Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 7. The Moral Teaching of the Old Testament.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 7. The Moral Teaching of the Old Testament.

60 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 7. The Moral Teaching of the Old Testament.

Throughout the history of biblical civilization, paradise or the Garden of Eden has been viewed by humans as a pleasant place to dwell. Undoubtedly, there are philological grounds for such an assessment of paradise; it is no coincidence that the Slavonic text speaks not so much of the Garden of Eden as of the “paradise of sweetness.” At the same time, it is quite evident that, in a theological sense, paradise was, first and foremost, a place of spiritual joy, which also affected one’s physical condition. A person who has fallen away from God perceives everything in a distorted way, seeing aggression and attack in everything. Although the loss of paradise is described in Scripture as an expulsion, in a certain sense, the person could no longer remain there on his own, for paradise is a place of communion with God, from which he voluntarily turned away. Of interest is the opinion of St. Maximus the Confessor, who believed that those unworthy of communion with God encounter a cherub who accuses them “through the conscience”[1]. If conscience prevented the fallen Adam from approaching the tree, it was evidently his own sense of guilt, which meant more to him than any external prohibitions.

According to D. Barthelemy, after the Fall, humans developed a false conception of God as a despot, a tyrant whom one must first and foremost not love, but fear and avoid. He writes: “The man who has gone wild rushes toward death in terror, in terror because he cannot bear the gaze of the Father, Whose love he underestimated and which he abused…”[2].

Instead of cultivating and preserving the land, man began to mercilessly exploit its resources, as archaeological evidence also attests. Thus, according to Eratosthenes, the inhabitants of Cyprus, beginning in the 3rd century BCE, mercilessly destroyed the island’s forest cover[3]. People of that time were no less merciless toward animals. By the 5th century, all lions and wild bulls had already been exterminated in Greece. However, the slaughter of animals reached its peak during the era of public spectacles. During a single festival celebrating a particular victory, up to 11,000 animals could be killed, with animal hunts taking place not only in the capital cities but also, in the provinces[4].

Ultimately, the commandments regarding obedience to God and the knowledge of the world after the Fall led to man renouncing true worship of God and inventing for himself a vast number of false gods, among whom he revered the plants and animals that he was meant to possess and to which he was meant to give names. While the memory of the true God remained among the righteous, for most peoples of the earth He became what religious scholars call “Deus otiosus”[5] —“the resting God,” the One who, though He was the beginning of all things, is practically no longer worshiped by people.

The moral life of humanity before receiving the law

Adam and Eve knew God through the experience of communion and lost this knowledge after the Fall. Of course, God continued to reveal Himself to people throughout history, but each time these were extraordinary, special situations. Knowing the weakness of our nature, God reveals His will in Holy Scripture, through which He speaks to us in human language. As has already been said, in the moral sphere, man still needed help after the Fall, although the moral consequences of the Fall permeated his life gradually. Thus, for example, Abel is fully capable of offering a true sacrifice to God, and Enoch “walks with God” and, having no written law, lives as a righteous man. Over time, however, people became corrupt, and it came to pass that every thought and intention of their hearts became “evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5). The rejection of such a person by the world, which God created “very good,” leads to the destruction of this evil civilization in the flood. At the same time, reading the Old Testament through the lens of the New, we understand that in the flood, as in everything God does regarding creation, His love is manifested. Of course, at times it may seem incomprehensible to people, but trust in God allows us to believe that this was the only right path for those to whom He, much later, “having been put to death in the flesh… preached” (1 Pet 3:18–19).

God’s Covenant with Noah

God’s covenant with Noah marks a new stage in human life. It is here, in the Bible, that the word “covenant” or, in Hebrew, בְּרִית (brîṯ), which means union or agreement, is used for the first time. Although the etymology of the Hebrew word is unclear, there are several theories, one of the earliest being an attempt to link the word brîṯ with the word bry , which meant “meal.” The essence of this hypothesis is that in ancient times, the conclusion of a treaty was accompanied by a shared meal, from which it derived its name. However, the most well-founded hypothesis is the correlation of the Hebrew brîṯ with the Akkadian birittu , which translates as “fastening, shackles.”

The Russian word “covenant” has the root -vet, which has already been discussed and which also means “agreement.” It is important to emphasize that the word “contract” implies the existence of agreements, the observance of which is evaluated as faithfulness to the covenant. And while for God a covenant is a manifestation of His original will, which merely adapts to the circumstances in which a person finds themselves, for people a covenant becomes a turning point, the beginning of a path that implies gradual moral growth. Addressing Noah, God says: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth; let all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the sky, all that moves on the earth, and all the fish of the sea, fear and tremble before you; they are given into your hands” (Genesis 9:1–2). The relationship between humanity and the world changes; humans are permitted to eat animals, though it is forbidden to consume “an animal with a soul,” by which blood is meant. The Book of Genesis provides no further details regarding the moral content of the covenant with Noah. However, drawing on extra-biblical sources and indirect references within Scripture itself, some scholars speak of a greater number of commandments being given to Noah’s descendants. In several Talmudic treatises, these consist of prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, and the consumption of the flesh of a living animal, as well as a commandment regarding just judgment ([6]). Of course, it is quite possible that this type of commandment was established much later. At the same time, the behavior of Pharaoh (Gen. 12:18) and Abimelech (Gen. 20:4, 8; 26:10), who feared the sin of adultery, the flight of Moses, who feared punishment for murder (Exod. 2:14, 15), and, finally, the decrees of the Apostolic Council, which likewise prohibit food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, and bloodshed, and indirectly murder, theft, and injustice in court, suggest that there existed within Jewish society a conception of a certain moral minimum that other nations were required to observe.

God’s Covenant with Abraham

However, one way or another, the majority of Noah’s descendants did not observe these laws in their entirety, as evidenced by studies of their religion and culture. Perhaps this is precisely what the prophet Isaiah is referring to when he expands the picture of the Jews’ calamity to a universal scale: “The earth is defiled by those who dwell upon it, for they have transgressed the laws, changed the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). The commandments given to man in Eden were not mere normative instructions, but allowed him to develop in the right direction. By breaking them, man destroyed not only himself but also brought discord into the world around him. At the same time, it is important to understand that these commandments were not abolished, but were temporarily set aside because man could no longer fulfill them. Yet man’s inability to keep the commandments did not nullify God’s plan. Man turned away from God, but God, in turn, did not turn away from man. He called Abraham, who believed Him and demonstrated the ability to live a righteous life. In our day, faith is often contrasted with works. However, for Abraham, faith—the complete surrender of himself into God’s hands—became a work in itself, which was particularly evident in the sacrifice of Isaac. Not many remember exactly what Abraham believed as he led Isaac to be sacrificed; however, the apostle explicitly writes that “he considered that God was able to raise him from the dead”—the son he had received as a sign (Heb 11:19).

