\n
\n
by; Nath Onyeukwu, 08091799406<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decalogue \u2013 Greek \u201cdeka\u201d <\/em>\u2013 ten; \u201clogos\u201d <\/em>word \u2013 is the name by which the Greek fathers designated, \u201cthe Ten Commandment\u201d.<\/em> In Hebrew, it is referred to as \u201chadde barim asereth\u201d<\/em> meaning \u201cTen Words\u201d<\/em> which were written by God on tablets of stone and given to Moses. It is also called: \u201cthe moral law\u201d<\/em> \u201cthe tables of testimony\u201d<\/em> ( Ex. 34:29). \u201cthe tables of covenant\u201d<\/em> (Deut. 9:9); \u201cthe covenant\u201d<\/em> (Deut. 4:13); The Ten Commandments is found and written in full in two places in the Bible Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. In the NT, it is called (Gr. \u201cento lia<\/em>\u201d meaning the Ten Commandments. (Matt. 19:17;Rom. 13:9; 1 Tim. 1:9,10)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The promulgation or delivery of the Decalogue by God to Moses onMount Sinaimarked one of the momentous and decisive events in history to meet the vital need of all men for such a code of conduct, because of man\u2019s moral and spiritual imperfections and proneness to do that which is evil.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Decalogue stands high above all other moral and spiritual laws. It is comprehensive of all human conduct. It is the only law that can effectively control the conscience. It is for all time, a condensed manual of human conduct, and covers the entire field of human duty. It is the way one might secure eternal life (Matt 19:6-19). The laws are suited for every kind of human society. They are eternal and can never become obsolete, for they are the immutable expressions of God\u2019s will and character.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Though given to man by divine authority, the Decalogue is not an arbitrary creation of the divine will. It is rather an expression of divine nature. It is the expression not only of holiness, but of love (Matt.22:34-40; John15:10; Rom.13:8-10, 1John 2:41). Whatever service we render to God or to man, if it be without love, the law is not fulfilled. And Christ summarized the Ten Commandments into the two precepts of \u201clove to God\u201d<\/em> and \u201clove to man\u201d.<\/em> This is abridging the Decalogue. It is love that protects man from violating the Ten Commandments, for how could we worship other gods; take the name of God in vain, if we truly love Him? How can we steal that which belongs to our neighbor, testify falsely against him, or, covet his possession, if we truly love him. Love is the root of fidelity towards God, and of honour and respect for the rights of our fellows. It should ever be the great motive that compels obedience to God. (John14:15; 15:10; IICor.5:14; Gal 5:6).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is primarily for the purpose of helping sinner distinguish between good and evil that the Decalogue was given largely in the negative form. Its recurring \u201cThou shalt not\u201d <\/em>testifies to the strong tendencies in the heart that must be suppressed (see Jer. 17:9; Rom.7:17-23; I Tim. 1:9; 10). But this negative form implies large and satisfying fields of moral and spiritual action open to man, and the breadth of character development possible.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The fact that the Ten Commandment were written on two tables of stone, emphasizes their reference application to two classes of moral obligation: \u201cduty to God and duty to man\u201d<\/em> (Matt. 22:34-40). That which we owe to God is indispensable to that which we owe to man, for neglect of duties towards our fellow men will speedily follow the neglect of duty to God. The scripture does not ignore the distinction between duties directly related to God and morality \u2013 duties arising from earthly relationships, but unites both in the deeper concept that all one does is done, as it were, to God, whose authority is supreme in both spheres. (See Micah. 6:8\u2019 Matt. 25:34-45; James 1:27; I John 4:20).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As the words of God, the Ten Commandments are to be distinguished from the \u201cjudgment\u201d <\/em>(Exo. 21:1) based upon them and included with them in \u201cthe Book of the Covenant\u201d <\/em>\u00a0to constitute the statutory law of Israel (Ex.24:3). The two tables of the Decalogue are to the exclusion of (and must be distinguished from) the elaborate system of law known as the Mosaic law \u2013 the vast legal system of Israel, civil criminal, judicial and ecclesiastical – ceremonial<\/em> was framed after the Covenant Law, not \u00a0with a view to expanding it, but to enforce it. The two tables of the Ten Commandments (strictly alone) were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:21; I Kings 8:9). They were thus regarded as, in a special sense, the bond of the covenant. The placing of the stone tables under the \u201cMercy Seat\u201d<\/em> casts light on the nature of the covenant God made with Israel. It shows that the law is the substratum, the foundation of the covenant, the obligatory document, and the bond. Nevertheless, over the law is the \u201cMercy Seat\u201d<\/em> sprinkled with the blood of propitiation, a heartening testimony that there is forgiveness with God for those who break the commandments.