Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Deuteronomy 5:6-21
The Words of the Covenant of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 5:6).
Having provided the context he now expands on the basic covenant. At this point the pronouns change from plural to singular until Deuteronomy 5:22. This was so as to emphasise the personal application of what was said to each listener, and also to stress that it applied to the whole nation as one. Here we have a repetition of the giving of the covenant, and of the ten words which it contained, but with slight alterations in order to bring home certain emphases.
Analysis.
· Naming the covenant Overlord and what He has done for them.
“I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Deuteronomy 5:6).
· Presenting the covenant stipulations:
“You (thou) shall have no other gods ‘to my face'.” (And as He sees all things in heaven and earth all such are by this banned) (Deuteronomy 5:7).
· “You shall not make to yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Deuteronomy 5:8)
· “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain” (Deuteronomy 5:11).
· “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:12).
· “Honour your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:16)
· “You shall not murder” (Deuteronomy 5:17).
· “Neither shall you commit adultery” (Deuteronomy 5:18).
· “Neither shall you steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19).
· “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour” (Deuteronomy 5:20).
· “Neither shall you covet” (anything of your neighbour's) (Deuteronomy 5:21).
‘ Saying, “I am Yahweh your (thy) God, who brought you (thee) out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
First there is the declaration of the maker of the covenant, and the basis on which He can expect their response. This is not an agreement between two equal parties, but the declaration of an Overlord to His subjects because of what He has done for them in delivering them.
He declares that He is ‘Yahweh their God', the One Who had ‘brought them out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage' (out of the position of being bondsmen in Egypt, which was the ‘house' of Pharaoh). That He is their Great Deliverer. He reminds them that they had been an oppressed people, enslaved and restrained by Pharaoh, and that the requirements laid on them then had come from Pharaoh and from Egypt, binding them in a slave contract. And these restrictions had resulted in terrible bondage in ‘the slave house of Pharaoh'. But by His mighty acts He had delivered them and brought them out as free men to this very place (Deuteronomy 4:34). It is because of this therefore that He has the right to state to them His own requirements, His covenant requirements. They had been freed from subjection to Pharaoh and from Egypt, with its bondage, so that they might come within His covenant love, and enjoy the land He would give them, with its freedom.
Furthermore this experience of deliverance had been brought up to date in Deuteronomy 1-4. It had been confirmed by subsequent victories. Thus they could now not only rejoice in their deliverance from Egypt, but could rejoice in those further victories given, and in the part of the land that had already been given to them as an extra and as a kind of firstfruit. And now there they were on the verge of entering into the land under the kingly rule of God in freedom and liberty. But it still all rested on that first deliverance.
The first three commands that next follow are almost word for word as in Exodus 20:3, with minimal differences.
“ You (thou) shall have no other gods before me (or ‘in my presence', literally ‘to (or on) my face').”
The first requirement was that He was to be pre-eminent in their lives and worship. They were to have nothing to do with any other gods, and certainly none should be allowed in the Central Sanctuary. None must enter His presence, and they must remember in this regard that He ‘walked' in the camp of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:14; Leviticus 26:12). Thus other gods were excluded from the whole camp, and indeed as He sees all things everywhere in heaven and earth all such are banned.
We must here bring to mind that the crowd before Him included people of many nations (Exodus 12:38). Thus He spoke to them in terms of their understanding. This is not an admission that there were other genuine gods, but a declaration that all representations of such must be excluded from His presence, because they have no standing before Him, and should have no significance for them. He stands alone there as their God, the unique and only Yahweh. Such gods should not therefore even enter their thoughts or words (which are also ‘before Him', compare Deuteronomy 5:28).
They were to recognise that Yahweh was not just one God among many. In the account in Exodus little mention is made of the gods of Egypt (only in Exodus 12:12), or is made of the fact that Pharaoh was seen as a god. They are simply dismissed. The plagues had made nonsense of them. They had revealed that it was Yahweh alone Who controlled Egypt and all that happened to it, just as He controls all things. And his adversary Pharaoh (seen as a god by the Egyptians) was treated by Yahweh very much as a man. In the myths of the nations the gods were constantly at war with one another. But not so in the Bible. The gods did not fight with Yahweh. They were nonentities. They were simply a nuisance and had to be excised because men were deceived about them.
“ You shall not make to yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,”
Further, they were not to fashion for themselves, for the purpose of worship or veneration, any engraved image. Such an image must not be fashioned, whether in the likeness of anything in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Such were forbidden and if fashioned could result in their expulsion from the land (Deuteronomy 4:16; Deuteronomy 4:25).