The faith of Abraham—who is not by chance called “the father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11)—becomes the foundation of people’s religious, and therefore moral, lives. The commandments that would later be given to Moses would be grounded precisely in this personal faith. Just as Abraham, who heeded God’s call, left “his native land” and went to the land God had shown him, so his descendants, demonstrating the same faith, were to return to that land from Egyptian captivity. At the same time, the central figure in the story of the Exodus is God, who leads the people out of His own initiative and reveals Himself as the One who cares for His people. He tells Moses that He “saw the affliction… and heard the cry” of the people and desired “to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and spacious land” (Exod 3:7,8).

[1] Maximus the Confessor , Questions and Doubts (Quaestiones et dubia). Moscow, 2008. p. 200.

[2] Bartalemi, D. God and His Image. Milan: “Christian Russia,” 1992, p. 58

[3] Blavatsky, V.D. Nature and Ancient Society. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. p. 53

[4] Ibid., p. 54

[5] Zubov, A. B. History of Religions: Prehistoric and Extra-Historical Religions. Moscow, 1997. Vol. 1. Pp. 183–194.

[6] Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a; Avodah Zarah 8:4;

The Old Testament is a covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham. At the same time, the faith upon which it is based is, from the very beginning, a deeply personal matter, even though its influence may affect other people. Just as the history of all those who surrounded Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is described through their personal relationships with God, so too, in the case of the conclusion of the Sinai Covenant, despite the role of the people as a whole, it is assumed that the foundation of the people’s faith lies in Moses’ personal act of faith. The uniqueness of the revelation given to him is emphasized repeatedly in the Pentateuch. God constantly (Lev 16:2) reveals Himself to Moses “clearly, not in riddles” (Num 12:8), speaks to him between the wings of the cherubim “above the mercy seat” (Exod 25:22), and speaks “as a man speaks to his friend” (Exod 33:11).

The fact of the Covenant’s establishment indicates that a special kind of bond arises between God and humanity, one that must deepen and develop, actualizing and confirming the reality of what has taken place. God creates humanity, “goes out” in search of them after the Fall, calls out to Noah, Abraham, and Moses, and finally comes in Jesus Christ, in order to point out to humanity its calling and help it fulfill it. At the same time, the ethics of the Covenant is dialogical in nature.

The Covenant itself once again emphasizes man’s special place in the world, since such a relationship is possible only between beings that are at least somewhat comparable. One might say that, on the one hand, God condescends to man in his condition, but on the other, man must have the ability to respond freely to God and bear responsibility for his choice. The moral life, the essence of which lies in keeping the commandments and communing with God, is precisely humanity’s response to God’s call.

Traditionally, certain common features of Old Testament ethics are discussed.

  1. A comparative analysis of Old Testament ethics and the moral codes of the peoples surrounding Israel suggests that they contain norms that are virtually identical in content, which may be due to similar elements of everyday culture; that is, some of the commandments are not unique in their outward form.

  2. Old Testament morality is defined by the teaching given to the people of Israel through supernatural revelation. It can be said that a Jew’s moral worldview is determined by his religious worldview. However, the reverse is also true, because the commandments given to man reflect the attributes of God, Who is their source.

  3. Beginning with the Garden of Eden, the history of the relationship between God and humanity is described as a covenant or contract. God offers humanity a covenant in which humanity freely participates. He says: “Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is Mine” (Exod 19:5), to which the people respond: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Exod 24:3).

  4. Although God specifically calls for the observance of the commandments, there is no alternative path for people. From the perspective of Scripture , life apart from God leads to death. The righteousness to which people are called is not merely one of several possible options, but the only true one. This is because God is righteous and is the sole source of life. If a person rejects the commandments, he condemns himself to death (Deut. 30:15).

  5. At the same time, in the Old Testament, we witness certain actions that, on the one hand, are sinful, yet on the other hand, lead to significant changes in their characters (Judah and Tamar, etc.).

  6. The relationship between God and the people, who are bound by the covenant, is described as a marital relationship, that is , one based on mutual fidelity. This means that God’s demands are always rooted in His love for humanity and His desire to save it. God never acts out of vengeance. This is precisely why, even the most dire circumstances are interpreted by the prophets as a necessary disciplinary measure intended to bring the people back onto the right path.

  7. God makes a covenant with the people of Israel as a single entity, a unified community of believers. On the surface, this form of covenant may seem like primitive collectivism, but in reality , by making a covenant with a community of people, God leads them toward the unity that was lost in the Garden of Eden. Entering into the Covenant is meant to teach people responsibility for one another , a responsibility their forefathers failed to demonstrate before God.

  8. Observance of the law implies a moral distinction between God’s people and the nations that worship false gods. The people are called to “separate” and minimize contact with the Gentiles, who are unclean in both a moral and a ritual sense.

  9. From communal relations with God—relationships often characterized by collective rewards and punishments—the concept of personal responsibility gradually emerges. A person does not separate themselves from the community, but must understand their individuality and personal significance in God’s eyes.

  10. All commandments, even the most minor ones and those found in the cultures of other peoples, acquire the status of divine decrees within the framework of the Old Testament; they must not be perceived as mere elements of daily life. This is because all spheres of life—family, agriculture, daily life, military, social, and, of course, religious—must be permeated by the remembrance of God’s will, which a person fulfills (Deut. 6:4–9).

The Major Codes of the Old Testament

First of all, it should be noted that in the context of moral theology, the word “code” is understood differently than in biblical studies and refers to a collection of legislative norms. The Pentateuch is called Torah in Hebrew, which translates as “teaching” or “law”. At the same time, scholars traditionally speak of three moral codes found in the first five books of the Bible.

The first and earliest of these is the so-called Code of the Covenant, or in Hebrew Mishpatim (from the Archaic Hebrew מִשְׁפָּטִים / mišpāṭim — “judgments, commandments”), which is found in the Book of Exodus, chapters 21 through 23. The first name is associated with the fact that this code was given at the foot of Mount Sinai and is accompanied by the conclusion of the Covenant: “And he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people, and they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will obey’. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you concerning all these words’” (Ex 24:7–8). Thanks to the Code, the people who had come out of Egypt were made to feel themselves a united people, a community in which all are neighbors and must learn new ways of relating to one another. Christ refers to the commandments of this Code when he comments on the “ancients” in the Sermon on the Mount.