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The uniqueness of the Decalogue is seen in the circumstance of its delivery. While all the rest of the law was given by God through the lips of Moses, the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself, with an awful display of splendor, terrible adjuncts of clouds and thunder and lightening and the sound of the trumpet and solemnity, never before witnessed (Ex. 19; Deut. 5:22). It appears also that angels were active in the promulgation of the law (Deut. 33:2,3; Ps. 68:18; Acts 5:53; Gal 3:19; Heb.2:12).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In addition to, that these laws were written by God\u2019s own finger, and, on durable tablets of stone \u2013 the imperishable material (Deut.9:1) signifying the perpetuity of the law written upon it. And written on both sides of the tablets, in the symbolism of ancient East, depicts the completeness of the code.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n CONTENT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n That the Decalogue contains the essential principles of the moral law, and is therefore of permanent obligation is affirmed in the NT (see Mark 10:19; 12:28; Luke 10:28; 18:18-20). In the dispute with the Pharisees who exalted the minor law- the ceremonial observance, and threw the duties inculcated by the Ten Commandments in the background, Jesus brought the Decalogue forward and gave it its true place. The Decalogue is an abridgement of God\u2019s precepts of \u201clove to God\u201d<\/em> and \u201clove to man\u201d<\/em>, and Jesus says on these two abridged commands hang all the law and the prophets.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Since, the Scriptures make Egyptsymbolic of the state of sin (see Rev. 11:8) the deliverance of Israelfrom Egyptmay appropriately be compared to the deliverance of all God\u2019s people from the power of sin. The lord liberated His people from the power of sin. He liberated the Isrealites from the landof Pharaohin order that He might give them the law. (Ps.105:42-45). Likewise, through the gospel, Christ frees us from the bondage of sin. (John 8:34-36; II Peter 2:19) in order that we may keep His law, which in Him is translated into true obedience (John 15:10; Rom.8:1-4). Those who teach that the gospel of Christ in grace frees us from the holy commands of the Decalogue should reflect on this truth. Deliverance from Egyptwas to provide the motive for obedience to God\u2019s law. Note<\/span><\/strong> the order here: The Lord first savesIsrael, then gives them His law to keep. The same order is true under the gospel. Christ first saves us from sin (see John 1:29; ICor.15:3; Gal. 1:4), then lives out His law within us. (Gal.2:20;Rom. 4:25; 8:1-3; 1Peter 2:24).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DIVISIONS<\/span><\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Ten Commandments are not numbered in the sacred text, and the Church has been divided on how the division should be made. There are three general modes of division attempts:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That which the Reformation churches<\/em> have adopted, which is called the Philonic Division<\/em><\/strong>. It makes Ex.20:2,3 the first commandment; verse 4-6, the second and verse 7 \u00a0the third. This division is based according to them on the following reasons.<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is made on the principle that polytheism and \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 idolatry are identical<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On that there are three ways of dishounoring God \u2013 in denying His unity, His spirituality and His deity.<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It divides the two tables into three and seven laws; three having a mystical reference to God, and seven to the church<\/p>\n d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It seeks to obviate the need to make the unnatural division of the commandment against covetousness into two.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The second division is referred to as the Augustinian Division<\/strong>, and unites Ex. 20:3-6 into one commandment (i.e. 1st<\/sup>, 2nd<\/sup>) and divides the 10th<\/sup> (covetousness) into two.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The third or the Talmudic Division<\/em><\/strong> makes Ex.20:2 \u201cI am the Lord they God \u2026.. House of bondage\u2026\u201dThe first commandment, and verses 3-6 (1st<\/sup> and 2nd<\/sup>), the second.