Ten Commandments vs. The Beatitudes
Note: I am
reposting the following completely from the web site of
Chris Corrigan as the content for this entry is his. I
am reposting it instead of just having a link so that I can easily email
the contents to my address book. Thanks Chris!
Cody Clark posts an intriguing thought from Kurt Vonnegut:
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never
mention the beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand
that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course
that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand
that the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
This is a really good point. Theological merits aside, the difference
between the two is stark and represents an interesting insight into the
nature of our legal systems here in Judeo-Christian societies.
The Ten Commandments are the big don'ts of the Bible. These are the
things you get in huge trouble for. You could probably name most of them,
even if you were only marginally associated with Judaism, Christianity or
Islam.
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments.
- Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
- Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour,
and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the
LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
- Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the
land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
- Thou shalt not kill.
- Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- Thou shalt not steal.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
The beatitudes are a different beast altogether. These are the blessings
that Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount, and they offer an
entirely different moral code, one which is inviting rather than
prohibitive:
- Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
- Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
- Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for
they shall be filled.
- Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
- Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
- Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
- Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Google News shows people prefer the first set of instructions to the
second, and a regular Google query shows about the same.
Tell others about this article:
Comment
I'm sure you (and Kurt Vonnegut) know that the so-called Ten Commandments
are just a few of the many laws God supposedly dictated to Moses. Leviticus
contains plenty of rules about proper treatment, abuse, and killing of
slaves, witches, daughters, and farm animals. My favorite is "Thou shalt
not suffer a witch to live," which justified the killing of many innocent
people in its day. No one ever proposes to post ALL of the Mosaic laws in
public school classrooms, just the ten they learned in Sunday school.
I don't know the Koran, but "Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" sent thousands of
Christian martyrs to their deaths with a smile on their face in the days of
the Roman Empire, and is sending Muslim terrorists and their victims to
their deaths today.
Although I am a long-time atheist (though I attended Catholic school as a
child), I agree that Christians would do well to pay more attention to
Jesus and less to the wrathful God of Moses; in fact Jesus said much the
same thing himself.
—Greg Jorgensen
24 June 2004
Comment
Agreed Greg…and why is it that people are so desirous to post the Ten
Commandments but not, say, some of the more choice selections from
Leviticus.
Like the stuff about putting adulterers to death por the instruction to
women to kill a couple of pigeons and turtledoves if she has a heavy period
or a miscarriage so the priest can burn them for an offering.
That would be interesting to see posted up in courthouses and parks.
—Chris Corrigan
27 June 2004
Comment
Last year I had a short email exchange with an Oregon state legislator, I
think from Grant's Pass, who had introduced a bill to post the Ten
Commandments in public schools. She was hoping to skirt the fairly
well-established legal precedents by posting the commandments in their
"historical" (i.e. mythological) context, emphasizing how the commandments
were part of American history. I mentioned the laws God handed down
concerning slavery, witchcraft, and when a father can kill his daughter,
asking if those should be posted "in context" as well.
I also proposed that she resign her office. Either she is unqualified to
hold public office because she didn't know that her bill would violate the
Oregon and Federal constitutions, or that she did know but decided to waste
public time and money to promote her religious views.
To her credit she responded politely, and revealed that her understanding
of the Bible and the Ten Commandments didn't extend much beyond the annual
TV showings of the Charlton Heston movie. A large majority of Americans
adhere to the Christian faith in one form or another, but sadly most don't
know much about their faith that they didn't get from comic books in third
grade, or from movies. The widespread deep ignorance of the message and
meaning of Jesus, and the history of Christianity, combined with a
misguided sense of moral superiority, scares me more than almost anything
else that happens in this country.
The bill she introduced failed to get additional sponsors and died in the
Oregon house.
—Greg Jorgensen
27 June 2004
Comment
"Blessed are they which are persecuted…" is not the same thing that
Muslim terrorists refer to, and the martyrs died believing in something
greater that was waiting for them.