Chronologically, the next code is the Code of Holiness, found in the book of Leviticus, chapters 17 through 26. The central moral idea of the code is the call of the people to holiness. At the same time, the holiness of the people must be a response to the Holiness of God, with whom a covenant has been made: “Speak to the whole assembly of the people of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2). Holiness, as divine perfection, implies that the people who have entered into the covenant likewise strive for perfection, which is expressed in moral living. This is precisely why the “code” sets forth in detail the laws of a righteous and pure life, for the preservation of which the people of Israel are now responsible. Moreover, a distinctive feature of the code is the pronounced emphasis on the holiness of the entire people, and not merely the institutional priesthood. Time must also be sanctified, a purpose served by the festivals, during which people are called to give thanks to God and repent of their sins. The land, daily relationships, work, and rest—all must be righteous, for this sets the “sons of Israel” apart from other nations. However, this righteousness is of a special kind and is, in part, temporary in nature. It, for example, permits the use of people as property, a practice that will clearly be abolished in the New Testament. Yet, within the Old Testament phase of returning to God, people were to learn proper relationships—at least within their own community—and to understand what it means to have a neighbor.

Finally, the last collection of laws can be called the Deuteronomic Code, which is contained in the book of the same name, from chapters 12 to 26, and largely repeats the earlier codes. It contains a number of liturgical regulations, as well as civil and criminal laws. Idolatry and pagan rituals associated with mourning the dead are strictly forbidden. However, we can find quite a few positive laws that indicate what the life of God’s people should be like. Caring for one’s neighbors—especially the weak and the poor, as well as the Levites who live among their brothers—is prescribed as mandatory; honest work on one’s own land, without attempting to profit at the expense of one’s neighbor. Here are described the rules of warfare, as well as rules limiting the conscription of young men, the owner of a new house, or a vineyard; certain laws related to gender relations, as well as laws regulating trade and labor activities.

The laws given to God’s people were intended to bring humanity, at least in part, back onto the path of fulfilling the commandments of Eden within the framework of a single society. Members of God’s people were called to bear children without subsequently sacrificing them, as was customary among the nations surrounding Israel. They were called to jointly possess the land given to them by God—not merely to possess it, but also to cultivate and preserve it. Finally, they were called to cultivate themselves in their relationships with God, with their neighbors, and with themselves. The moral development and spiritual growth that were to be the fruit of living by the commandments were often threatened by the formalization of the law, a danger the prophets warned against, calling the people to a spiritual understanding of the gift God had given them.

  • Fallen Man in Search of God
  • General Features of Old Testament Morality
  • The Commandments of the Decalogue: man before God
  • The Commandments of the Decalogue: man in the face of man

A basic sociological survey conducted among a secular audience indicates that the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments of Moses, has long ceased to be perceived as a Christian or, more broadly, a religious phenomenon, and has become synonymous with basic universal human values. At the same time, in terms of content, the Ten Commandments remain little known even to those who formally call themselves believing Christians. Of course, the Decalogue is not a simple normative code, as it appears in the eyes of a secular audience. The covenant between God and the people of Israel is part of the path by which God leads humanity in order to bring it back to Himself. In this sense, the Decalogue is the foundation and quintessence of all Old Testament legislation, and the foundation of a righteous worldview. At the same time, as part of Old Testament law, during the New Testament era—in the context of the Apostle Paul’s views on the law—the Decalogue for a long time had no influence either on catechetical practice or, more broadly, on ecclesiastical literature.

As is known from the Book of Exodus, it was the Decalogue that was given to Moses by God Himself as the foundation of the Covenant (Ex. 20:1–17), while the remaining commandments and prescriptions of the Law of Moses were added later. Later, in the Book of Deuteronomy, they are repeated in a different version (Deut. 5:6–21).

References to the Decalogue are also found in other texts: Jer. 7:9,10 and Hos. 4:2. Moreover, as is well known, the Decalogue was read in the temple (Deut. 6:4–9, Num. 15:37–41). In the New Testament, the Savior mentions the commandments of the Decalogue in His response to the rich young man (Matt. 19:18, 19), and finally, in the Epistle of James 2:11, the Epistle of Paul to the Romans 13:9, and the First Epistle to Timothy 1:9, 10.

Traditionally, it is believed that the Ten Commandments are divided, in terms of content, into those devoted to the relationship between man and God (1–4) and those devoted to interpersonal relationships (5–6). On the other hand, a number of authors argue that the division of the commandments across the tablets should be symmetrical, and the commandment to honor one’s parents should be correlated with the commandments to honor God as the source and giver of life. In this regard, two important circumstances are worth considering. First, the Western and Eastern readings of the commandments differ. Unlike the “Eastern” reading familiar to us, the Western reading combines the first and second commandments into one and divides the tenth commandment into two. Second, it is possible that the same text was written on both tablets, as was often done when concluding treaties in the Middle East at that time. However, these circumstances do not negate the obvious thematic division of the commandments, which has already been mentioned.

The First Commandment

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:2–3).

It is sometimes believed that the first part of the commandment serves as an introduction to the prohibition against polytheism. In reality, however, it is not merely an introduction to the prohibition, but the foundation of all subsequent legislation. God begins this commandment with the personal pronoun “I,” that is, He speaks of Himself in the first person and uses the Name that He revealed to Moses.

Often the Name Yahweh (יהוה / YHWH) is translated as ‘the Existing One / the One Who Is,’ although this rendering does not fully convey its most important feature, which is that God does not merely exist — He is present, and His Name can be interpreted as: ‘I AM NEAR’.

The Creator actively exists in the world and is present in human life, which immediately sets the biblical worldview in contrast to any deistic worldviews. Addressing the descendants of Abraham and calling Himself by Name, the Lord identifies His side of the covenant. At the same time, considering that the word God (אֱלֹהִים /__ʔĕlōhîm) in this same commandment refers to the gods—the protectors of other nations—the Lord calls Himself the God of the people of Israel and thereby signifies His special, uniquely faithful protection and presence. Although the commandment begins as theocentric, God does not tell Israel that it is His people, but calls Himself its God. It is precisely this designation of a personal connection, expressed by the pronouns “I am your,” that best conveys the relationship of God as actively present, that is, present among the people. By virtue of this relationship, Israel—and through it, all of humanity—is exalted by God, for a covenant is something that can be established between parties that may be unequal but are nevertheless related.

