The Proper Place for the Ten Commandments

I happen to think that, when it comes to spiritual guidelines, the Ten Commandments constitute a truly impressive code of conduct. They address humans-to-God relations, humans-to-humans relations and humans-to-things relations. That more or less covers the relationship gamut.

Certainly, I understand that earlier documents advocated many of the same behaviors. The Ten Commandments don’t contain completely new and unique material. I also recognize that the commands themselves bear the stamp of time and place--such as the tenth commandment’s placing of a wife in the same broad category as a man’s goods, chattels and farm animals. But the basic principles presented are highly insightful. From my perspective, it’s a great spiritual document. One that’s well worth trying to follow.

However, the Ten Commandments aren’t a typical set of rules. They are part of a covenant in which God took the initiative to deliver a group of people who were in slavery. Then he asked them to live a certain way. But it’s all predicated on a relationship. It’s a thank-you and a vote of appreciation because of what God has done at his own initiative. 

Granted the foregoing, I’m not convinced that the Ten Commandments are as useful in the realm of modern secular legislation and jurisprudence as many claim. In fact, I would argue that, despite the high importance of the Ten Commandments to the Jewish and Christian faiths, very few of the ten have any direct governmental application in our secular, pluralistic society, in which there is not a personal relationship with the God behind the commands. Let’s take a quick look.

1. The first commandment calls for the God of the Hebrews to be given pre-eminence, if not monopoly status. From a spiritual perspective, who or what one worships is definitely important. But is it an appropriate governmental regulation in a pluralistic society whose members worship a variety of gods or believe in no god at all?

2. The second commandment is quite ambiguous. Does it prohibit all visual artistic representations? Or does it prohibit creating such objects only if they’re going to be worshipped? What about using them as mere worship aids? What legislative insights can a secular government draw from such a prohibition? Not much, I’d say.

3. The third commandment talks about how we use the name of God. It was a rather straightforward prohibition in a theocracy. But how does it apply to a non-theocratic government today? Should we incarcerate or levy fines against people who fail to show adequate respect for Vishnu or Ganesh. Or is our concern only for due respect toward the God of the Hebrews? Granted that we have what we call the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, making laws based on the third commandment would be inappropriate today. No, let me rephrase that: It would be unconstitutional.

4. The fourth commandment advocates a day of rest--which most of us certainly need. But the Sabbath that’s being advocated isn’t just about rest. It includes a memorial celebration of two specific events: the six days of the creation narrative found in Genesis, and the Hebrews’ escape from Egyptian slavery. Just how would we legislatively translate such a celebration into our pluralistic social environment? Forced rest? On which day of the week? Forced memorializing of Jewish history? I think we’d definitely be stirring up a hornets nest.

5. The fifth commandment’s advocacy of respect for parents is a little like being in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Who could oppose such a value? On the other hand, how would such a value be incorporated legislatively? Would we say that no families can place an aged parent in a retirement home? Would we make it illegal for adult children--or even adolescent children--to disagree with their parents? How exactly would we legislate this spiritual-social value?

6. So far we’re zero for five in terms of being able to secularly legislate the content of the Ten Commandments in our pluralistic social milieu. And that’s despite the deep respect many of us have for the ten as an important spiritual code of conduct. But with the sixth commandment--“You shall not commit murder”--we finally encounter a value that’s important even to those who have no faith in the God of the Ten Commandments or in any other god. It’s a value that’s upheld by both the religious and the secular community. This is the first of the commandments that can reasonably be legislated.

7. Commandment seven is a problem. The overwhelming majority of society recognizes that sexual infidelity--whether to one’s spouse or to a relationship in which exclusivity has been promised or is assumed--can wreak havoc in the life of the one who has been betrayed. In fact, sexual infidelity was considered such a grievous sin/crime back when the Ten Commandments were written that such betrayers and their consorts were both to be executed. Few would be willing to respond so forcefully today. For one thing, guilt and innocence is often extremely difficult to establish. So, much as we might encourage fidelity from a social-spiritual perspective, the issue just doesn’t lend itself to legislation—even though there was a time in our history when we tried.

8. Commandment eight, which prohibits stealing, addresses a value that, like not murdering, is subscribed to both by those who are religious and those of no religion. The right of ownership is well-nigh universal, although the specifics may vary from age to age and culture to culture. Safeguarding the right to property ownership is a legitimate legislative concern.

9. The ninth commandment prohibits “bearing false witness.” It means that when one speaks under oath, or when an important outcome is based on having provided the truth, one must speak honestly. This command fits nicely with our modern understanding, especially in a courtroom setting.

10. The tenth commandment is in a league of its own. All the other nine involve some overt, tangible action. The tenth says there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to think--especially about objects, be they living or inanimate. It’s inappropriate, the commandment declares, to specifically want what belongs to another. Not only does this spiritual value not lend itself to legislation--since we still haven’t perfected mind-reading techniques--but our capitalist society actually admires the ability to visualize wealth and possessions and then create a strategy for their acquisition.  

The foregoing brief look at the Ten Commandments suggests that only three of the ten fit naturally into our legislative and judicial framework today. That in no way diminishes the role these ten precepts can, do and should play for those who voluntarily seek to live according to the values and principles they highlight. But it does provide perspective concerning just how much of our current system of legislation and jurisprudence is--or even should attempt to be--based on the Ten Commandments.

Wishing you a wonderful Sabbath!