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, theology and divine expositors have not agreed entirely on<\/p>\n the foregoing divisions and others not mentioned here. But there are<\/p>\n two main opinions on the divisions of the precepts on the tables.<\/p>\n Some hold that the first five precepts belong to the first table while<\/p>\n the rest five to the second. This opinion, others say, seems to have<\/p>\n been dictated by fondness for mechanical symmetry. It is now however, generally accepted that the first tablet composed the first four precepts (1st<\/sup> \u2013 4th<\/sup> commandments, Ex. 20:3-11), and the second tablet contains the remaining six precepts (comprising 5th<\/sup> to 10th<\/sup> commandments, Ex. 20:12-17). This appears to be the general division.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RULES OF INTERPRETATION<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of the duties enjoined in the first four, God is the direct object<\/em><\/strong>. Of those inculcated in the last six, man is the direct object<\/em><\/strong>. This conforms with the division of the savior\u2019s summary \u2013 \u201clove to God\u201d <\/em>and \u201cLove to man\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n To settle the principles upon which the Decalogue is to be interpreted and applied, it must be accepted as the epitome of duty, and of course, contains more than the formal propositions in which it is expressed:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The most important of those principles in that propounded by Apostle Paul in Rom. 7 \u2013 \u201cThe law is spiritual\u201d. <\/em>It regulates not only the acts, but the desires and thoughts, the inner, as well as the outer man. For further proof, note that Christ, in His exposition (Matt. 5) expressly extends the prohibitions to the secret motions of the heart towards sin.<\/p>\n Causeless anger is declared to be the soul\u2019s sin of murder; lost is the soul\u2019s adultery; coveting, as Paul indicates, is the soul\u2019s theft. The same rule may also be proved from the principle: that Christ resolves all duties into love, which is an outward state of affection<\/em>. And last, the same rule must follow the spiritual nature of the God whose law it is. He is the \u201cSearcher of Hearts\u201d<\/em> He judgeth<\/em> not by the outward appearance. \u201cHe requireth truth in the inward parts\u201d<\/em>. The law of God must apply chiefly to the inward affections, as man\u2019s reason approves.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0 In each precept, the chief duty or sin is taken as representative of the various lesser duties or sins of that class; and the overt act is taken as representative of all related affections, and under it they are enjoined or forbidden. Thus our Saviour teaches under the head of murder, angry thought and abusive words are also forbidden. Such examples justify the conclusion under the one precept \u201cThou shalt not kill\u201d<\/em> all offence against the lives, safety and personal welfare are forbidden. So of the other commandments because the Decalogue is a summary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n iii.\u00a0 To command a given class of duties, plainly implies a prohibition of the opposite class of sins and vice-verse. Thus injuries against the life and person of fellows are forbidden. This implies the obligation of active efforts to protect them, as we have opportunity. This follows from the practical scope of the law, emphasizing the intention of the sixth commandment which obviously is to secure our fellow-man\u2019s enjoyment of life and safety. If, then, the obligation is adequate to the practical end, it must include active efforts to promote, as well as, refraining from injuring that end. This is confirmed by the Lord\u2019s summation. \u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself\u201d <\/em>Hence while the sixth commandment says. \u201cThou shall not kill\u201d, <\/em>It also means \u201cThou shalt save thy fellow from killing and from being killed\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n iv.\u00a0 When anything is commanded or forbidden, the regular and necessary means and incitement thereto, are also commanded or forbidden. And when any duty of one party towards another is enjoined, the relative state or duty thereto is also enjoined on the second party towards the first.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n v.\u00a0\u00a0 The precepts of the first table, containing duties towards God, are superior in obligation to the second table, towards man (See Luke 14:26; Matt. 5:37; Acts 4:19; Eph. 6:1). Whenever the authority of man clashes with that of God, the former must therefore give way. But moral duties, though they be duties of the second table, are superior to mere positive or ceremonial duties of the first table (see Matt 12:7; Prov. 21:3).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n vi.