Given the indicative mood used in the formulation of the commandments, the second part of the first commandment, like all the other commandments, turns out to be a consequence of the personal bond between God and his people. This could be formulated as follows: “I am the Lord your God… [and therefore] you shall have no other gods…” The absence of false gods in Israel’s religious life is the result of its choice and its faithfulness, which it must maintain if it wishes to remain in the covenant.

Over time, within Christianity, this commandment—like all the subsequent ones, for that matter—came to be interpreted more broadly. Thus, alongside the worship of “other gods,” any human regard for anything other than God as the highest value came to be viewed as a betrayal of God. Already in New Testament times, during the era of patristic exegesis, this commandment came to be understood in a distinctly Trinitarian way. For Christians, keeping it meant believing that God is “one in essence” but “Trinitarian in persons.”

Thus, the first commandment is a commandment concerning personal relationships and the fidelity that flows from them. Fidelity to personal relationships and a personal encounter with the Creator implies that there is simply no room for “other gods” within them. These relationships are not yet what they will become in the New Testament; the covenant is made with the people, not with an individual, yet this does not mean that every member of God’s people was not to feel personally accountable to the Creator.

The Second Commandment

“You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth; do not bow down to them or serve them, for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third andfourth generation of those who hate Me, and showing mercy to thousands of generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Ex. 20:4–6).

In a literal sense, the second commandment is also a continuation of a personal relationship, which implies that the Israelite people will not create idols (from פֶּ֫סֶל / pésel —“idol, graven image”), that is, zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, and any other statues and images, as well as the worship and service of them. During their years in Egypt, the Jews had become accustomed to the idea that all gods could be depicted. The very thought of the desire to see God is found in the Holy Scriptures more than once. Ultimately, this desire to see God was realized in what Aaron did. Apparently, he sought to find some middle ground: on the one hand, to satisfy the people’s requests, yet at the same time not to betray the God who was guiding them on their journey. At the request of his fellow tribesmen, he creates a golden calf, but does not claim that a false god stands before them. He claims that the Lord (יהוה / YHWH), who brought them out of Egypt, stands before them (Ex 32:4). However, it is precisely this calf that Moses smashes, knowing that it is forbidden not only to “have other gods before the face of God,” not only to depict them in the form of various statues, but that it is forbidden to make any images for worship. This might have seemed strange to Aaron, because the tradition of depicting the Creator as a bull was common in Egypt. However, pagan images carried their own connotations, and along with their outward characteristics, the people could project onto God all the other traits of pagan deities. No one has seen the true God, which means that any attempt to create His image would be a distortion, and in the long run, an obstacle to accepting as the only true image the God-man Jesus Christ (John 1:18). To encounter the true God, the people had to make an ascetic effort and purify their consciousness of all false images, both external and internal, substantive ones. God Himself reveals Himself; conjectures only hinder the encounter with Him.

It is important to understand that the creation of idols is forbidden not because visual art is generally prohibited for humans, but only insofar as the worship and service of these idols as visible images of the deity is unacceptable. By God’s command, there were sacred images in the tabernacle, but they were not conceived of as images of gods.

Worship (Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה / hištaḥăwā h, Greek προσκυνέω) is traditionally understood as a manifestation of respect and reverence, expressed through bowing. The expression “to bow down to the ground” is frequently used in Scripture. In turn, “worship” (Hebrew עָבַד /__ʕāḇaḏ , Greek λατρεύω) is understood as the performance of service, the sacrificial giving of oneself, or even servile labor to the one (or that which) is to be served. In Scripture, one can find respectful worship of a person or a temple associated with God, but one can serve only God. Today, the concept of an idol is used in a broader sense, referring to anything a person is willing to worship and serve. This allows us to interpret the second commandment as a prohibition against worshiping and serving not only false gods, but also anything that leads a person away from God. In patristic literature, idols could be understood not only as things external to a person, but also as passions to which a person might enslave themselves. At the same time, this does not apply to service to one’s neighbor, which is performed in the context of fulfilling the commandment of love and can be understood as service to God and the fulfillment of His will.

The Lord brought His people out of Egypt not merely so that they might live freely as they pleased. The people had a mission of universal scope. By entering into the Covenant, they were to become a holy people—that is, a people belonging to God and revealing Him to all the other nations of the earth. This is precisely why, in explaining the prohibition, God calls Himself a jealous God (קַנָּא / qannā ʔ )[2]. Here, He does not mean the selfish jealousy born of pride and vanity, of the desire to possess, which is familiar to each of us. God speaks of the jealousy of the Creator, who sees His creation perishing because of wrongdoing. He is jealous for His people, just as a person who loves his country is jealous for the glory of his homeland. In this sense, jealousy is a struggle for the truth.

But where does this zeal lead?

It is sometimes believed that in the second commandment of the Decalogue, God “extended responsibility for deeds to descendants”. However, in reality, in the words of the commandment, one should pay attention not only to the words “punishing children for the sins of their fathers… and showing mercy to a thousand generations,” but also to the words “loving” and “hating,” which refer to descendants. Given that God’s jealousy is a manifestation of His love, the meaning of “punishment” is that God agrees with a person’s choice. Thus, a person who hates God deprives himself of God and, through his behavior, deprives his descendants of this communion, causing them to grow up outside of saving fellowship. Conversely, a person who loves God is himself in communion with Him and creates the conditions for that communion to continue among his descendants. At the same time, such punishment in no way implies that a person who grew up in difficult or favorable circumstances has no opportunity to change his life. It is no coincidence that in the prophet Ezekiel, God speaks in detail about the fact that only the sinner is punished: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the wicked shall be upon him.” (Ezek. 18:20). Finally, the very disproportion between punishment and reward underscores God’s mercy and His far greater desire to bless than to punish.

The Third Commandment:

__

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” (Ex. 20:7).

Traditionally, it is understood that the third commandment forbids using the Lord’s name meaninglessly and aimlessly, outside of prayer or conversation about God. The basis for this prohibition may seem self-evident, but if we recall that at the beginning of the first commandment God reminds people that He “brought [the people] out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,” and therefore they must not take His Name in vain, it becomes clear that this commandment implies not only a reverent but also a grateful attitude toward the Creator.

Furthermore, the meaning of this commandment may vary depending on what exactly we understand by “the name of God” and by the word “in vain.”