The representation of gods in animal and bird forms was commonplace in Egypt, representations which linked the gods with creation as being a part of it. In Canaan the bull was extremely popular, as representing Baal, and to a lesser extent the horse. Female human figurines have also been discovered in Judah, representing fertility goddesses. It is interesting though that many figurines discovered in Judah had been purposely destroyed, presumably in the days of a reforming king. But such representations were not allowed to Israel. Any such representations were strictly forbidden.
In Romans 1:18 onwards Paul amplifies on this, pointing out how the worship of beastly forms resulted in beastly behaviour. For what man truly worships he becomes like. Many today would see themselves as released from this proviso. They consider that they worship no images. Instead they have replaced God by ‘society', by political expression, by credos, by sex, by wealth, by music and by sport. It is not that God is more central to their lives than He was among the Canaanites. They are still idolaters, and equally blameworthy, even though the images be photographs or digital images or notes, instead of gold. And the world still languishes. Their minds are taken up with other than God, and the images that take up their minds are the equivalent of graven images for they have moulded them for themselves.
“ You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous (deeply concerned) 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 lovingkindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Nor were they to bow down to such images nor serve them. This was because Yahweh is a ‘jealous' God, that is, He is a deeply concerned God, a God concerned that He should not be demeaned by even being associated with such gods by such acts of worship, a God concerned for truth and for the good of His people. So He and such gods are totally incompatible. They must make their choice. They must either worship Him or them, but they could not worship both, for that would be to lower Him to their level.
And He is a God Who will not permit the worship of any other than Himself because He is the Supreme Creator and Lord of all. This ‘jealousy' has both a positive and a negative aspect. Positively He knows that it is only when He is central in our hearts that we are what we should be. He knows that our greatest hope of fulfilment lies in knowing Him fully, and that idolatry can only bestialise us. Thus modern idolatry is as harmful to us as the ancient idolatry was to people then. Negatively it is simply because none other are worthy of worship, and to worship them demeans His people.
It is telling us that Yahweh has the deepest concern for what is right at the heart of things, and is thus concerned lest His people worship and serve that which was not worthy of such worship and service. This is because he knows what it will do to them. He knows that it will bestialise them, and this is true whether it be representations of beasts, or distorted music, or overemphasised sport. It concentrates their mind on the flesh. For once they remove themselves from God's influence it is not long before men and women bestialise everything, especially when what they worship is crude. So He is jealous (deeply concerned) for their right belief and for their right emphases and for their right recognition of His uniqueness, as He still is, because only by that can they escape being bestialised.
“Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me.” Thus He tells them (and us) that all should take note of how they behave in this regard, because what they do will affect succeeding generations. Let all recognise that His response reaches down through the generations. He does not do this by personal attack but because He has made the world in such a way that the inevitable consequence of a man's choosing to sin is that his family become involved and are affected by it. So by copying him they bring themselves under the same judgment, and this tends to affect generation after generation. Indeed the ‘father' might well still be alive when the third or fourth generation is born, with his pernicious influence as father of the family still affecting the whole. Thus his iniquity is visited on them and they suffer too.
Yet even though this is so, in the end it must be recognised that what they are is by their own choice. No men are forced to follow their fathers (Abraham had not), and there are no examples given in Scripture of righteous men directly suffering under God for the sins of their fathers, although righteous men did suffer because they were associated with unrighteous Israel simply by association. The lesson is that what we are not only affects us but also those who look up to us and associate with us, and that it can go very deep.
“And showing lovingkindness (covenant love) to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” On the other hand to those who love Him and respond to Him, delighting in and keeping His commandment, He declares that He shows lovingkindness and mercy on a constant and overwhelming scale. His delight is to bless His people. And this is offered to ‘thousands', that is, to large and inexpressible numbers, a multitude which no man can number. For God is a God of lovingkindness.
“ You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
The idolatry previously mentioned was a desertion, but to take Yahweh's name in vain is a positive attack. To take the name of Yahweh in vain means to use it lightly, or to use it for wrong purposes, either in a curse, or a false oath, or casually, or in contempt, or in magic. It is man's attempt to bring God into trivial matters. Any of these things are blasphemy, and those who behave in such a way will not be found guiltless. For to insult or depreciate or misuse or be casual with His name is to positively insult and depreciate Him, and reveals how they view Him.
In the ancient world the name was seen as highly significant. It was seen as representing what the bearer of that name essentially was. Thus the name of a god revealed the essence of the god. Men felt that they could therefore take that name and utilise it in order to control the power of the god. This was probably what Balak wanted Balaam to do with ‘Yahweh' (Numbers 22-24). But His people were not to do thus with Yahweh's name. Such a use would be blasphemy. His Name must be revered and not trespassed on or slighted. To use it wrongly would be to be guilty before God. God is not such that an attempt can be made to control Him.
