Why do we need the ten?

August 31, 2022 • by Michael A. Atkins

The epic tale of the life of Moses, dramatized in the 1956 film ‘The Ten Commandments‘ by Cecil B. DeMille, is a masterpiece of American cinema. This film is broadcast each year during the Easter/Passover season, and many families gather around their televisions to witness the acclaimed retelling of this classic story from the pages of the Bible. Because of his iconic role as the prophet Moses, actor Charlton Heston has become the face of this historic figure for many like myself. As the story goes, more than three thousand years ago the Hebrew prophet stepped down from Mount Sinai in the wilderness——with his exceptionally well groomed beard——to give the nation of Israel these Ten Commandments; the most famous legislation in history. In each scene this fantastic beard seems to become longer and more white, and near the end of this over three hour motion picture, we find Moses standing upon the mountain in fear and awe as a whirling fire from God etches this Law onto tablets of stone. The Bible tells us that these Commandments were actually written by the Divine Hand; lending a unique significance to this text from among all the passages in Scripture. These Ten Commandments, also known as ‘the Decalogue’, have arguably influenced the world like little else since Moses descended from the mountain. Many recognize this Law as fundamental to the establishment of Western Civilization; some of the most prosperous and powerful nations in history. In spite of this significance there are perhaps few in the West who can recite them all, while many more of us retain a vivid memory of Moses’ spectacular beard. 

I recently watched a video montage of various debates about the Ten Commandments. The clip featured several prominent atheists whose thinly veiled rage and animosity toward these laws was betrayed by the pulsing veins in their foreheads. Their zealous hatred seemed to have been fueled by the audacity of the “You shall not” statement found in these Commandments. Evidently people should be left to make up their own rules and requirements and not be told what to do by God. Yet when they begin listing the vile behaviors which should have been, but are not excluded by these ten laws, it becomes clear that their own notions of right and wrong are deemed a superior authority. I can’t imagine why they would be so angry at religious views if people should be free to make their own choices. Apparently there are a definitive set of reprehensible actions in their view that should be abolished. It seems they’re not really inclined to leave it up to each individual’s reason, they would rather we rely on their vast intellect to make the rules for us. I notice a froth of spittle in the corners of their mouths like madmen during what appears to be a somewhat anti-semitic rant, (paraphrasing) “This is the most brutal tribe of people in history!” they claim; apparently they trust the part of scripture that illuminates all of the bad behavior of Israel——conflating the merits of a set of principles with a people’s capacity to keep them. I began to wonder if they might be able to relax and think more clearly if they just took a day to rest now and then. Still, their viewpoints may be worthy of some consideration.

The ten statutes written in this Law relate principles concerning two overarching obligations for mankind: an obligation to God, and an obligation to one another. The objective seems to be to establish a peaceful coexistence among people. Even those who have no faith in the God of Moses, would be likely to acknowledge several of these Commandments as necessities for such a civil society. Perhaps we have no need for the God stuff as the atheists contend, so what if we just leave those laws aside? It would be challenging to find a more pleasant person than one who perfectly kept these last six:

(paraphrased)

5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not lie
10. You shall not covet

While these laws are given in a manner that seems at first prohibitive——a thorn in the side for our angry atheist friends——upon further consideration they may offer protection for life, family, property, and honor; what could be more peaceful? In spite of having no knowledge of Scripture, cultures in the remotest corners of the world are certain to hold many of these same ideals. Of course there may be certain limitations to their universal acceptance; the prohibition against covetousness found in this last rule seems odd, and how often do we use words like “covet” anyway? But why would there be such a widespread agreement regarding so many of these precepts, and if there is this agreement why do we need to bother with the Ten Commandments at all? Maybe these atheists are on to something.

It’s widely understood that human beings have a capacity to reason; we seem to have an innate ability to assess the value and consequence of choices we make before making them. We also have a conscience, a seemingly natural understanding of morality; to know what is right and wrong. When for example, we’re waiting in a checkout line at a grocery store, we somehow know that skipping ahead of the others would be inappropriate conduct. Isn’t this kind of understanding ingrained in each of us? and isn’t that sufficient to ensure we coexist peacefully with one another, at least in the grocery store? However, when handing the cashier payment for our goods, if he miscalculates and gives us back too little change, we will immediately correct him explaining that his math skills are not up to par. If on the other hand he mistakenly gives us too much, we could be tempted to simply accept his error without protest. So while we may innately understand right from wrong, when we benefit from what we know to be wrong it becomes more difficult to firmly adhere to these principles. If we witness another person trespass against these rules of conduct, it’s much easier for us to find their actions unsavory. And maybe if we do see others violate these rules, our conscience and reason may not be a sufficient system for ensuring a civility and a peaceful coexistence with each other. Maybe they’re not innate at all?