In His conversation with Moses, God reveals His Name and instructs him to convey it to “the children of Israel” (Ex. 3:14). This, in turn, suggests that the commandment literally prohibits the use of the Name יהוה (YHWH). Furthermore, the primary meaning of the word שָׁוְא (šāw ʔ)—which in the Synodal Translation means “vanity”—is “falsehood” and “deception.” This means that it is quite possible the prohibition primarily concerned a false oath, involving the use of God’s Name. One of the common forms of an oath was the expression חַי־יהוה (ḥay-yhwh), which was translated as “as the Lord lives” (Judg 8:19, 1 Sam 14:39). A person who confirmed their words with this expression called God to witness and affirmed that their words were as true as God’s very existence. In turn, a person who lied while calling God to witness clearly did not believe in Him and therefore could not go unpunished, just like those who “hate God” in the second commandment. Such oaths were strictly forbidden (Lev. 19:12), because in reality such a person, despite outward piety, turned out to be a blasphemer, combining good and evil, the holy and the profane. In the book of the prophet Jeremiah, God speaks of this as follows: “Though they say, ‘As the Lord lives,’ they swear falsely” (Jer. 5:2).

Another possible interpretation of the Hebrew word שָׁוְא (šāw ʔ) is the use of God’s name in incantations. The Egyptian Book of the Dead contains a multitude of incantations, in which the reader’s knowledge of a particular god’s name plays a crucial role, because knowledge of the name was associated with power over its bearer. Thus, the prohibition against using God’s Name in incantations signifies a prohibition against attempting to control the Creator through magical formulas.

The third commandment of the Decalogue can take on a significantly broader meaning if we consider that the word “in vain” implies any non-liturgical and non-theological use of the name of God. Furthermore, over time, the name of God came to be understood as including all words that are in some way connected with God and with the sacred. As a result, in the broadest context, the third commandment prohibits any disregard for the sacred and its association with sin and impurity. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account that the Old Testament understanding of impurity changed with the advent of the New Testament. External, bodily, or, more broadly, material impurity is not impurity in the true sense of the word. Answering the disciples’ question, Christ says: “Does everything that enters the mouth go into the stomach and come out again? But what comes out of the mouth—for it proceeds from the heart—this defiles a person, for from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander—these defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person” (Matt. 15:17–20). Naturally, the more spiritual and exalted teaching of the New Testament is more difficult to comprehend and put into practice, so the external, tangible concepts of what constitutes defilement—which were characteristic of the Old Testament—are often perceived by people upon entering the Church as inherently Christian, and they begin to concern themselves more with external matters than with internal ones. In reality, the essence of the third commandment is not that God, His Name, and all that is called holy must not be defiled, because “God is not mocked” (Gal 6:7), and the blasphemer or the one who profanes does not defile God with his behavior, but himself, cutting himself off from the Creator as the source of life and grace.

The fourth commandment

__

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy; Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God: you shall not do any work on it—neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor the stranger who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Ex. 20:8–11).

Literally, the fourth commandment boils down to a prohibition against working on the seventh day of the week, which is considered the Sabbath. The commandment begins with a call to remember the Sabbath day, that is, not to forget that it is special and must be sanctified. In fact, sanctification in Israel meant only one thing—dedication to God, setting this day apart for Him. The purpose of the commandment is revealed differently in the book of Deuteronomy: “And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, but the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore, the Lord your God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). The word יָנוּחַ (yānû a ḥ), which is translated as “he shall rest,” can also be translated as “he shall be at rest,” indicating the hardship and vanity of life, with which a person is constantly preoccupied and from which he was to not only rest but also find peace.

The explanation for this commandment also differs in the two books. In the Book of Exodus, as an example of why one should not work on the seventh day, the Israelite was to take God as an example, who created the world in six days, “and on the seventh day rested,” blessing and setting apart that day as a day of rest. In turn, in the Book of Deuteronomy, the commandment is justified by the fact that the Jew was to remember that he “was a slave in the land of Egypt” and was brought out of there by God’s “mighty hand and outstretched arm” (Deut. 5:15). The first justification can hardly be considered an explanation, because the necessity of rest cannot be explained by God’s very nature, since God has no need of rest. At the same time, this instruction emphasizes a certain cyclical nature of labor and rest and justifies it with the highest possible sanction. Given that the commandment regarding rest—and not just the rest of free people, but also of slaves and even animals—was unique for that time and was not found among any other people, the reference to the highest authority was intended to make it more convincing. The justification given in the book of Deuteronomy also continues the theme of the commandment’s uniqueness, pointing out that it was absent in Egypt. God shows mercy to those whose suffering in Egypt He saw and whom He brought out of that “house of slavery” (Exod 13:3). Having received freedom and the opportunity for rest, the members of God’s people were to extend this rest to all those around them, showing mercy in the image of God, who had shown mercy to them. However, the commandment regarding the Sabbath was certainly not limited to rest alone. The call to sanctify and dedicate this day to God implied that it must be devoted to prayer and the study of Scripture.

In the context of New Testament revelation, the Sabbath commandment was not abolished. Thus, on the Sabbath—with the exception of Holy Week—fasting is prohibited, and it continues to be a day of rest in most countries of the world. At the same time, the “theology of the Sabbath” in Christianity was reinterpreted and extended to the Lord’s Day, or Sunday. The very understanding of “observing the Sabbath” as rest has undergone significant changes. In His debates with the scribes and Pharisees, the Savior repeatedly posed the question to them: “What is lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (Luke 6:9) and repeatedly answered it Himself through His own example. Caring for animals implies that the person who cares for them is compelled to violate the Sabbath, which is not considered a crime, allowing Christ to formulate the rule: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:12). In fact, given that Christ came “not to abolish the law but to fulfill it” (Matt. 5:17), it is clear that this understanding of the Sabbath is rooted in the Old Testament “sanctification” of this day as a day dedicated to the Lord. The question that inevitably arose for everyone was quite simple: how can one dedicate a day to God, who has no need of human service? (Acts 17:25). Traditionally, it is said that what is done for God’s sake affects the person himself, as it teaches him self-sacrifice. In this sense, the Sabbath was similar to the commandments regarding tithing, since it likewise implied that a person who works for himself six days a week gives the seventh day to the Lord as a kind of sacrifice of time for the sake of the One who created him. The very fact of this self-sacrifice is very important, as it follows the same logic of man’s return to his original state. He who, as a result of the Fall, was afflicted by selfishness, had to return to a state of mutual love and cooperation.

However, in Christ’s words, the question of the recipient of the sacrifice a person offers receives an additional interpretation. Thus, in the parable of the Last Judgment, the Savior says: “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me” (Matt. 25:40). In these words, one can see an indication that the observance of the Sabbath commandment can combine rest with helping one’s neighbor, since this help is a good deed directed toward Christ.