Even today we may do the same. We may use the name of Jesus in order to manipulate God to give us what we want. That is blasphemy. For prayer ‘in the name of Jesus' should only be offered for what He wants and what will make us more useful in His service. To ask in His name should mean to want it for His sake, not for our own (compare Matthew 6:8). To use His name in order to obtain private and selfish benefits is to break this commandment in an insidious way.
“ Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you. Six days shall you labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God, in it you shall not do any work, you, nor you son, nor you daughter, nor your man-servant, nor your maid-servant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle, nor your foreigner who is within your gates, that your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you.”
This is the first commandment in which we find Moses making clear and deliberate alterations. There are a number of them. ‘Observe' is used instead of ‘remember'; ‘as Yahweh your God commanded you' is added; special mention is made of the ox and the ass, instead of just the general ‘cattle'; and ‘that your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you' is tacked on. The first in some ways makes little difference, for to ‘remember' means to ‘observe'. But perhaps there had been a laxity in keeping the sabbath so that Moses wished to stress that it must not only be perfunctorily remembered but fully observed. All present would notice the change from the usual pattern of words. ‘Observing' (regarding and carrying out fully) what Yahweh commands is a theme of Deuteronomy. (Six times in Deuteronomy 4, five times in Deuteronomy 5, five times in Deuteronomy 6, four times in Deuteronomy 7 and so on).
“As Yahweh your God commanded you” refers back to Exodus 20:8 where the command was originally given, and also to Exodus 16:23; Exodus 16:25 where it was first instituted. See also Exodus 31:13; Exodus 35:2; Leviticus 19:3; Leviticus 19:30; Leviticus 23:3; Leviticus 26:2. This added comment demonstrates that this repetition of the covenant is very much in speech form rather than being a solemn declaration of the covenant. It is given with the purpose of pressing home its requirements.
The non-mention of the wife (which occurs often when referring to family) was not because she was not important enough, but because the man and wife were seen as being one and acting together as one flesh (Genesis 2:24). What he did she did. ‘You' (thou) included both. It was a testimony to the recognition of that principle. It was because to take a man's wife was to destroy this unity that the punishment for it was death.
“Your ox and your ass.” With regard to the special mention of the ass it may be that some had argued that the ass was not included in ‘cattle' and was thus not to share the sabbath rest. If that was so then that false idea was being put right. But whether that was so or not, the ox and ass were the hardest workers of the domestic animals, and are specifically mentioned with regard to the Sabbath in Exodus 23:12. Like the servants they most deserved rest, which was something all must have under the covenant.
“That your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you.” This final tacked item on may also suggest that some had been lax in allowing full rest to men-servants and maid-servants, possibly lightening but not totally suspending their duties. Moses thus stresses that they must have the same rest as everyone else, so that they too may be able to fully rest and focus their minds on God as everyone else did. They especially should enjoy this symbol of the liberty which God gave to man.
The purpose then of these changes was to counter attempts to evade the full impact of the requirements. Additional sub-clauses had been added on the basis of experience.
“Within your gates.” This does not necessarily require a reference to city gates. Moses stood in ‘the gate' of the camp in Exodus 32:26. It refers merely to that which gives entrance into the recognised sphere of habitations, in this case tents. Those within your gates signifies ‘those who are living among you'. All in the camp, and later in cities and towns in the land, were to enjoy this rest. This even included foreigners who came among them, who must also observe the sabbath.
“Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you.” The sabbath, that is, every seventh day from the first giving of the manna (Exodus 16), was to be kept holy. It was to be treated as a day set apart to Yahweh on which all should rest, from the very highest to the very lowest, including ass and cattle. No work should be done (feeding, milking and watching over beasts would be allowed because these were necessary acts of mercy). It was a day on which men should not do their own will, or seek their own pleasure or speak their own words (Isaiah 58:13). All hearts and thoughts were to be set on Yahweh, and none must be excluded from the Sabbath rest.
