In Arkansas a law has been passed mandating that the Ten Commandments be on display in all classrooms (See Bill 433, now Act 573). This week the University of Arkansas will become the first public university in the country to post the Ten Commandments in this way (in the midst of challenges, stays, and appeals). Since this law enters into my domain as a pastor and person of faith, I have some thoughts.
I want to weigh in specifically on the actual words that are mandated. A particular version of the commandments is found within the Bill itself. Comparing the Bill to the scriptures, it is interesting to note what has been left out and what has been left in. In addition, it is noteworthy to see how an old translation (the King James Version), complete with “thou’s” and “shalt’s,” has been manipulated and then promoted as an official version. The Bill begs questions about motivation and intent.
I’ll start with the most alarming, in my opinion. While several of the commandments have been abbreviated, with many of the original words left out, the last one is given in full. To fit with the others, it could have read “Thou shalt not covet.” One has to wonder why this version does not focus on the dangers of coveting in a more general way – like we see with the other commandments here. Instead, specifics that are included in the original texts are shown. We read, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle…” Is the intent here to suggest that this is really only for men (males)? This possibility gains credibility when we note that the pronoun “his” is used three times in this one verse. This is redundant and unnecessary if translated from the original language. In addition, does this expanded listing imply that slavery is to be condoned or that women in positions of authority can be tolerated and useful if they know their place as maidservants? It makes me want to see a counter-list of all the passages that lift others up rather than marginalize. And for an almost humorous note, the original words in the KJV list other animals. Why is “cattle” the only animal in this version?
For the first example of important words being left out, the whole list starts with “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” In the scriptures more is given between these two sentences. We hear of God speaking to a specific people who had been delivered out of Egypt and out of bondage. This group of people are invited (not forced) into this covenant (See Ex 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21).
The third commandment, in this mandated version, reads, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.” In the KJV version of scripture, it is worded a little differently and there is no period after the word “images.” With a comma we are beckoned to read more. The commandment goes on for three long verses with words from a jealous God who will visit iniquity on those who break this commandment, to the third and fourth generation, and will show mercy on those who keep these commandments – with some debate about whether this refers to these first two commandments or all the commandments.
As one who truly believes in a living God, I would worry about whether this Bill could be considered a form of creating a graven image. In addition, a larger theological reason for this commandment is to help this community avoid limiting God to one perspective or trying to control God. That’s what graven images can do. God is bigger than that.
In the scriptures, the commandment around the sabbath goes on for four verses, with details and specifics. In the spirit of making a list for a mandated 16inch-by-20inch framed poster, it is understandable why these details would be left out – along with the possibility that we really don’t want to encourage people to abide by this weekly rhythm. It still begs the questions, why was this one abbreviated and others not? What is the real message here? It would seem like that would be important for us to discern if this kind of investment is going to be made.
It does strike me that this mandate possibly goes against the spirit of the commandments themselves. Is God’s name being used – in vain – to intimidate and create division? Does this law manipulate the words of scripture to promote an agenda that is arguably intended to marginalize some? I hope that this analysis has sparked a willingness for more discernment – perhaps with a healthy dose of fear and trembling.
As a Christian, I am all for honoring the Ten Commandments. In my tradition as a United Methodist, I also believe that these words are to be interpreted through the lens of what we call the royal law of love. Jesus himself followed this method of interpreting scripture when he said that all the law and the prophets can be summed up in the commandment to love (Matt 22:37-40). And we know what this love looks like. It is illuminated with patience, kindness, and a humility that does not insist on its own way. This love believes in others; it hopes for all that is good for others (I Cor 13). It builds up rather than breaks down. It unites rather than divides. It is the more excellent way. And this way can be seen in the Hebrew tradition as well, especially through the prophets.
I wonder what it would look like if we gave this witness, not with mandated posters, but with actions based on words written upon the heart.
Connected In Christ 