The big deal about the Ten Commandments is that they are the first and
most important revelation to Moses of the law of the Hebrews: they were not
only revealed, but actually inscribed on stone tablets by the hand of God
himself. That elevates their status in a believers mind just a bit. Not
to mention that they contain the precepts which all the specific laws that
followed were based on.
And as a side note, in talking about killing witches you said it was
justification to kill innocents. However, that is exactly the point of the
law, they weren't innocent, and were in fact breaking the first
commandment: have no gods before Yahweh.
(Also, many (the majority?) people who claim to be Christian are not,
simply because you can't believe in what you don't know. Many people
believe that you can be born into a religion, instead of having to choose
and understand it oneself.)
And the God of Moses is the God of Jesus, He always desires love and mercy
above judgments, but love cannot exist without truth, and truth demands
justice. The whole point of Jesus was that he met the requirements for
justice, and so now we can focus on the more fun part, the love.
Hope I was clear.
—Danny Summerlin
23 July 2004
Comment
Danny, you seem to illustrate my complaint very well, as you seem to get
quite caught up in all this judging… If you'll excuse me, I need to shift
this beam in my eye in order to write this…
Who are you to judge the beliefs and motives of these "Muslim terrorists"?
Who are you to judge that the "majority of people who claim to be
Christians" are not?
And concerning the bit about being justified in killing witches… who are you
to justify the murder of wealthy Medieval women due to so-called confessions
induced from their torture?
Since we can never fully understand or even comprehend God, how could any
one love God if "love cannot exist without truth"? And sorry, truth doesn't
demand anything, only other people demand such compulsory obedience and belief.
I love your quote about the "whole point of Jesus was that he met the
requirements for justice, and so now we can focus on the more fun part, the
love," but I'm not seeing any love or even understanding of others from
you.
—Howard Abrams
26 July 2004
Comment
Willful ignorance is a prerequisite of religious faith, for far too many
people.
Mr. Summerlin's posting contains the usual misconceptions that come from
confusing Sunday School comics and the Charlton Heston movie with what
Exodus actually says.
"The big deal about the Ten Commandments is that they are the first and
most important revelation to Moses of the law of the Hebrews."
Fair enough, though God gives Moses and the Hebrews instructions and laws
before He gives the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. In Exodus 16:28, for
example, God asks the Hebrews "How long do you refuse to keep my
commandments and my laws?" and refers to the keeping of the Sabbath. That
happens before He starts giving laws to Moses.
"[The Ten Commandments] were not only revealed, but actually inscribed on
stone tablets by the hand of God himself."
Only in the movies. According to Exodus, God inscribes a Testimony on the
two stone tablets -- the Bible doesn't say or imply that the Testimony
consists only of the Ten Commandments, or even whether it includes the
Commandments. That happens after God gives Moses the hundreds of laws I
referred to earlier, and the very detailed instructions for constructing
the ark and the temple to hold the Testimony. Before God inscribes the
Testimony on the stone tablets, Moses and Aaron write down the many laws
God gave them; whether that means ink on papyrus, cuneiform on clay, or
inscribing on stone we don't know.
"That elevates their status in a believers mind just a bit. Not to mention
that they contain the precepts which all the specific laws that followed
were based on."
The Ten Commandments are an opening salvo, but the many laws that follow
are hardly based on The Commandments. In fact several of the laws
directly contradict the Commandments; the laws regarding the proper
occasions for killing a slave or a witch come to mind.
It's also instructive to compare the laws God gives Moses with the shorter
lecture He gives to Noah.
The devout really should study their documents more carefully, but I find
that no amount of Bible study opens the mind of a true believer. It just
gives them more memorized quotes from Scripture to spout off out of
context.
—Greg Jorgensen
27 July 2004
Comment
Howard Abrams:
As to the Muslim terrorists, I did not in any way judge them. What I was
pointing out is that going out of your way to commit suicide (i.e.
planning, building, and generally preparing explosives and methods of
deployment) is not the same thing as being persecuted. Persecution happens
to you, terrorism is something you do (passive vs active). That is not
judging them.
