A MUCH-ABUSED COMMANDMENT.
We refer to the second of the ten commandments. All of them, have, of course, been sadly violated, both in letter and spirit, ever since they were given; but the second has suffered a peculiar kind of ill treatment, which we cannot call by a more fitting name than abuse or insult. And this has been done by professed Christians. In the first place, in many Roman Catholic Catechisms it is entirely omitted; the tenth being divided to make out the full number. Thus, in “Dr. James Butler’s Catechism,” approved by Bishop Doyle, D. D., printed at Dublin in 1848, the commandments begin and end as follows:
“1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me.- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
- Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”
Rev. Dr. M’Caul quotes from twenty-nine foreign catechisms in use in Rome and Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Bavaria, Silesia, Poland, Ireland, England, Spain, and Portugal, in twenty-seven of which the second commandment is entirely omitted. We cannot doubt that the cause of this omission is found in the prohibition of image-worship, which the second commandment contains. What other commandment of the decalogue has received such high-handed abuse? The same commandment has not altogether escaped abuse at the hands of Protestants. For what milder term shall we give to certain flippant misrepresentations of it, though they come from men whom we greatly respect? Some, who regard the decalogue as an obsolete Jewish law, affirm that the second commandment, if understood literally, positively forbids practicing the arts of sculpture and painting! In confirmation, they ask, “Did any one ever hear of Jewish artists?” We answer, Yes: all readers of the book of Exodus have heard of such, as will appear from the following passage: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, See, I have called by name Bezaleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship. And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom; that they may make all that I have commanded thee.” Ex. xxxi, 1–6. And what were they commanded to make? Among other things, two images, or winged figures, called cherubim, to overshadow the mercy-seat. Did the second commandment, then, prohibit the making of images for whatever purpose? We know of another Jewish artist. It was Moses, or one who wrought under his direction; for we read, “Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole.” Num. xxi, 9. This was not only commanded by God, but was used by our Saviour as an emblem of himself. There were, then, Jewish artists who did not break the second commandment. We might mention one who did; viz., Aaron. Now, what was the difference between the golden calf and the brazen serpent? One might think them dangerously alike; for the latter was an instrument of miraculous blessing. But they were not alike. One was a divine ordinance, and the other was a heathenish insult to the Most High. What, therefore, did the second commandment forbid, as interpreted by the Legislator himself? Plainly, the making of images as objects of religious worship; and the great duty taught was spiritual worship,—the adoration of the Unseen One. The language of the commandment leads to the same conclusion: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” The first clause must be taken in connection with the last. Any other interpretation is not only forced, but inconsistent. If all making of likenesses was forbidden, it were needless to add that such should not be worshiped. We may go further. It is characteristic of a primitive language like the Hebrew to join together independent clauses, instead of making one long, complex sentence. Prof. Green, in his Hebrew Grammar, says, “The Hebrew sedulously avoids all involution of sentences.” Thus, the clauses before us are a simple and emphatic mode of saying, “Thou shalt not bow down and serve any graven image or likeness, and thou shalt not make anything which is designed to be so used.” We have dwelt thus upon this because there is an important principle involved. Dr. Colenso has assailed the Old Testament by straining every statement to the extreme of literal interpretation, and making it appear as bad as possible. Others are doing the same to some of the ten commandments. They, doubtless, think they are doing God service. We do not believe they are. We believe they are doing service to a very different being, however good may be their intentions.—Am. Tract Journal.