[1] St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Collected Works. With commentaries by St. Maximus the Confessor / Translated from the Greek by G. M. Prokhorov. – St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyško Publishing House, 2010. p. 189

[2] The word קַנָּא (qannā ʔ ) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament and always in the sense of God’s jealousy.

The Fifth Commandment

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you (Ex 20:12).

It is clear from the entire text of the Old Testament that Israeli culture was patriarchal, which implied a special attitude toward parents. This was partly because parents, who gave a person physical life, were viewed as God’s co- workers, who, by giving birth to a child, responded to God’s command and participated in His plan. It is interesting that the verb כַּבֵּד (kabbēḏ), which is translated as “honor,” is related to the word כָּבוֹד (kāḇôḏ)—“heaviness, weight, wealth, glory”—which denotes the glory of God. In this sense, it is often said that the fifth commandment does not occupy the middle position by chance, between the commandments that speak of our relationship with God and those that speak of our relationship with people. If a person is ready to enter into a new relationship with God, Who gave him life—first in the act of creation, and then by delivering him from slavery in Egypt—then he will be ready to accept a certain hierarchy of life and relationships, as proposed by the fifth commandment. There are those on whom your existence depends, and to whom you owe gratitude. In turn, by learning love and reverence for earthly parents, a person learns the proper relationship with the Creator, transferring the earthly experience of gratitude to gratitude toward the Heavenly Father. And although, in a theological sense, heavenly Fatherhood is primary—from which “every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (Eph. 3:15)—in the context of human experience, people often transfer the experience of intra-family relationships into the religious sphere.

In the literal sense, the commandment to honor one’s parents, of course, implies not only treating them properly but also supporting their life and well-being. This is evidenced by the fact that the verb כִּבֵּד (kibbēḏ), “honor,” can be translated as “to be heavy, to have weight,” while words sharing the same root sometimes imply property or wealth under the weight. Thus, to show honor is also to support one’s parents in their social and financial status. It is clear that it is precisely this aspect of the fifth commandment that Christ has in mind when he rebukes the Pharisees (Matt. 15:3–6). He says that they have abandoned the fulfillment of the commandment and rely on an unrighteous tradition that allows them, by saying, “What you would have me do for you, do for God,” to use these words as a pretext and fail to honor their father and mother. Speaking of the proper conduct of children, the Apostle Paul recalls the fifth commandment of the Decalogue, emphasizing that “this is the first commandment with a promise” (Eph 6:2), which he also conveys to his readers: “so that it may go well with you and you may enjoy long life on the earth” (Eph 6:3). By protecting the lives of those who became the source of your own life, a person prolongs his own existence.

At the same time, the commandment to honor one’s parents did not imply slavish submission to them, as was implied by the principles of Pater familias and later Patria potestas in ancient Rome, which entailed virtually complete authority over children. As was already known from the Book of Genesis, a person who entered into marriage left “his father and his mother” (Gen. 2:24) and formed a new family in union with his wife. Already in the New Testament, the Savior (Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7) and the Apostle Paul (Eph. 5:31) confirmed the validity of this institution. It is evident that individual responsibility for one’s own life is emphasized, as the prophet Ezekiel states in, clarifying that “the soul who sins, it shall die; the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son,” (Ezek 18:20)—suggesting that a parent may be in the wrong in their conduct. Thus, while the prophet Micah speaks of strife within the household as a result of shame and rebellion (Micah 7:6), the Savior emphasizes that His coming may bring division into those families where people will receive His message differently. This is precisely why He says that He came “to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother” (Matt. 10:35).

However, from the rebuke of the Pharisees, which has already been mentioned, it is clear that, in the Savior’s view, one must care for one’s parents even in the face of their misunderstanding, and even when they do not bless but curse (Matt. 5:44). In this context, the Apostle Paul’s instruction proves important; while repeating the commandment to honor parents, he also gives the opposite instruction: “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4; cf. Col 3:21). With these words, he sets a certain standard, according to which a person should be guided by their parents’ opinion first and foremost when they address them with words of sound teaching.

Later in Christian tradition, the commandment to honor one’s parents came to be understood in a broader context. Its observance began to be interpreted as the first step toward honoring all those who are older in age or social standing.

The Sixth Commandment

You shall not murder. (Exodus 20:13).

The first commandment, which was given in Eden, implied that man should be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. This means that murder is one of the gravest sins, involving an act directly opposed to God’s plan. Given that the fifth commandment obligated man to care for his parents and honor them as the source of his own life, we can say that the sixth protected the unborn, that is, it safeguarded life itself. As has already been said, God created the world and man within it because He desired to share the goodness of His existence. This is precisely why Christ says to the apostles: “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). This, in turn, explains why the willful taking of a human life is understood in Scripture as a sin that is diabolical in its very nature, the sin of one who “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). It is also noteworthy that the very word “sin” is first applied in Scripture precisely to the murder conceived by Cain (Gen. 4:7).

However, the question may arise: what exactly makes the sin of murder so grave? Is it the very fact of death, or is there something else that aggravates it?

In the context of the biblical narrative, almost simultaneously with the creation of human life, the possibility of its death is mentioned. Pointing to the tree in the midst of the garden, God says to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Moreover, St. Athanasius the Great says: “For man, having been created out of nothing, is mortal by nature; but, because of his likeness to the Existent One, if he had preserved that likeness by directing his mind toward Him, he could have delayed the natural decay within himself and would have remained incorruptible”[1]. Thus, death is an undesirable but entirely possible state of man, which can arise not only as a result of physical impact but also as a result of spiritual rejection of God. It is no coincidence that the Lord Himself says to His people: “I have set before you, life and death” (Deut. 30:19), indicating that the path of death is entirely real for man.

Within the context of the New Testament, the death of the disciples will be an inevitable consequence of the world’s hostility (Matt. 24:9), a sorrowful consequence (John 16:33), but better than spiritual death. It is no coincidence that, in instructing His disciples, Christ says: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Moreover, Christ Himself constantly emphasizes that “the Son of Man must be killed” (Luke 9:22), because although He can die[2], as the sinless One, He has no causes within Himself that would lead Him to death.

Death as a phenomenon represents the tragedy of existence. As is well known, “God did not create death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living” (Wisdom 1:13). Of course, in the world after the Fall, it can be understood as the lesser evil compared to spiritual death. It is precisely in this context that it is permitted and even begins to be perceived as the norm of the fallen world. Thus, many commandments conclude with the command to put a person to death. This may seem to contradict everything that has been said before, but the essence of such commands is that the execution of the sinner is understood as the realization of a spiritual death that has already taken place. The punishment for sin is death, and the people are merely carrying out a commandment that is perceived as a sentence pronounced by God Himself. The court that handed down the death sentence based its decision on the law and the offender’s awareness of their actions. Within such categories, killing in war could be justified as the termination of the lives of those who hinder the life and spiritual growth of God’s people.

