<---back to Words of Wisdom index

To be correctly understood, the Commandments must be placed in proper historical context. While biblical advocates no doubt consider them to be historically unique, they in fact have historical and liter antecedents from earlier cultures. Most notably, most of them can be found almost verbatim in the Babylonian Code of Hammurapi, dating from the eighteenth century BCE. We even have fragments of earlier Sumerian codes, dating back another five hundred years, upon which many of Hammurapis were based. Cultures borrowed from other cultures, and the ancient Hebrews were no different in this regard. Their Ten Commandments not only do not show "divine" authorship, they don't even show originality.

The Code of Hammurapi was part of a much larger law code. Although they are nearly four thousand years old, they contain some advanced ideas, such as equal representation under the law, and the rights of women. These would be eliminated under the repressively patriarchal Hebraic law code.

Although Hammurapi was undoubtedly a true historical figure, the same cannot be said for Moses. He seems to have been fashioned after earlier figures from other cultures, such as Mises from Syria and King Minos from Crete.

Let us now examine the commandments themselves.

The first question to be raised is Which "Ten Commandments" are we talking about? There are three places in the Old Testament in which they appear: Deuteronomy 5, Exodus 20, and Exodus 34. The first two are somewhat similar, but the third is quite different, as it discusses blood offerings and seething a kid in its mothers milk. This version, although rarely quoted by believers, is the only one actually referred to in the Bible as the "Ten Commandments."

To be charitable, we will focus on the Deuteronomy version, as it is the best known of the three. The first point to be made is that the commandments are all worded as negative pronouncements, underscoring the fundamentally negative view of human nature held by the Bibles authors (and by many contemporary Christians and Jews). They felt that, without a celestial "sword of Damocles" hanging over our collective heads to keep us in line, society would fall apart and we would all go about robbing, killing, raping, and pillaging at will. However, this is easily refuted; even the most cursory glance at our prisons and reformatories will show that the percentage of atheist inmates is dramatically smaller than their corresponding numbers in the outside world.

The next point to be made is the simple fact that these codes are referred to as "commandments" rather than, say, instructions or suggestions. This underscores the authoritarian, even totalitarian nature of biblical law; these laws are written to put the "fear of God" into their followers minds. Given this, it is easy to view the Ten Commandments as nothing more than an archaic and decidedly puerile system of threats and punishments that, due to its absolutist nature, leaves no room for true moral advancement.

So what are these commandments, the supposed wisdom of the ages, actually saying?

The first four are not even concerned with human relations; they are instead aimed at appeasing the ego of the biblical God. What an uneasy vanity this God must possess! Consider the second Commandment, which says "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." If literally applied, this would violate the concept of free speech, illustrating once again the totalitarian nature of biblical morality. Like any dictatorship, the Bible must rely on fear and threats, rather than on logic and merit, to promote its agenda. The first four commandments have nothing to do with morality; they are religious injunctions promulgated and promoted by a primitive, self-serving priestly class. They may be dismissed accordingly.

The fifth Commandment, to "honor thy father and mother" must like the others, be placed in historical perspective. At the time it was written, families usually depended on the labor of their children for their survival. This commandment, far from being a "timeless" moral code, is merely reflective of ancient social realities. Consequently, biblical writers endorsed a hierarchical social order with God at the top, followed by, in descending order, priests, the king, male heads of household. Women, children and slaves were at the bottom of the heap. It is not difficult to see why kings and priests promoted such as system and, by invoking Gods wrath against social deviants, ensured its survival.

Considering the horrifying things that many parents do to their children, wouldn't a better commandment be for parents to love and honor their children?

"Thou shalt not kill," this sixth commandment, seems fine until we realize that it is unqualified. There are situations where killing is indeed justified, such as in certain cases of self-defense. The absolutist wording of this commandment allows for no such contingencies. Unqualified, it is of little value. In addition, considering all of the murders ordered or committed by God in the Old Testament, the moral tenor of this commandment dust doesn't ring true. In effect, God is saying "do as I say, not as I do."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery, the seventh commandment, also seems fine at first glance, but it too is unqualified. Consider also the punishment: Who today would advocate the death penalty for adultery?

Commandment number eight, "Thou shalt not steal," reiterates the same problem we encountered with numbers six and seven. The Bible would have us believe that stealing food to feed ones starving children is morally wrong.

The ninth commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is usually interpreted to be an injunction against lying. Once again, the unqualified wording of the commandment poses problems. There are times when lying is justified, even necessary. For example, if a kidnapper asks you where your child is, you certainly would be morally justified in not telling him.. In addition, this commandment is not consistently applied, for it was socially and morally acceptable in biblical days to bear false witness against those outside the faith. So much for moral absolutism!

Finally, the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, his field, or his manservant..." illustrates the misogynous nature of the Bible for here, in plain unequivocal language, we are told that a wife is a piece of property, like an ox, and ass, or a field. Moreover, why is this commandment even necessary if commandment eight is followed?

So what are we left with? Four of the Ten Commandments concern religious rituals and have nothing to do with morality. Three others are moderately useful at best and are by no means uniquely Judeo-Christian in origin, while the other three are unqualified, making them virtually useless.

These are the "timeless" moral instructions given to us by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God? This is the best he/she/it/they could come up with? This is the basis of our laws and of good moral behavior? Are these are so unique and so priceless that they should be posted on all public buildings and recognized and obeyed by all peoples everywhere for all time?

In fact, the Ten Commandments are a perfect illustration of why the Bible is such a poor guide to morality. They are of value only in teaching us how a backward people lived and thought in contrast to the more enlightened civilizations of their own time. The Ten Commandments can have no moral or legal relevance for us today. To insist that they do is to advocate moral retrogression. Any grade school child could devise a better code.

<---back to Words of Wisdom index