Decalogue (Hastings' Dictionary)

The law of the Ten Words, virtually a transl.ition of the original Heb. name B"-!?^" n-r^y. Dt 4" 10*, cf. Ex 31-») is the most suitable title of the ethical code prefi.xed to the Sinaitic legislation. The name 'Ten Command- ments' is a less accurate rendering, and it pre- judges the disputed question as to whether all of the ten words are of the nature of commandments. It is also called the Testimony (i\:-i-i Ex 25^'), and the Covenant (n-i;, Dt 9').

Th« •ccounts of the first publication of the D. contain a variety of extraordinary particulars in attestation of its immediate divine origin and of its sovereign authority. The nation gathered at the foot of Sinai to receive a revelation (Ex 19"). Amid thunder and lightning, and with the sound of a trumpet, the Lord descended upon the smoking mount (19'"'-). and from thence proclaimed the words of the law in articulate tones in the ears of the terrified people (20", Dt 4'^).

The words thus uttered by the very voice were thereafter graven by the very finger of God on two tables of stone (Ex 31'^ Dt 4"). These tables, which were broken by Moses on witnessing the temporary apostasy of the people (Ex 32"), were replaced by another pair on which God had promised to rewrite the former words (Ex 34'), and which were tliere- after deposited in the ark with a view to their safe-keeping and in token of their paramount importance (Dt 10°).

* In consideration of these details, in which so much stress is laid on the authority of the D. and on the precautions taken for preserving it in its purity, it is remarkable that the Pent, contains two versions of it which exhibit not a few, or altogether unimportant, variations — the classic version, as it may be called, of Ex 20'"", and the less-regarded version of Dt 5'"". The principal divergences occur in the reasons annexed to the fourth and fifth commandments.

Under the fourth Dt founds the duty of Sabbath observance, not upon the example of the God of Creation who rested from His works on the seventh day (Ex 20"), but upon the dictates of humanity and of gratitude. 'Observe the Sabbath-day to keep it holy . . that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

And thou shalt remember tuat thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and J" thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm : therefore J" thy God com- manded thee to keep the Sabbath-day (Dt 5'-""). The fifth commandment, in the Deuteronomic text, sanctions filial conduct with the promise of pros- perity as well as of long life (5").

In the tenth, it may be added, Dt has a different order from Ex — the wife being placed at the head of the series, while the coveting of the neighbour's field, which would count for much with a peasant people, is expressly prohibited (5").t That the Exodus version of the D. is on the whoU superior to, i.e. older and purer than, the text of Dt, is the opinion of the great majority of modern scholars, including Delitzsch, Dillmann, W. R. Smith, Driver.!

For this opinion the principal ground is that the variations in Dt are obviously a personal contribution from this author, some bemg mere amplifications in his wonted style, others instances of the intrusion of his cliaracter- istic ideas or expressions (cf. Dillmann, Exod, p. 200 ; Driver, LUT p. 31). • The account in Ex of tiie Sinaitic revelation is higiily com- posite. and many details of the critical analysis ore etill luiaettled.

The Decalo^e l3 imbedded in E, wliich furnishes most of th« matter in Ex 19-24 ; but this is not decisive aa to its date — one section regarding it oa derived by E from pre-existing sources (Driver, LOT p. 30), while another assumes its intrusioa into the E stratum after the formulation of the Decalogue of Dt (Meisner, Der Dekalog p. 11). The J narrative is more prominent in Ex 32-34, and has often been alleged to set forth an older summary as the kernel of the legislation (see it\fra).

This latter inference, apart from other grounds, is rendered very precarious by the fact that a preat part of the orifxinal contents of J is no lonfrer before us. The final redaction does not determine whether the words were rewritten by God (Ex 34") or by Moses (Ex 342»). t Other Dt variations are multiplication of connecting par- ticles, and of details (the ox and the ass entitled to Sanbath rest), verbal changes ( ' observe for ' remember in c.

4, ' desire ' for ' covet ' in the main body of o. 10), and allusive phiiues (' As the Ix>rd thy God commanded thee ' in cs. 4 and 5). t Wellhausen, however, 'protests against the d priori and consistent preference of the Exod. text,' Comp. d. Hex. : and evidence that his view is spreading is furnished by the argu- ment of Ueisner's painstaking monograph (Der Dekalog). DECALOGUE DECALOGUE 581 In opi>osition to the traditional conception of the D.

as striitly Mosaic, tliree theories are widely represented in modem criticism — (1) that it is a prophetic compendium or manifesto belonging at the earliest to the 8th cent. B.C. ; (2) that it is in eubstJince Mosaic, but that it was enlarged at a later period by the addition of one or more command- ments, or at least (3) of amplitications and sanctions of the original ' words.'