Allow me to modify my former statement from "many" (I did not say majority,
I questioned it) to "many that I know", which is a sizable number. Simple
statistics says that I cannot draw a final conclusion, but I can form a
working assumption from the data I have gathered. And again, this is not
judging them (not once did I say "This person is going…"), this is
looking for facts.
As for love and truth, I disagree based on the meaning of the term love
itself. To love something is to love that thing: love implies a certain
object that is being loved. If I say I love you, and then go on to
describe someone who is nothing like you, then I do not love you, I love
some mistaken image of you. Who knows how I would respond to you as you
really are! My love is built on a false understanding of you. If the
fullness of who you are is unknowable to me, as it really is, then does
that mean that I can't be said to love you in truth? I think not, because
I can love what I do know of you, even if it isn't the complete definition
of who you are. A partial definition in truth is better than a total but
false definition.
I am sorry that you don't see love or understanding from me. I really felt
like talking about this was half way toward understanding. And as for
love, since I believe that truth is a part of love, I also believe that
helping people find truth is a loving thing to do. And again, I do
apologize if you felt I was judging someone; I don't judge anyone, it isn't
my job. But, that doesn't mean that we can't try to speak truth.
Greg Jorgensen:
The Law as given to Moses marked the beginning of the Mosaic covenant.
That is the key to the Commandments, that they marked a new beginning for
the people of Israel.
For the record, I have never seen Heston's movie, and I had flannel board
in Sunday School, not comics. I apologize for not stating that their were
other laws written on the tablets, but the Ten Commandments are the first
thing mentioned, so it seems safe to say they were on there too.
And I am sorry, but the Ten Commandments absolutely foreshadow all the
other laws. Killing a witch was not seen as murder (remember, it is not
"Thou shall not kill", it is murder that it is concerned with). Right or
wrong, it isn't a contradiction, given that almost everyone prior to our
current age had the death penalty. And there are no proper times to kill a
servant (unless you can provide a reference for that: I searched and could
find nothing).
The Ten Commandments give precepts or categories of law: idolatry (putting
anything or anyone above God), social laws (stealing, murdering), purity
and holiness (coveting, Sabbath) and so on. If necessary I will try to
explain them all, but the point is that the Ten Commandments capture in a
very simple way the gist of the laws to follow.
That is interesting, the Noah v Moses thing. I will have to do that some
time.
Now, to be fair, if I can't get away with generalizations, you can't
either. Sir, the critiques you offered are hardly the sort of thing to
merit being harsh. What have I said that is so out of context? And I
really don't understand why you are coming across so spiteful and harsh.
To all:
I don't know what I can say to be more understanding and loving. Not once
have I condemned anyone, or said that someone is dumb or anything like
that. Actually, the reason I ended up on this site is because I like the
Vonnegut quote so much, and was searching for it. I like discussion, but
the ad hominem argument's are rough. I will make you a deal: I won't
assume you don't know anything, and you don't assume I am dumb either.
Deal?
—Danny Summerlin
30 July 2004
Comment
We humans are creatures who specialize in patterns and labels. While it
saves on thinking, it often gets us into trouble. For as we experience
something, we immediately start to look for patterns of previous
experiences, and once we have a match, we place a label on it, and from
that point forward, we deal with it habitually.
As a software engineer, I often look at a particular problem to see if
matches a problem pattern that I've previously encountered. Doctors do this
by gathering up all of the symptoms until it matches a disease signature.
Once the label goes on the patient, the treatment can be out of the book.
Obviously, this assumes that nothing is new or different, and this isn't
the case. But it is also why we are all guilty about treating each other,
not as individuals, but as a category.
So first of all, allow me to apologize for placing you into a particular
pigeonhole. When I run into someone who labels himself "Christian" and uses
the word "justice", I have a tendency to label them, "Intolerant," and that
is not fair… or necessarily accurate.
My purpose in originally posting this concept was to explore the perceived
(to me anyway) emphasis of the Ten Commandments of the teachings of Jesus.
As "Cody" said over here:
Somewhere along the line, Christians started to put more stock in who
Jesus was rather than what he did and said… I get the impression that
they believe that Jesus' death is what "saved" us, not his living example
and his teachings.
