The Ten Commandments

[Not_By_Chance]

Is it generally believed by most Christians that God actually wrote down the ten commandments and gave them to Moses, or is the majority view that this event didn't really happen and is just another mythical story like Genesis 1?

For those who don't believe the Genesis account of creation to be literal history, then it would seem that they would also not be able to believe that the giving of the ten commandments was a real event and came directly from God, because the two are linked by the following text:-

Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So the question is, are both the creation acount in Genesis and the accounts of the ten commandments in Exodus (and repeated in Deuteronomy for that matter) true history as I believe or are they both myth/allegory?

 

[Philip_B]

I don't believe that the choice should be binomial.

 

[Ken Rank]

Is it generally believed by most Christians that God actually wrote down the ten commandments and gave them to Moses, or is the majority view that this event didn't really happen and is just another mythical story like Genesis 1?

For those who don't believe the Genesis account of creation to be literal history, then it would seem that they would also not be able to believe that the giving of the ten commandments was a real event and came directly from God, because the two are linked by the following text:-

Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So the question is, are both the creation acount in Genesis and the accounts of the ten commandments in Exodus (and repeated in Deuteronomy for that matter) true history as I believe or are they both myth/allegory?

I believe both are literal. I also believe that the commandments were understood before Sinai. It was at Sinai when they were written and when the judgments and ability to prosecute was added so that, the new nation Israel, had a rule of law. The Torah (law) of God became Israel's constitution.

 

[JackRT]

There are contradictions found in the three versions of the Ten Commandments contained in the Bible (Exodus 34:1-28, Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:1-21). How can all three versions be true if they are not the same? Exodus 34, the oldest version at about 950 BC, is from the pen of the “J” or Jahwist writer and is not one of which many have ever heard. The final commandment in this earliest version reads “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Why, we are led to wonder, was this original set of Ten Commandments rejected or replaced? The second version Exodus 20, from about 850 BC, was from the pen of the “E” or Elohist writer, but was greatly expanded about 560 BC by a group of people called the “P” or priestly writers. Did these writers, who added so much to the entire body of the Jewish Scriptures, do so because they judged the original version to be so woefully inadequate that it required major additions and editing? Does one alter or tamper with what one believes to be “The Word of God?” The third version, Deuteronomy 5 in about 625 BC, was from the pen of the “D” or Deuteronomic writers composed somewhere between the original writing of Exodus 20 and the expansion done on that same text some 400 or so years later. For example, the version in Deuteronomy did not offer as the reason the Sabbath must be observed the fact that God rested on the Sabbath, for the version of that seven day creation story had not yet been written. So this author states that the Sabbath is to be observed because the people of Israel must remember that they were once slaves in Egypt and even slaves must have a day of rest. Which of these versions of the Ten Commandments, we might ask, can qualify as “The Word of God?”

 

[Ken Rank]

Which of these versions of the Ten Commandments, we might ask, can qualify as “The Word of God?”

All, and I find your willingness to cast doubt on Scripture because of your own inability to reconcile these differences to be disturbing.

 

[RaymondG]

I believe that it is possible that they are both.....which makes it very important to find out the spiritual meaning of the writings. It is like the three little pigs. First pigs build houses and wolves blow........later you are making sure you have a solid foundation in the event that troubles arise, you house will still stand.....

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe both are literal. I also believe that the commandments were understood before Sinai. It was at Sinai when they were written and when the judgments and ability to prosecute was added so that, the new nation Israel, had a rule of law. The Torah (law) of God became Israel's constitution.

All of the commandments were given, not just the "Big 10", and it seems pretty obvious based on statements like Deuteronomy 5:1-3 that this was something unique for the Children of Israel as part of the covenant God established with them in the wilderness.

Abraham, for example, prepares a feast that is actually treif (forbidden) by the mitzvot of the Torah,

"The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. He said, “My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and make cakes.” Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate." - Genesis 18:1-8

"The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." - Exodus 23:19

"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." - Deuteronomy 14:21

The meal prepared for the visitors is non-kosher, it's treif.

If the commandments were valid pre-Sinai, then Abraham's hospitality is sinful and the angelic participation of it is deeply disturbing.

But these commandments were not valid pre-Sinai, these commandments were part of the unique covenant which God made at Mt. Horeb, which neither the ancient patriarchs, nor we who are in Christ, are part of. It is essential to keep this in mind because it is precisely for this reason that St. Paul makes his appeal to Abraham as the archetype of faith, because Paul is going beyond the time of the giving of Torah to Abraham, whom God reckoned as righteous by faith, apart from the Law; and we ourselves as benefactors of God's promise to Abraham (Jesus Christ) are, in Christ by the grace of God justified through faith, that there is a righteousness apart from the Law which is God's gift, through faith, in Christ, who is the Seed of Abraham.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Rank]

All of the commandments were given, not just the "Big 10", and it seems pretty obvious based on statements like Deuteronomy 5:1-3 that this was something unique for the Children of Israel as part of the covenant God established with them in the wilderness.