(1) Against the Mosaic origin it is argued that the tradition does not consistently maintain its claim, but edternatively exhibits a summary of a widely did'erent character (Ex 34"") aa the Mosaic D. (Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hex. p. 331 11'.)* ; that the ancient ' Book of the Covenant ' shows no acquaintance with its content (Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch, p. 92 IF.)

, and especially that both in general spirit and in detail it is out of harmony with the essentiallv ritualistic religion of pre- prophetic times (following Wellhausen, Kayser, Smend, Baentsch, up. cit. 98). Upon this it is sufficient here to observe that the cardinal a.ssump- tion of this group of scholars, viz. that tlie D. was impossible before the prophetical teaching of the 8th cent., exaggerates the part played by the prophets in lixing the character of tlie OT religion.

Assuredly, the prophets did not lirst enunciate, but inherited, the doctrine that true religion utters itself in morality ; and it is an obvious inference from the broad facts of the tradition that this fundamental idea was affirmed by and descended from Moses. That as the founder or reformer of a religion he should have embodied its leading prin- ciples in ' terse ' sentences is not only possible but probable, and the testimony to the fact that in the D.

we possess such a summary is too strong to be ■et aside in the interests of a historical theory.t (2) A second group of critics, while holding tliat ' Moses in the name of J" prescribed to the Israel- ites such a law as is contained in the ten words ' (Kuenen, Bel. Isr., Eng. tr. i. r>. 285), support tlie contention of the first group, tliat one or more of the commandments are post-Mosaic. The main objection to the Mosaic authorship of c.

4 — that it presupposes conditions of agricultural life unlike those under which Moses could have conceived and promulgated it (Monteliore, Ilib. Led. p. 554 j cf. omenA, Reliriionsgesch. p. 139) — is at the most valid against certain of the amplitications. More serious Is the case against the Mosaic origin of c.

2, founded on the facts tliat its prohibition of graven images was disregarded in the time of the judges and of the early monarchy, that the prophets of the Northern Kingdom ottered no opposition to the cult of tlie •The (o-called Jahwistio D,, flnt Indicated by Ooethe, hu been finally reconstructed by WeUlmusen as follows iltr, Oeich. p. W) :- 1. Thou shaU not worship any Btranpe god. 2. Thou nhalt not make unto thee molten ^odl. 8. Thou shatt keep the feaitt of Unleavened Bread. 4.

All the flret-born are mine. 6. Tliou Bhalt keep the feaat of Weeka. A. Tbou Shalt keep the feast of Ingathering In the tan of the fear. 7. Thou thalt not mingle leavened bread with the blood of my •«rlflie. 8. Thou Shalt not retain until the morning the tat of my feast. ». Thou ahalt bring the best of the first-fruits of thy field to Ifae house ol J" thy Ood. 10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid In Its mother's milk.

In Ex the cmje really contains 12 precepts, hence there la no •ffreeinent as to the selection to l»e made. It may be noted that it la not claimed that it is Mosaic, but only that it is older than the n. of Ex 20 (cf. amend, lirliijinmiietch. p. <7). f or this evidence an important element is the tradition that two lAldes of stone conlainini; the I), were placed bv Mom-s in the ark (Ex ^i<*>, Dt W'). The ar);uments UM-d to discredit the traditir>n are set forth fully by Stable, Gettch. d. V.

Iitr. L L4.S7fT., where its existence Is explained b> the suppoHition t the ark originally contained sacred stones associaltHl with the presence of J". Hut surely Mosaism cannot have heipieathed to post^-rity as its most precious legacy a stone-fetish (see Ark OF TlIS C0VK>li.VT). golden calves, and that the prophetic conscience ajipears first to have revolted against them in the 8th cent, in .ludah (Kuenen, liel. Isr., Eng. tr. i. 283 tf.)

To this it is replied, in general, that the non-observance of a religious law is no proof of its non-existence ; and, in particular, that as the central sanctuaries posses.sed no image in the times of Eli, David, and Solomon, the prohibition must have been early operative as a recognized part of the pure Mosaic system (cf. Kittel, Ilist. Heb., Eng. tr. 1. pp. 248, 249). It may be added that contact with Eg3'ptian idolatry is likely to have made Moses recoil from image-worship.