We might observe two toddlers playing with their toys, and one child simply takes a toy from the other. Often such an offense results in an episode of screaming and crying, and quickly their parents will intervene ensuring a return to peace, and silence. So perhaps it requires being reared within a principled environment, and the rules of conduct being instilled in us as we mature. Still, why does the child who has been relieved of his toy cry? Does he understand the nature of property rights? Or is it that we simply have a distaste for the loss of a perceived benefit, or our toys? It’s possible that there are many things at work: an innate desire for personal advantage, a recognition of right and wrong particularly when our own self-interest is at stake, and a learned system of rules devised to ensure the mutual protection of one another’s self-interest——including the sanity of these parents. Still we can recognize that what benefits us may be enough incentive to artfully set aside certain principles, like when the cashier gives us more change than we should have coming. Perhaps our conscience and reason are inherent, but are often an insufficient motivation for us to follow the rules; they may not be enough for us to temper our own self-interest. Some measure of an authority like these parents may be necessary, compelling us to actually do the right thing.

Back in our local grocery store, we witness someone behind us belligerently skip to the front of the line——unlike our earlier more noble show of restraint. This person is likely to be confronted by an angry protest; they have broken the rule that we’ve determined is to be understood. While they may not face any real retribution for such a trespass, breaking another more critical decree might be viewed as a serious infringement of public trust. An assault not only against an individual, but against the stability of a community. Societies are somewhat self-governed by these taboos, and to be declared guilty in the court of public opinion can be a profound conviction. A person might develop a reputation that places them outside of a circle of protection within any group of people. Communities, like parents, offer a kind of sanctuary for their members——and also have an appreciation for peace and quiet——one may lose this security if their rules are not properly respected. It becomes necessary then for any community no matter how large or small, no matter the background, the language or cultural influences of each individual; to agree upon the adoption of rules of conduct. A certain authority is established by this agreement. So is consensus a sufficient authority to motivate our compliance with these laws?

In the text, we won’t find a commandment against skipping ahead in a grocery store checkout line, yet I can imagine it being frowned upon in any culture; at least those with grocery stores and checkout lines. Perhaps a community can do a more thorough job of rule making than these six of the Ten Commandments, as our irritable atheist friends claimed. Certainly any group of people can establish principles of conduct for themselves and go on to live peaceful lives by reaching an accord. Yet occasionally we do witness those who would skip a line, maybe even steal, lie or cheat. Because of this, it would seem this consensus doesn’t carry sufficient authority, once again self-interest overrules… the rules. How can we have our peaceful, quiet community if everyone doesn’t follow our agreed upon principles? Having an agreement doesn’t naturally establish any specific set of consequences for rule breakers either. What’s more, some of our companions in this line might protest loudly, while other fellow line-dwellers say nothing at all. Even when there’s unanimity about the rules, this type of authority is really just assumed and requires the acknowledgement of each individual to carry any weight. Furthermore some seem to treat minor offenses with ferocious reactions while others even neglect to respond at all. Perhaps those who have themselves offended, are more permissive of those who offend. Or a person at the back of the line may be less injured than one who’s waited patiently for considerably longer. One person may have suffered from one rule breaker after another to the limit on this particular day. It seems this consensus is somewhat weak, and transient if self-interest and mutual interest are subjective, and dependent on a person’s in-the-moment circumstances. There may be agreement about rules, but not the severity of infractions or how to address them. We might also want to protect the lives of these skippers-of-lines from extreme and violent reactions to their offenses. 

In truth it’s uncertain that a broad consensus can even be had or maintained. Often we see factions develop within any group; each standing firmly on a particular interpretation of any question in any given situation. This alone can lead to confrontation and conflict——our blissful silence once again lost to shouting. Is there something more that’s required, such as establishing and agreeing upon reasonable penalties for breaking our quite reasonable rules? Maybe we need a government that’s empowered to institute and enforce these kinds of laws dispassionately. Perhaps even our atheistic ‘betters’ can devise our system and we could elect them to rule over us with their vast wisdom. And then finally, we might have our peace, and quiet.