Granted, this is a perceives view or projection by us on the outside, and
probably doesn't accurately represent the views of those on the inside. But
why do we have this view? That was the point of the posting (not that you
missed the point… I'm just talking here).
I've been wondering what would happen to our society if we did have a
posting of The Beatitudes in every court in our country. My interpretation
of that entire chapter of Matthew (as well as Jesus' teachings in general)
is the adage to think outside these labels, and try to address the real
problem and not cast as many stones, "Woman, where are those thine
accusers? hath no man condemned thee? Neither do I condemn you. Go your
way. From now on, sin no more."
So, if we did post the Beatitudes, I think there just might be a lot more
criminals on the street. But would there be more crime? Lowering crime is
the ultimate purpose or goal of our courts, and it comes from the notion
that punishments deter crime. Clearly, that is a good deterrent for some,
but not everyone. States that have the "death penalty" do not have lower
homicide rates, etc.
After the 9/11 attacks I wrote a piece where I mentioned that many
people perceive Jesus' counsel to "turn the other cheek" as weakness. So
maybe taking this approach in our courts wouldn't help… but maybe it
would. Regardless, I thought it was interesting to think about.
Concerning Muslim suicide bombers… clearly their "act" is quite active
and certainly not passive. But I was thinking past the act to their motive.
Self preservation is one of our strongest instincts, so anyone willing to
die for any cause must have serious motivation. Granted, you or I may not
value the motivation and may compare the early Christian martyrs' refusal
to deny Jesus above Japanese kamikaze pilots… but that would be
judging, wouldn't it?
So yes, persecution is something that happens to you, but it could also be
the motivation for a different response.
Yes, you are quite correct that a love based on a fuller understanding is
better than a love based on a partial understanding… and even that is
better than no love at all. So perhaps our next task is to first try to
love the terrorist (while still condemning the act) and also try to
understand him better. This love and understanding may not only answer the
question of why "they hate us," but may also lead us to a better way.
—Howard Abrams
8 February 2004
Comment
I agree with almost all of what you said (and I only say almost to save
myself from having to conflict myself at some time!). I totally agree
about the Beatitudes: I think that if followed, they would fundamentally
change how society functions and individuals respond for the better. And
"turning the other cheek" is one of the hardest things that Jesus ever
said, and it is hard for any court to embrace because it implies that God
will take care of justice and judgment, that it is not our job. Kind of
invalidates the entire legal system (just a pinch of hyperbole there).
One point to clarify: since Christianity is founded on grace and freedom
(though indeed, not often practiced as such), there is a huge spectrum of
how Christians look at Jesus, etc. [Ironically, it is exactly the freedom
which they have been given in Jesus that permits them to be such jerks, for
those who are.] But I can say that the orthodox, biblical view is that it
is in fact Jesus himself who saves us, not his teachings. His teachings
give us a model, a way that we can keep faith and come to know God in
deeper and deeper ways. However, following his lead ("believe in God,
believe also in me", "go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit", "even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up; that whoever believes in him may have eternal life"), the
work of redemption was done by "the great High priest" by his own
sacrifice. The idea is that we couldn't even live up to the Ten
Commandments et al., much less the amazing Beatitudes and "turning the other
cheek". So to save us, God served our sentence for us in human form, doing
what we couldn't do for ourselves.
Sorry if that was preaching, that is just a pretty central bit to the
faith.
"How good and pleasant it is when the brothers dwell together in harmony."
some psalm I can't remember the number of.
—Danny Summerlin
8 February 2004
Comment
Wonderful thread, that headed in the wrong direction… Sorry I am a bit
late
"they offer an entirely different moral code, one which is inviting rather
than prohibitive"
A very interesting exercise is to Google the different meanings of "poor in
spirit" from the first Beatitude. My personal interpretation comes from
Johnny Cash's Man In Black {"The reckless ones whose bad trip left them
cold"}, but it has been co-opted to justify every conceivable view.
—Mhawke