Abraham, for example, prepares a feast that is actually treif (forbidden) by the mitzvot of the Torah,

"The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. He said, “My lord, if I find favor with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and make cakes.” Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate." - Genesis 18:1-8

"The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." - Exodus 23:19

"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." - Deuteronomy 14:21

The meal prepared for the visitors is non-kosher, it's treif.

If the commandments were valid pre-Sinai, then Abraham's hospitality is sinful and the angelic participation of it is deeply disturbing.

But these commandments were not valid pre-Sinai, these commandments were part of the unique covenant which God made at Mt. Horeb, which neither the ancient patriarchs, nor we who are in Christ, are part of. It is essential to keep this in mind because it is precisely for this reason that St. Paul makes his appeal to Abraham as the archetype of faith, because Paul is going beyond the time of the giving of Torah to Abraham, whom God reckoned as righteous by faith, apart from the Law; and we ourselves as benefactors of God's promise to Abraham (Jesus Christ) are, in Christ by the grace of God justified through faith, that there is a righteousness apart from the Law which is God's gift, through faith, in Christ, who is the Seed of Abraham.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't know if this will matter to you, but I want to share my understanding of the mother's milk verse(s). It says in English, "not boil a kid IN its mother's milk." I made the "in" caps there because the Hebrew word that is used there can mean in, but it can also mean "on." The line in all three verses it appears, can be translated, "do not boil a kid on its mother's milk." In other other words, until it is weaned. We have the idea of a "kid" is a young goat, immature, a young male goat. And then we have another commandment that deals with not eating the fruit from trees for a number of years. Nobody is to eat the fruit of a new tree for 3 seasons... giving it time to root well so that it will produce for a long period of time. In the 4th year it was holy to the Lord and in the 5th year you could eat it. My point here is simply that with the fruit trees God was giving the tree time to mature before harvesting its food. Since the word in the milk verse can also mean "on" then it seems consistent to me that God is allowing the young goat time to at least be weaned from its mother before being consumed as food. I might be wrong...wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.... but for now this makes more sense to me.

So... this alternative doesn't mean that Abraham did anything wrong at all. And I hesitate in sharing this because I don't want to be too long with this post but.... if God does not change, and if God is eternal, and if the positive commandments are in harmony with His character and the negative commandments are in contrast to His character (and again, His character doesn't change)... then whatever is sin is and always has been. What's more... the three "men" that appear to Abraham are not men. Two go down to Sodom and we find that the inhabitants of that city desire them for sex... and it is clear they are angels. The third man, the one who stayed behind, it called Yod Hay Vav Hay by Abraham. God in some form? A pre-son incarnation of the Word? I don't know, I only know Abraham called Him by God's name. Did God, who does not change, consume something He would later call sin? I can't imagine that. But again, perhaps I am wrong.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Is it generally believed by most Christians that God actually wrote down the ten commandments and gave them to Moses, or is the majority view that this event didn't really happen and is just another mythical story like Genesis 1?

For those who don't believe the Genesis account of creation to be literal history, then it would seem that they would also not be able to believe that the giving of the ten commandments was a real event and came directly from God, because the two are linked by the following text:-

Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So the question is, are both the creation acount in Genesis and the accounts of the ten commandments in Exodus (and repeated in Deuteronomy for that matter) true history as I believe or are they both myth/allegory?

I don't believe that the choice should be binomial.

I agree with Phillip's expression. Being called a myth or even legend does not imply either unbelief or absence of truth in the story. In fact most good myths and legend have basis in truth or even actual events. This is why some theologians can talk about the Creation "myths" in the beginning of the Bible WITHOUT making it understood that by that choice of word (myth) they are suggesting they believe God did create everything from nothing for example. So "myth" does not equate to false or lack of faith.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I agree with Phillip's expression. Being called a myth or even legend does not imply either unbelief or absence of truth in the story. In fact most good myths and legend have basis in truth or even actual events. This is why some theologians can talk about the Creation "myths" in the beginning of the Bible WITHOUT making it understood that by that choice of word (myth) they are suggesting they believe God did create everything from nothing for example. So "myth" does not equate to false or lack of faith.

Personally I would say that if someone accepts that the giving of the Ten Commandments was a literal event and that they are in the form that God intended (which obviously they would be if He actually wrote them on the stone tablets Himself), then there is no choice but to accept that Genesis 1 is literal history as well and to try to do otherwise is to try to make the sacred texts say something that isn't really there, which is a potentially dangerous road to go down.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Personally I would say that if someone accepts that the giving of the Ten Commandments was a literal event and that they are in the form that God intended (which obviously they would be if He actually wrote them on the stone tablets Himself), then there is no choice but to accept that Genesis 1 is literal history as well and to try to do otherwise is to try to make the sacred texts say something that isn't really there, which is a potentially dangerous road to go down.