The difference between execution and murder was significant, for it is one thing to die by one’s own choice, and quite another to be killed. The gravity of the Sixth Commandment lies not only in what happens to the victim, but also in what happens in the heart of the murderer. The reason for such murder is always the same, starting with the very first murder in history, when Cain killed Abel. Explaining what happened, the Apostle John the Theologian says: “Cain, who was of the evil one and killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because his own deeds were evil, and his brother’s, were righteous” (1 John 3:12). Cain’s will, was evil, that is, in its very essence it contradicted the divine plan and, in fact, human nature itself.

The Seventh Commandment

You shall not commit adultery. (Ex 20:14).

The seventh commandment, just like the sixth, is rooted in the theology of the commandments of Eden. The blessing to “be fruitful and multiply,” given to the first parents, is made possible by a special kind of relationship expressed by the phrase “the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Undoubtedly, the full theological understanding of marriage will be revealed in the New Testament, yet one of the most essential components of the marital relationship has been instilled in the people from the very beginning.

Literally, this commandment forbids marital infidelity, both on the part of the man and on the part of the woman. In the Code of Holiness, the commandment against adultery is given in a more detailed formulation: “If a man commits adultery with a married woman, if a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife—both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10). Further on in the same passage, the Lord forbids other forms of immoral relationships involving incest and homosexuality.

Despite examples of polygamy in the Old Testament, monogamous marriage was always regarded as the norm in Old Testament culture. It is known that after the Fall, polygamy first appeared among the descendants of Cain. Although the righteous may also have several wives and even concubines, these relationships are always viewed as a concession and entail not only family tragedies but, in special cases, the loss of a close relationship with God, as was the case with Solomon.

Morally speaking, adultery is directly linked to the sin of murder. The fact is that one spouse who is unfaithful in marriage inwardly perceives the other spouse’s place as empty, free for someone else to occupy. Just as one cannot serve two masters, so in marriage—described by the phrase “two become one flesh”—there is no room for a third. And if a person decides to commit adultery, they inwardly allow themselves to perceive their spouse as absent. In this sense, the logic of adultery is akin to murder, only spiritual rather than physical. When the prophets speak of the relationship between God and the people, it is by no means a coincidence that they describe it in marital terms, because marital infidelity is akin to atheism only on a human level. Thus, in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, God says to the people: “Your sons have forsaken Me and sworn by those who are not gods. I fed them, but they committed adultery and went in droves to the houses of prostitutes (Jer. 5:7) and further, “they have dealt very treacherously with me… they have lied to the Lord and said, ‘He is not…’” (Jer. 5:12). The word בָּגַד (bāḡaḏ), which is translated as “treacherously,” literally means “to be unfaithful, to betray loyalty.”

Given that the institution of marriage and marital unity comes from God (Matt. 19:6), this faithfulness, first, must be inherent in human nature, just as everything God says about humanity is, and, second, is an earthly manifestation of faithfulness in one’s relationship with Him. This means that the adulterer sins twice, against marriage and against God, wounding his neighbor and wounding himself through his blasphemous and treacherous attitude toward the Creator.

The Eighth Commandment

You shall not steal. (Ex 20:15).

Like the previous commandments, the eighth commandment is connected to what happened in the Garden of Eden. Man, as God’s highest creation, was placed in the world as a steward, but not as a king. He was called to possess, but was not the master of all. He explored the world together with God, but was not to do so in secret, without God. In this sense, the attempt to take the fruit from the forbidden tree can undoubtedly be viewed as theft. What prompted man to do this? How had his consciousness changed, since he allowed himself to act in this way? He placed his own desires and goals above God, deciding simply to treacherously ignore Him, as if He did not exist. This means that theft, like adultery, is directly linked to murder. While in the case of Eve in Eden she at some point decided to disregard God, the person committing theft disregards not only the existence of the owner of a particular item but is also indifferent to the possibility of a person existing without that item. In other words, by depriving a person of part of their property, the thief deprived them of the foundation of their life and inwardly consented to the possibility of their death.

In the literal sense, the eighth commandment prohibited theft, robbery, and abduction. The verb גָּנַב (gānaḇ) can refer to the abduction of people followed by their sale into slavery (Gen. 40:15; cf. Exod. 22:12), the theft of domestic animals (Exod. 22:1), and any theft whatsoever (Prov. 6:30). Furthermore, theft can imply adultery, which, like theft, is committed in secret (Prov. 9:17).

The punishment for stealing a person was death (Ex. 21:16), while one who stole animals or property had to pay double the value of what was stolen (Ex. 22:1, 7).

It is noteworthy that theft can be linked to poverty. Thus, in the Book of Proverbs, we find a plea to God: “Do not give me poverty or riches… lest, when I am full, I deny You and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ and lest, when I become poor, I turn to theft” (Prov 30:9). At the same time, refusing to pay a worker on time can be perceived as theft, “because he is poor and his soul is waiting” (Deut 24:15).

The Ninth Commandment

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Exod 20:16).

__

Modern people are accustomed to the expression “to each his own truth” and are ready to apply it to anyone who speaks, even if the speaker is God. It may seem that such a readiness to doubt everything is the result of the corruption of modern society, yet it first manifested itself in man as far back as the Garden of Eden. The world’s first lie was spoken right here, directed at man by the devil, who is not only “a murderer from the beginning” but also “the father of lies” (John 8:44). What, then, was the meaning of his words? By assuring Eve that she would not die from eating the fruit, he implied that God was lying, and therefore His words—and He Himself—could be disregarded. In fact, it can be said that by claiming God had lied, the devil sought to destroy divine authority. Eve succumbed to temptation and doubted God, just as the Jews would later doubt Him when they wandered through the desert. However, God is completely free from all falsehood; He “is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind” (Num. 23:19).

Literally, the ninth commandment forbids uttering שֶׁ֫קֶר (šéqer)—a lie about one’s neighbor. It is noteworthy, however, that the verb עָנָה (ʕānā h) means not merely to utter, but “to speak in response, to testify.” In other words, it refers to the deliberate dissemination of false information about a person. Apparently, this refers to false testimony in court (Ex 19:16–18), which was a serious crime and was punished with the same penalty as the crime of which the person was falsely accused. In other words, first and foremost, the commandment forbids causing harm to one’s neighbor through lies. Thus, David says that the righteous man “does not slander with his tongue, does no harm to his neighbor, and does not accept slander against his neighbor” (Ps 14:2,3). Similarly, the destructive nature of lies is depicted by the prophet Isaiah: “We have been unfaithful and have lied to the Lord… we have spoken slander and treachery; we have conceived and given birth to lies from the heart. Justice has retreated, and righteousness stands far off; for truth has stumbled in the public square, and uprightness cannot enter” (Isa 59:13,14).

