at best and, at worst, uninformed. Regardless of the constitutional issues involved, it shows a lack of understanding of the exact nature of those ancient Hebrew laws.

In the biblical material, the Ten Commandments do not appear in the form we so often see them on plaques, monuments or little yard signs. Those verses, from the book of Exodus, Chapter 20, and the expanded version in Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, both contain a lot more than the typical display.

Any biblical scholar worth his salt will tell you that you just can’t rip verses out of context, including these. You have to take into account the literary context and the historical-cultural context of any passage to determine its meaning. You also have to try to understand the purpose for which things were written.

The contexts of the Ten Commandments are decidedly religious: specifically, the ancient Hebrew religion. When the word “God” is used, it is referring to the Hebrew God, the one whose changing portrait is painted in the pages of the Old Testament. The immediate context is the establishing of the Hebrew God’s nation (Israel-Judah, not the United States) as a nation set apart from the surrounding “pagan” ones.

The very first commandment is that the Hebrew people are to have no other God than the one revealed in those pages. The second commandment clearly states that only the Hebrew God is to be worshipped. The third commandment exhorts the Hebrews to not use their God’s name lightly; that name is, in its English version, Yahweh.

The commandment regarding the Sabbath is predicated on the belief that the Hebrew God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Hence, his (and the Hebrew God is decidedly male) people must do likewise.

The next one, about honoring parents, is, as the biblical writers noted, the first one with a promise. If the Hebrews will honor their parents, then they will dwell long in the land that their God gave to them, the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.

The Old Testament concept of adultery had nothing to do with notions of sexual morality but rather, property rights. Wives belonged to their husbands. To have sex with another man’s wife was to take his property.

Even what could be considered one of the most generic rules contained in those verses, the prohibition of murder, is predicated on an understanding of mankind as created in the image of the Hebrew God. Stories of this creation are found in the first two chapters of Genesis.

The point is: The Ten Commandments are not generic, nonsectarian rules for all mankind’s behavior. They were specific rules given in a specific time to a specific people.

They are, through and through, statements of a particular religion, ancient Judaism. They are rules from which Paul, the founder of Christianity for all practical purposes, declared men to be free through Christ.

That the development of modern law has been influenced by the so-called Mosaic law cannot be denied. That is probably a good thing. However, to call this collection of rules a “document” shows an unabashed ignorance of what it really is. It is a few verses out of two books included in the Hebrew scriptures and Christian Bible.

That some, but not all, of the principles found in the Ten Commandments are good ones to live by for any society is self-evident. But that’s a far cry from lifting what are unquestionably religious statements out of their various contexts and holding them up as rules for governing modern society. Theocracy is not democracy.

For a pluralistic society like South Carolina or the United States, where all forms of religious expression are not only tolerated but encouraged to use taxpayers’ money to establish or present one religion as the “right” one — indeed, the “only” one — blatantly or subtly, is unwise. To represent that single religion as the one “we” believe, is presumptuously untrue and unconstitutional. It is a clear violation of the intent of our nation’s founders (many of whom were not Christian): that no one religion should have primacy in the United States, not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Hinduism, not any religion.

I hope that the S.C. Senate will seek to more clearly understand what these commandments really were.

Mr. Gillespie, a writer living in Anderson, is a graduate of Columbia International University and Reformed Theological Seminary. He may be reached at SCupstatewriter@aol.com.