Again, the idea of calling something a myth says nothing about whether all or even most of the elements in the story are true or false. So calling this a story, myth or legend surrounding Moses is not a question of making it literal or not. I agree and even the idea of this being a myth or legendary account can still agree, that how we got the 10 commandments is literally from God's Hand.
Typically part of the reason these stories surrounding Moses, and especially the Creation stories, get labeled myth or legends goes to how they come to be transmitted to us in the collection of Jewish OT books, which springs from an aural tradition of the Jews. So I would politely suggest if there is a danger here in going down a road, it would be an insistence that everything from that tradition must be accepted as "literally true" in the translations as we have them - which am not sure anyone here is making that case but I know some people do.

And is also an error to further confuse the idea that literal or non-literal or myth or legend...etc says absolutely anything about Inspiration and Inerrancy. IOW a Catholic can rightfully say the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and absolutely Inerrant while also submitting that parts of it, like the Creation stories, are told in the form of a myth/legend ( a Hebrew one at that).

adding BTW-that until modern times Inerrant was never understood to mean containing no errors.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I think the danger is that when you start using words like myth or legend, many people immediately think of the definitions I have highlighted in red below:-

myth / Ñ mIT; NAmE Ñ / noun [C, U] 1) a story from ancient times, especially one that was told to explain natural events or to describe the early history of a people; this type of story
SYN legend:
ancient Greek myths; a creation myth (= that explains how the world began); the heroes of myth and legend

2) something that many people believe but that does not exist or is false
SYN fallacy:
It is time to dispel the myth of a classless society (= to show that it does not exist). Contrary to popular myth, women are not worse drivers than men.

le·gend / Ñ 'ledZJnd; NAmE Ñ / noun 1) [C, U] a story from ancient times about people and events, that may or may not be true; this type of story [my emphasis}
SYN myth:
[Other definitions removed as not relevant]

At the very least, I think referring to these ancient texts as myth or legend casts doubt and confusion as to what meaning we should attribute to the ancient texts and gives ammunition to those who would wish to attack Christianity (divide and conquer so to speak). Compare with literal...

lit·eral / Ñ 'lItJrJl; NAmE Ñ / adjective 1) [usually before noun] being the basic or usual meaning of a word or phrase:
I am not referring to ‘small’ people in the literal sense of the word. The literal meaning of ‘petrify’ is ‘turn to stone’.
—compare figurative, metaphorical
2) [usually before noun] that follows the original words exactly:
a literal translation

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think the danger is that when you start using words like myth or legend, many people immediately think of the definitions I have highlighted in red below:-

myth / Ñ mIT; NAmE Ñ / noun [C, U] 1) a story from ancient times, especially one that was told to explain natural events or to describe the early history of a people; this type of story
SYN legend:
ancient Greek myths; a creation myth (= that explains how the world began); the heroes of myth and legend

2) something that many people believe but that does not exist or is false
SYN fallacy:
It is time to dispel the myth of a classless society (= to show that it does not exist). Contrary to popular myth, women are not worse drivers than men.

le·gend / Ñ 'ledZJnd; NAmE Ñ / noun 1) [C, U] a story from ancient times about people and events, that may or may not be true; this type of story [my emphasis}
SYN myth:
[Other definitions removed as not relevant]

At the very least, I think referring to these ancient texts as myth or legend casts doubt and confusion as to what meaning we should attribute to the ancient texts and gives ammunition to those who would wish to attack Christianity (divide and conquer so to speak). Compare with literal...

lit·eral / Ñ 'lItJrJl; NAmE Ñ / adjective 1) [usually before noun] being the basic or usual meaning of a word or phrase:
I am not referring to ‘small’ people in the literal sense of the word. The literal meaning of ‘petrify’ is ‘turn to stone’.
—compare figurative, metaphorical
2) [usually before noun] that follows the original words exactly:
a literal translation

Thanks for assuming people might be confused on what words mean. Glad we cleared that up.

I was more concerned about how they use such words to justify an understanding they insist on applying to particular Scripture (both to support their own and preclude or refute opposing views) and is opposed to other understandings of same verse.

Which is why we should be clear when we use words like myth, legend, literal, non-literal, allegory, anthropomorphism, Inspiration and inerrant to teach what it meant by that.

To being clear, when I was evangelical there were varying and very wide ranging opinions on what "literal" Word of God meant. I do not think that has changed much in a decade. So I would think the concern is present regardless what words one chooses to describe how one choose to understand what is recorded in the Bible.

I do think a strong case can be made from exactly this issue, for needing and wanting an appeal to history, tradition (not just Christian) and even knowledge of changing societies & cultures for these very reasons before simply suggesting the Bible has to mean what someone today says it "literally" must be understood to mean.