The question of the Christian attitude to this cannot be fully dealt with here. Suffice to say that the point was that every seventh day was to be kept as holy to Yahweh (there was at that time no such thing as a ‘week' and thus it was not the last day of the week). The fact that there are different time zones, which are decided by men and subject to change, brings out that it is the principle that matters not the particular day. Change the time zone and the ‘day of the week' may change. Paul himself makes clear that what matters is not the keeping of a particular day, but the keeping of a day to the Lord, whether it be one day in seven or every day. We are not to judge one another on the matter. Each stands responsible to the Lord for what he does (Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10; Colossians 2:17 compare Mark 2:27). What does matter is that we bring God regularly, or always, into our use of time. Indeed the strict keeping of the sabbath was not feasible for many early Christians. They could not cease work. It was an injunction only possible for a free people with the freedom to choose. For New Testament Christian slaves it was replaced by ‘the rest of faith' (Hebrews 4). That was the new sabbath which replaced the sabbath which they could not enjoy. It was by their faith in Christ that they found rest in a restless world. Yet they could still have days which they treated as specially devoted to God.
“ And you shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore Yahweh your God commands you to keep the sabbath day.”
The reference to the men-servants and maid-servants leads him on to stress why this is so. It is because they should remember that they too had been ‘servants' in the land of Egypt until Yahweh delivered them with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (compare Deuteronomy 4:34). They had known what it was to slave without respite. They had known what it was to have no rest. But they had been delivered from this servitude by the hand of Yahweh. And He had exerted Himself that they might have rest. They should therefore have greater respect for their servants and ensure that both they and their servants fully ‘observed' the sabbath day, and that the servants had full rest on that day.
It will be noted that the reference to creation found in Exodus 20:11 is here omitted. This was presumably because Moses did not see it as necessary in this context when he was placing his emphasis on giving servants full rest. He was concentrating on the purpose in hand. All knew that it was a God-given pattern concerning a day blessed by God. But in mind here was that Israel were now entering into their rest, and it was right therefore that all should enjoy the sabbath rest for that reason. His concern here was that they should learn their lesson from their deliverance. That is why it is their own deliverance that he stresses as the factor to be taken into account and not creation. He is stressing experience over against theory because he feels it will have more impact.
This would suggest that the reference to creation was seen by him as a secondary subsection and not as the main clause in the covenant. It was after all not a requirement but an explanation. So he considered that to omit it did not lessen the covenant requirement. To have added it on here would in fact have lessened the strength of his argument and blurred his point, while his silence about it drew clear attention to both to it and to the alternative, for all would be waiting for the reference to creation and would be the more struck by its absence and by what he did say.
It should, however, be noted that this ‘addition' is not strictly ‘new' external material but is simply incorporating the idea contained in the initial verse of the covenant, that Yahweh had delivered them from bondage. He is not ‘adding' to the covenant, He is repeating the very basis on which it was founded.
So to ‘observe the sabbath' was not only in order to remember creation, but also to remember the deliverance. From now on the two went together. It had originally commemorated the giving of the manna (Exodus 16). It had then reminded men of the completeness of creation (Exodus 20). But now it included the deliverance. It celebrated God's provision of both food, and life, and rest. For Christians every seventh day (which it is, whatever day it is celebrated on) commemorates the giving of the Bread of Life (John 6:35) Who feeds our hearts, and it commemorates our Great Deliverer Who through the cross and resurrection has brought about the greater salvation.
“ Honour 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.”
Here he adds ‘as Yahweh your God commanded you' and ‘that it may go well with you'. These are the kind of typical asides that might well be made in a speech in order to emphasise the point and in order to wish them well, for he knew that he would not be with them much longer. With the possession of the land now almost on them these promises gained greater meaning. And they were a warning hint that if they were to enjoy the land permanently it could only be by a permanent keeping of the covenant, and that this would partly result from honouring father and mother as they learned from them the instruction of Yahweh. Long life and spiritual and material prosperity in the land would depend on it.
In Israel all authority from the top downwards was placed in the father figure; the father of the clan, the father of the sub-clan, the father of the wider family, the father of the family unit. And in each case the wife was the mother of the clan/family. They ensured the smooth running of each unit, and the teaching of the covenant of Yahweh. Thus to honour them was to honour God. To go against them was to go against God. (Which is why this commandment comes within the first five words, the words with respect to behaviour towards God). To curse them was to undermine the whole of society and to despise the authority given by Yahweh (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9)
“ You shall not murder.”
The taking of another human life was ever forbidden by God, for men's lives were sacred to Him and the life that was in them was His. He alone had the right to decide when a man's life should cease. He alone had given man breath (Genesis 2:7), He alone had the right to take it away again. The only exceptions were genuine self-defence and when carrying out an execution in accordance with Yahweh's laws, the former because there was no alternative and it was forced upon them, the latter because it was God's determination. The holy war against Canaan came under the second heading. They were executing the Canaanites at Yahweh's command. It should, however, be noted that the verb used here is never used of killing in warfare or of execution. It is only used of deliberate killing in day-to-day life, and also of accidental killing, but it is clearly not possible to legislate against the latter.