It must, however, be granted that the liistorical facts are perplexing ; and it is at lea-st possible that c. 2 is a development by the prophetical school of a consequence originally only latent in the Mosaic prohibition of the worship of other gods.

(3) A tliird view leaves undisturbed the tradition that Moses was the author of an essentially spiritual and ethical code of ten precepts, but alleges the probability of this having originally existed in a briefer form, to which from time to time various reflexions and promises were added which strengthened their appeal to the mind and will. (Jn this theory, widely held by scholars since Ewald (Gesck. Isr.' ii.

231), command- ments 2, 3, 4, 5 originally wanted the ' reasons annexed,' while 10 may have stoi)j>ed at 'house.' It is strongly supported by the variations of the two texts, and seems irresistible in consideration of the fact that c. 4 presupposes acquaintance with Gn l'-2*. It may be added that the terser version gives a better balance to the two tables, and was more suited to the capacity of the popular memory: and in particular that it represents material common to.

and thus attested by, the joint testimony of the two divergent recensions. The division of the D. into its ten constituent parts has occA-sioned considerable ditticulty. The three systems, as a<loptcd by different religious communities, may be thus re presented — Greek and R. 0. and |. ■ . Eeformed. Lutheran. Jewisn. Qod the Deliverer out of Eg^pt . . Preface Preface a L Prohibition of poly- "j "1 theism ... a 1 I , (.« • Prohibition of graven (^ ' ("■ ^ images . c t J J •^**«o«.8-S C8.

S-8 c»,8-». Prohibitions of ooret- I o. lo ousness . it lOt -o. 10. The second of these divisionn. introduced after Jewish precedent by Auifustine (ad iCxod.) is slightly Mupportt-d by the fact that C8. 1 and 'I have a Joint Baiiction, and aUo by the Dt text of c. 10, but is equally unhappy in combining the two distinct prohibitiona of polytheif:i»i and idolatrj", and in separatinR- the particulars, posdibly not oriKinol, of the precept a^ainwt coveUmsnesa.

The Tulinudic diviuion, which treats the preface a8 the first word, is liable to the objection, not only that it affecU the unity of the cmJe, but that the same formula appears elsewhere aa introduc- tion or conclusion (Lv 18S itfSfi). In view of these objections the GrL-ek-Hefonued division, represented in antiquity by Philo, Jost-phuB, and many Fathers (Orifren, In Ex. HmniJia, 12), is favoured hy the majority of modem critics ^Oehler, Ewald, DelitzBch, Dillmann). See also Nestle in Kxp.

T'irncjt, June 1897. The ong^inal sequence of the 'words* is disturbed in LXX, where the two conunandments which bear upon the life of tlie family (5 and 7) are brouj^'ht together, and the sixth becomes the eighth. In NT the order is variable, but usually the seventh precedes the sixth (Mk 10l», Ro 18»). Theclassiflration of the coninmndment« la suggested by theli distribution between two tables.

Obviously, they fall Into two groups — (1) the relin'ous n-4), which define certain dutiet which man owes to God ; and (2) the cthiciU (5-10), which define cerl/iin duties which ho owes to his brother man. It has, how- ever, been frequently pointed out that, in the antique nimle ol thought, niial duty was more closely allied to the religious than • The view that the * torso' waa the original D.

Is assailed by Meisner on the ground that the irredurihle niininium of tho words of the lirst table has been 'inundated' by Di [Dfk. p, lo), but it is at least as probable that the vocabulary of Ut wiui enriched by the original l>. f While the B.C. and Liith. Chnrchea agree in subdividing the probihitious of covetousncss, the foruicr makes o. W protect th' neighbour'i wife, tho latter b^s houae.

582 DECALOGUE DECALOGUE to the ethical obligation, and that the first five commandmenta may accordingly be 6uital)ly grouped as precepts of piety, the Luil five as laws of probity. The precepts of piety, which may fairly be assigned to the flrst table, are on the whole clear. The first, while not un- ambiguously sounding the monotheistic note, at least excludes polytheism from Israel. The second prohibits the worship of the true God under a visible form — idolatry.

That the third had an dqually definite aim is probable, and it is a plausible suggestion that its point was directed against the use of God's name in spiritualistic and other magical rites (Smend), though most exegetes make it include various abuses of God's name — as perjury, lying, cursing, and other forma of profanity. _ In the reasons annexed to the words of this table may be noticed the two remarkable features of c.