\u00a0 The prohibitory precepts bind us equally at all times; and mandatory, only when the proper objects of the duties are present. The precept \u201cThou shall not kill\u201d<\/em> binds at every moment. The command: \u201cHonour thy father and mother\u201d<\/em> binds when we bear suitable relations to some superior.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE LAW IS PERFECT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Some theologians of Antinomian group with some sects of the Christian Church, in order to support their prejudices, strenuously assert that the moral law, as given to the Jews, was an imperfect rule, and was completed and perfected by Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n While it is granted that Christ freed the law from the corrupt glosses of tradition and showed the true extent of its application, it is denied that Christ made any change or addition. It is admitted that He carried it further in the way of detail, but it is also denied that He corrected anything of its principle.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These errorists pretend to claim this as an honour to Christ and His earthly mission, and as evincing His superiority over Moses. First. They by this, do Christ dishonour for the Decalogue is as much Christ\u2019s law as the Sermon on the Mount. He was the authoritative agent for giving both. For it was \u201cwith the angel which spake unto him in Mount Sinai\u201d (<\/em>Christ, Acts 7:38) that Moses \u201creceived these lively oracles to give unto us\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Second: it would be dishourable to a perfect God to suppose that He would reveal to His chosen people, as a rule of righteousness, a law which allowed some sin. Then all the holiness produced under such a law would be spurious. Third: God forbade that the law should receive addition (Deut.4:2; 12:32) Fourth: Christ honoured this law, and declared it everlasting and unchangeable, and said He came not to destroy, but to fulfill it<\/em>. Fifth: Christ said that on His abridgments of this law hang all the law and the prophet.<\/em> And last. Apostle Paul having resolved the precepts of this Decalogue into the one principle of love (Rom 13:9), verse 10 says. \u201clove is fulfilling the law\u201d<\/em> Apostle Paul is a minister of NT. And both the OT and NT assert the perfection of this law of the OT (see Ps. 19:7, Ps 119:96; Rom. 7:12).<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n PERCEPTS OF NT ALSO IN OT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In further support of the foregoing views, it is observed that the very particular in which it is pretended Jesus amended, softened and completed the moral law, are stated just as distinctly, although, perhaps not as forcibly in all cases, by Moses and the prophets in their expositions on the Decalogue, such as, the love of enemies<\/em> in Matt. 5:44 see it in Ex. 23:4,5; Lev. 19:18. The great laws of love<\/em> of Matt 22:37 etc. see this in Deut 4:5; Lev 19; 18. The command of benevolence to strangers<\/em> in Luke 10:36, 37, see it in Lev. 24:22; 25:35; Deut. 10:19. The spiritual interpretation of the law embraces not only the outward acts, but the thoughts and desires of the heart. See Lev. 19:17, 18; Deut. 11:13; Ps. 24:4; 101:6.) Christ\u2019s new commandment (John 13:34) was only \u201cthe old command renewed\u201d, \u00a0<\/em>only a re-enactment with an additional motive: Christ\u2019s love for mankind<\/em><\/strong>, Christ in His Sermon on the Mount, and other places, rebukes and corrects, not the law itself, nor the OT interpretations of the law, but the erroneous and wicked corruptions foisted upon it by traditions and pharisaic glosses. The moral law could not have undergone any amendment after completion because, in its original form, is as perfect as God of whose character it is the impress and transcript. It cannot be abrogated or relaxed, because it is as immutable as God.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by; Nath Onyeukwu, 08091799406 Decalogue \u2013 Greek \u201cdeka\u201d \u2013 ten; \u201clogos\u201d word<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religion"],"featured_image_urls":{"full":"","thumbnail":"","medium":"","medium_large":"","large":"","1536x1536":"","2048x2048":"","elegant-magazine-featured":"","elegant-magazine-medium":"","elegant-magazine-medium-small":"","elegant-magazine-thumbnail-small":""},"author_info":{"info":["Imo Trumpeta"]},"category_info":"YOUTHS & SINGLES CLINIQUE<\/a>","tag_info":"YOUTHS & SINGLES CLINIQUE","comment_count":"0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1848"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1848\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1849,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1848\/revisions\/1849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.imotrumpeta.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n