“ Neither shall you commit adultery.”
Notice the ‘neither' (or ‘and not' - waw with lo). The ‘and' comes here and in the next three commandments but is absent in Exodus 20. It softens the stark statements of Exodus 20 and makes them explanatory, as might be expected when Moses is not making a declaration of the covenant, but is explaining it. He is not giving the injunctions one by one in their starkness, each a direct command to the heart from Yahweh, he is putting them together as a whole depicting the complete picture of God's requirements. Next to killing a man, to take his wife in adultery was the worst thing that someone could do. Both these crimes carried the death penalty.
The relationship between a man and his wife was sealed by God (Genesis 2:24). It was as such a unique and binding covenant relationship which was essentially intended to be unbreakable. To break it was to seriously interfere in God's covenant working. To God all covenants are binding (Psalms 15:4), and this one more than all. It was thus uniquely an especially serious breach of God's covenant. It is equally serious today. Once committed it excluded both parties involved from God's covenant. That is why they were to be cut off from Israel. They were to be put to death. Yet that mercy could be obtained comes out in the example of David. But the seriousness of it came out in what followed. Deaths were still required (2 Samuel 12:10). David died in his son, and others of his sons suffered violent death.
“ Neither shall you steal.”
Stealing covered all aspects of dishonesty, including kidnapping for which the penalty was death (see Deuteronomy 24:7), stealing a man's reputation, and stealing his property. Next to a man's life, and his wife, his property and his name were the most important things in a man's estimation, and in God's, for they had been given to him by God. It was thus an offence against God. To steal them broke the covenant relationship. There were various penalties laid out for dishonesty and stealing. It depended on the nature of the offence. And they all required compensation.
(There could have been added to this commandment, ‘not a man's son, nor his daughter, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his'. It covered all aspects of life and property. Today we may not be able to steal a man's cattle, but we can still by manipulation steal his job or position or reputation or possessions).
“ Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.”
The main concern here was the maintenance of justice. To bear false witness in a court was to subvert justice, and thus to render the court unable to fulfil its function under Yahweh (compare Deuteronomy 19:15). To bear false witness was thus to attempt to prevent Yahweh from carrying out justice. It was to subvert God's purpose. All must therefore contribute towards maintaining true justice in every way. A man who was shown to have borne false witness had to bear the consequences that fell, or would have fallen, on the person he bore false witness about (Deuteronomy 19:16).
But in principle it includes the spreading of any ‘false witness' against someone else, and warns us to be careful in what we say about others. Compare ‘you shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people' (Leviticus 19:16).
“ Neither shall you covet your neighbour's wife; neither shall you desire your neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbour's.”
The final command is that they were not even to consider such things in their minds. The previous four commandments were widely held in many law codes and systems. In one way or another they were basic to life everywhere, although not always with such intensity. And punishment for them was made clear. But coveting is a thought process. And man could not judge and punish thought processes. Only God could do that.
Yet coveting is at the root of much sin for coveting leads to doing, and the point here is that God can even judge the thought processes before the outward sin itself is committed. Man may not be aware of them, but God is. Wrong thought processes are thus a breach of the covenant. They break essential unity with one's neighbour. And Yahweh will know. That is why Jesus could stress that to think was to do (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28). As a man thinks in his heart, so is he (Proverbs 23:7). Indeed coveting is the most important of all things to avoid for from it come all the other sins and it takes the heart away from God. It is a form of idolatry, for it means putting what we covet higher than God (Colossians 3:5). If we can avoid coveting we will mainly avoid sin.
This commandment thus lifts the covenant above the level of social law. It brings out that in the end it is something directly between man and God. It is personal.
Note that as compared with Exodus 20:17 Moses here changes the order and puts ‘wife' before ‘house', and separates her from the remainder, putting emphasis on her. This fits better with the order above, the forbidding of adultery before the stealing of property. At this stage perhaps, in the close proximity of the camp, there had been too much adultery so that Moses was concerned to emphasise the necessity not to covet other men's wives. Or it may indicate Moses' deep awareness of the value and importance of his wife.
He also here included ‘field'. Those in the two and a half tribes who were already settling in would now have fields that could be coveted. So all these changes express Moses' current concerns. But he would not have made the changes if he had been baldly ‘declaring the covenant'. He felt able to do so because they were part of his speech, so that he could put in the emphases that he wanted. He was wanting to directly sway the people. We may consider that it was only Moses who in those times could have dared to make such alterations to a sacred text.