2, the profound insight into the law of heredity, and the intimation that the soul of religion is the love of God ; the Deut. grounding of c. 4, which breathes oompassion towards man and Deast ; and the confident assertion tn c. 5 of the doctrine of temporal retribution. The laws of probity take under their protection human life (a 6), the institution of marriage (o. 7), property (c. 8), and character or reputation (c. 9) ; while c. 10 strikes at the roots of wrong.

doing by proscribing the lawless desire. They may be further classified according as they condemn criminality in act (03. 6-8), in word (c. 9), and in thought (c 10). From this brief sketch of the contents of the D. we may obtain an impression both of its greatness and its limitations.

Its first distinction is that within the brief compass of the ten words it lays down the fundamental articles of religion (sovereignty and spirituality of God), and asserts the claims of morality in the chief spheres of human relationship (home, calling, society). Its ethical precepts are the most far-reaching and the most indispensable.

It is, again, a further testimony to the moral value of the code that it provided forms capable of re- ceiving a richer and fuller content than that which they originally held. But the sovereign distinc- tion of the 15. lies less in its exhibition of the foundations of religion and of the landmarks of morality, than in its representation of religion and morality as knit together by a vital and indis- soluble bond. The D.

is, in brief, the charter of ethical piety, or, in other words, the great g re-Christian advocate for righteousness as the ighest form of ritual. In an age of the world's history when popular religion found satisfaction in an ethically indifferent ceremonialism, in a country where Mosaic sanction was claimed for an elaborate system of sacrifices and festivals, the D.

excluded from the summary of duty almost every reference to this class of owigations, and made it clear that what God above all required was justice and mercy. Consistently with this, the one re- ligious duty, narrowly so called, which hnds a place in the code, is Sabbath observance ; for this commandment not only had in view tlie provision of an opportunity for meditation and wor.

sliip, but was equally conceived, if we may follow Dt, as a beneficent institution founded in compassion toward the weary and heavy laden. The limitations of the D. lie on the surface. Its brevity forbids us to expect exhaustiveness, and, as a fact, its ethical requirements may almost all be connected \\ith the single virtue of justice.

Wisdom and fortitude, which figure prominently in the Greek scheme of virtue, are not recognized, and even in the prohibitions of adultery and covetousness it is less temperance or self-control than justice that appears to interpose to forbid the sin. Again, it followed from the undisciiilined character of the people to whom it was first given, that the D. should be elementary in its teaching. They were children who had need to be tauglit the first principles of the oracles of God.

The demands accordingly are not very high-pitched : witli the exception of the tentli, tue moral precepts belong exclusively to the region of conduct where actions condemned by the conscience as sins are also punished by tne state as crimes. Further, of the ten, eight are prohibitions, two only are positive Injunctions. And herein lies the principal limita- tion of the D.

In the main a condemnation of superstition and crime, and as such of the highest value in the training of a primitive people, it does not meet the demand of the enlightened conscience for a positive moral ideal. For this we must ad- vance to Christ's interpretation or revision of the Decalogue. Tlie frequent references of Christ to the D.

are marked by two main features — (1) a hearty re- cognition of its divine authority (Mt 5"); (2) a purpose of so interpreting its precepts as to widen their range and exalt their demands. Its inade- quacy as an ideal, due to its preponderantly negative character, He rectified by condensing the law into the two positive commandments to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as our- sel ves ( Mt 22''"*').

Indeed , so closely did the teaching of Jesus lean on the Mosaic form that it is possible to construct with scarcely a gap the D. according to Christ. The following are the principal addi- tions : C. 1. Thou shalt love the Lord witn all thy heart (Mt 22"). C. 2. They that worship, worship in spirit and truth (Jn 4^). C. 3. Swear not at all (Mt 5"). C. 4. The Sabbath was made for man (Mk 2"). C. 5. Duty to parents paramount over other religious obligation (Mt 15''"'). C. 6.