In the pages of Scripture, we find various situations in which information can be distorted. For example, Sarah, out of fear, tells the Lord that she did not laugh, even though she did (Gen. 18:15), and Jacob, intending to receive Isaac’s blessing, fears that he will be “a deceiver in his eyes” (Gen. 27:12), yet at the same time he knows that Esau had renounced his birthright, which is why Isaac calls his action a trick. Moreover, some exegetes believe that the purchase of the birthright allows us to view Jacob’s claim that he is the firstborn as true[3]. And yet, these and other similar examples are not slander, and most importantly, they are not committed with the intent to harm another.

Undoubtedly, in the New Testament era, this attitude toward lying remained unchanged. Thus, the apostle writes: “Therefore, having put away falsehood, speak the truth each one to his neighbor, for we are members of one another” (Eph 4:25). At the same time, not all the holy fathers were willing to extend this rule to pedagogical silence, or the concealment of certain minor details, done for the benefit of one’s neighbor.

The Tenth Commandment

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Ex 20:17)

At the moment when the serpent deceived Eve, he told her that after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would be “like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). At that moment, the human being, who was created for unity with God and deification, desired to appropriate “divinity” for himself without God, apart from fulfilling His will. One might say that it was precisely at this moment that a feeling arose in man which would later be condemned by the last commandment of the Decalogue. This feeling is not independent and is born of pride (1 Tim 6:4), just as it was with the one who tempted Eve (Isa 14:12–14; Luke 10:18).

It may seem that the commandment forbids desiring for oneself something similar to what one’s neighbor possesses, but this is not the case. The commandment forbids desiring what one’s neighbor has—that is, not something similar, but his very own property. The one who violates it desires not merely “a house like his neighbor’s house”; he desires to possess his neighbor’s house itself. At the same time, it is evident that the neighbor himself becomes superfluous, and a latent—and sometimes overt—desire arises for him to cease to exist. A classic example of a violation of this commandment is the act of King David, who literally desired his neighbor’s wife (2 Sam. 11:2–4), which ultimately led to the death of Uriah (2 Sam. 11:14–17).

The sin prohibited by the tenth commandment differs from the others in that it pertains to the realm of thoughts. In a broad sense, these thoughts are called envy and are conveyed by the word קִנְאָה (qinʔā h), which can be translated not only as “envy” but also as “jealousy, irritation, and indignation”. Thus, envy as a feeling is broader than the desire for what one’s neighbor possesses. An envious person may be jealous and grieve over their neighbor’s good fortune, without even desiring for themselves anything that the other possesses, but simply being jealous of their success, as Cain did, as mentioned earlier.

It is no coincidence that later in the New Testament, the evangelists emphasize that one of the reasons the elders demanded Christ’s death was precisely envy (Matt. 27:18). However, sometimes such envy leads a person to act in ways that may outwardly appear positive. Thus, the apostle writes that some, upon learning that he was in chains, began to preach Christ “out of envy and rivalry” (Phil 1:15), which made their preaching impure.

As a separate aspect related to the tenth commandment, it is worth noting the envy that arises in the heart of a godly person toward sinners who allow themselves to sin, while the righteous person is forced to restrain himself. The psalmist exhorts: “Do not envy the wicked, do not be jealous of those who do wrong” (Ps 36:1) and explains the wrongness of such envy by the fact that the unrighteous’ success is always short-lived and ends in ruin. However, sometimes a person who lives piously for the sake of a reward may envy a sinner even in the fact that the Lord is ready to be generous and merciful toward him (Mt 20:15).

As a spiritual sin, envy, like the desire for something belonging to one’s neighbor, is not always expressed in concrete actions. However, like everything that destroys human unity, envy has a destructive effect on the person himself (Prov 14:30, Prov 28:22, James 3:16)

Love for God and Neighbor in the Context of the Decalogue

The commandments of the Decalogue are one of the most well-known moral codes. At the same time, when answering the question of which is the greatest commandment in the law, the Savior does not mention the Decalogue, but rather the commandment to love God (Deut. 6:5) and to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18). However, if we compare the Decalogue with these commandments, we will see that they do not contradict it, but rather express it. Thus, the first four commandments speak of a deeply personal relationship with God (1), which involves faithfulness and love for Him and raising children in the spirit of “?” which is love (2), as well as reverence for His Name (3) and devoting at least one-seventh of one’s time to Him (4). In turn, the commandments regarding love for one’s neighbor speak of the value of human life itself, which the Lord created. One who understands that God’s plan is for people to love one another cannot go against His will and will therefore: honor those through whom, by God’s will, a person is born into the world (5) and will not kill physically (6) or spiritually (7) by treacherously betraying mutual fidelity; will not deprive a neighbor of the opportunity to continue living by taking away his property (8) or his good name (9) through slander. Finally, a person who loves God will not even entertain the thought of his neighbor ceasing to exist so that he might take his place.

In reality, at the heart of the commandments given to Moses, all speak of love for God and neighbor. This is precisely why, in answering the rich young man’s question, the Savior points to the observance of the commandments as one of the paths to eternal life (Matt. 19:17). However, He certainly does not mean the Pharisaic observance, which, though scrupulous, bore no fruit. In this sense, the law merely revealed man’s weakness. Speaking of the fulfillment of the commandments, the Lord Jesus Christ calls us to follow Him, because He reveals the true model of this fulfillment in Himself. Only through His sacrifice and the possibility of union with Him in the sacraments do the commandments cease to be mere external, normative instructions for man and acquire their true meaning.

[1] St. Athanasius of Alexandria. A Discourse on the Incarnation of the Word of God, and on His Coming to Us in the Flesh // Works in 4 vols. Vol. 1., Sergiev Posad: STSL, 1902, — pp. 196–197

[2]St. Athanasius of Alexandria. A Discourse on the Incarnation of the Word of God and His Coming to Us in the Flesh // Works in 4 vols. Vol. 1. Sergiev Posad: STSL, 1902, p. 217

[3] Theodoret of Cyrus, Blessed. Explanation of Difficult Passages in Divine Scripture. Vol. 1. — Moscow: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2003. — p. 60.

Graph View

Backlinks