A government can maintain an authority, and establish penalties for bad behavior. Such authority might be sufficient if they had enough power to implement a broad range of punishments to address a broad range of crimes. This authority would however be rooted in coercion, so it would require a careful implementation. Given enough power, nefarious lawmakers may be able to use their authority to undermine any of these laws by interpretation, omission, or amending them to the point of imposing an excessive burden upon a people. While a government can use such coercive power to maintain order within a community, rarely is there a capacity to restrain those in government with the exception of violent revolution——once again our beloved silence is down the drain. Government may hold the power of legislation, interpretation of that legislation, and enforcement; but there must be an incentive for these lawmakers to follow certain rules as well——most importantly when this government holds a significant military power. These authorities may also determine that their position elevates them far above their lowly and intellectually inferior constituents, and that they are beyond reproach. A group of political leaders may for example decide to tax a people into abject poverty, seizing the wealth of a society for themselves. Unless a government is constrained, what’s to prevent it from using its military might against its own people to the advantage of its officials? What prevents a nation from invading or enslaving the people of a weaker nation?

While trying to resolve our initial dilemma, we begin to discover its true complexity — these questions have been discussed and even argued loudly ad nauseam since time immemorial. Even if a particular society could be so perfectly established as to result in absolute tranquility within, our chronicles are littered with stories of atrocities carried out between rival communities. We begin to see that a local set of principles might not be sufficient; even with a consensus, and a well regulated penal system. An agreement might also need to exist across many cultures and communities. Establishing a universal set of principles to provide equal protection and serenity for us all. Yet, our original pitfall against an individual’s conscience——that one may put aside these rules for personal advantage——can also plague a community, a larger society, or even a government as each of these rely on a similar condition of voluntary self control. Self-interest may also influence our ability to establish principles solely by our reason in the first place, we might be able to reason our way into any bad behavior. History teaches us of cultures who have engaged in such practices as rape, plunder, and slavery perpetrated against rival communities; even genocide, and regimes who torment their own people. Our solution must ensure that we adopt a set of precepts to protect everyone across all cultures, while those in a position to hold people to account must be able to be held accountable themselves. 

We may even go a step beyond and acknowledge our own nature; “We’re only human” is phrase that seems to invoke a certain universal recognition as well. We are imperfect, we are corruptible, particularly those who wield power over others without constraint. The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament suggests that “Nearly all the commandments are couched in the negative form of prohibition, because they presuppose the existence of sin and evil desires in the human heart.” Perhaps mankind isn’t suited to bear this responsibility, after all can humanity really be trusted? Maybe our atheist overlords don’t really have a good solution. For those of us that accept the authority of the God who delivered these rules to Moses, the answer would seem to be available. And while this God may be an absolute and ultimate power, it would be terrifying if He was as corruptible and as noisy as one of us. So before we consider it truly solved, we must first learn who He is and if He can be trusted. Can God’s character be known to us? The Ten Commandments may hold the answer. So we bring back the missing four:

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not practice idolatry
3. You shall not take God’s Name in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy

It’s worthy to note that a belief in this God is not simply assumed in the text; it is in fact precluded by the statement “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” This provides an evidentiary claim to Godhood, at least for those who would have witnessed such events. This preamble is written to establish authority; not on the basis of blind faith, or upon some theological suppositions, but rather on the basis of an evidence from action. This particular God demonstrates authority by rescuing an oppressed people through a series of miraculous events——the ten plagues of Egypt, and the extraordinary parting of the Red Sea. These events seem to testify of an absolute power over all things: the heavens, the earth, the sea, all people and living creatures. For any who experienced these events first-hand, the proclamation “I am the LORD your God…” would be irrefutable. What’s more, the account of the nation of Israel receiving this Law, tells us they heard in their own ears these words by the thunderous voice of God. So terrifying and awesome was this experience, that they begged Moses to relay God’s laws to them, rather than hear His voice any more; that they may not die.

These commandments ask us to recognize a singular authority, a supremacy, requiring a reverence for and acknowledgement of one, all powerful God; carrying the weight of an eternal justice by which each soul is held to account. Perhaps this absolute authority, and the possibility of an absolute and eternal consequence is the answer to ensure we keep these laws and behave appropriately toward one another. Having these first four commandments provides us the necessary authority to follow these rules, and it’s an authority that is insurmountable for anyone in a position to govern. And if one wishes to remove or even revise these commandments, they must first deny the authority of their author, or at least assume an equal authority for themselves. Something few people would be willing to accept.

As a layman I don’t have the credentials to speak authoritatively on these topics like our atheist friends; it’s my hope that my reasoning is sound. I’m not certain how many would share my sentiments, but I sincerely wish that seeking answers in this Decalogue will at least lead some to consider them further. While we do find many more Commandments in the Torah (the five books of Moses), these Ten serve as a foundation, and are widely revered by many as a pristine set of principles by which a society of human beings can live at peace with one another. So what do these Ten Commandments mean? And what do they show us about the character of God? Answering these questions is the reason for my writing ‘The Ten Commandments — A layman’s examination of the decalogue‘.

Ten Commandments