Murder includes anger (Mt 5"). C. 7. Adultery includes lust (5^). Of c. 8 we have not Christ's exposition, but the absence is readily explained by the fact that c. 10 had already extended the prohibition of theft in the spirit of the teaching of Jesus. Simi- larly, the false witness of c. 9 is referred to a foul heart (Mt 12*), while the idle is included in con- demnation with the calumnious word (12"). Of Christ's definite consciousness of a mission to handle the D.

in the light of the final revelation there is further evidence in His announcement of the new commandment of brotherly love (Jn 13*), by which He re-emphasizes the nature of the positive ideal substituted for the warnings of the second table. Of the apostolic references to the D. those of St. Paul are most noteworthy. Like Jesus, he employs it as a standard to test conduct and measure wickedness. He supposes the law to have been communicated to Moses through angelic mediation (Gal 3'», cf.

He 2^). What St. Paul held as to the p\ace of the D. in the Christian dispensation is a question of some difficulty. He nowhere draws a distinction between the ceremonial and the moral elements of the Mosaic law, and declares that, while the former are repealed, the latter remain binding: his general thesis is that the law as such has no longer dominion over the Christian (Ko 7'). But as certainly it follows for St.

Paul that the Christian, while placed in a new attitude to the law, voluntarily and joyfully re-subjects himself to and obeys its ethical commandments. Filled by the Spirit and animated with gratitude, he exhibits towards his fellow-men a mea.sure of love to whicli it is a small thing to forbear from injustice, as re- quired in the second table of the ancient law (Ro 13"). In Christian theology the D.

is commonly re- garded as a revelation, or as a republication, of the fundamentals of religion and morality. It is the most important part of the OT or legal economy, and as such was designed to show the path of duty, to deepen the sense of guilt, and to awaken a profound sense of human inability. The question of its continued validity for the Chris- tian, whUe capable of being diversely grounded, po.ssesses practical importance only in the case of c.

4, where the issue is whether the Sabbath is to be • The perfection of the D. was a favourite thesis of 17th cent, orthodoxy as against the Socinians and Arminians, who declared that Christian ethics added three principles — abncKatio nostri, tolerantia crucis propter Christum, imitatio Christi. The orthodox view was that it did not require to be supplemented or corrected, but only properly intenTeted, to furnish the fuU Christian ideal (see Turretin, fheot. Elenc liut. Locus 11).

DECAPOLIS DECISIUX 583 kept as a divine command or as a measure of Christian expediency and a dictate of Christian feel- ing (see Sabbath). The latter view, energetically maintained by Luther, and favoured in the Federal School of IJeformed theology, is most in harmonj' -n-ith the Pauline doctrines of law and Christian liberty. See Law. LiTRRATURi. — Ewald, HUt. (tf Israel', Kuenen, Reiigum of Inxul\ L>eliler*8 OT 'Jhfviogj/ \ W. K. Smith, art. 'Decalogiie' In Eitcycl. Brit.

9 ; Wellhausen, Composition (Us Hex. ; Driver, LOT; H. SchulU, OT Thf ologi/ iSmend, Lehrbxich der AT Religionggt*cMcht« ; Baentach, Dtia Bundesbuch \ Meisner, Vrr Drkalog ; SUde, Getch. Itraeti ; Kittsl, Hist, of Israel \ Dillmaiu). Exod. ; Driver, Deu/. ; Monteflore, Hibbert Led. • Harper, Deut. For the treatment of the D. in the old polemical divinity, reference may be made to F. Turretin, Institutio TheologioB ElencticcB', H.

Grotius, Explicatio Itecatogi, and Oocceius, De Sabbato ; for homiletical treatment, to R. W. Dale, Tht Tm CommandmenU. W. P. PATERSON. DEC&POLIS (Af«£xo\it), 'ten cities,' Mt 4>, Mk 5" 7". — A region of allied cities (see Pales- tine) E. of Jordan in Bashan, but including Beth- sbean W. of the river. Such leagues existed in other parts of the Roman Empire for purposes of trade and of defence. The mention of swine kept by the people of Decapolis suggests the presence of a Or.

colony ; and the region had a Gr. -speaking population, mingled with natives, as early as the time of Herod the Great. The cities of Decapolis, according tp Pliny (HN v. IS), were Scythopolis {Bcis<in), Hippos {Siisieh), Gadara (Umm Keis), Pella (FliIiU), Philadelphia {'Ammdn), Gerasa (JercLsh), Dion {Adiin), Cunatha (Kanawdt), Dam- ascus, and Kaphana. The region thus included all Bashan and Gilead. In the Onomasticon (j.».) it is defined as the region round Hippos, Pella, and Gadara. (Cf.

further, Schiirer, ilJP 11. i. 9-iff. ; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 593 if.) C. R. CONDER.