Modern Criticism of the Decalogue
By L. A. S.
A RECENT article in the Hibbert Journal, on the “Shortcomings of the Decalogue,” by Charles B. Wheeler, presents a good illustration of the shortcomings of the modern theology which presumes to criticize the Word of God. Mr. Wheeler has arrived at the conclusion that the ten commandments are altogether “inadequate as a guide to the complex life of to-day,” and believes that there are men who could rewrite them in better form. Such a view, of course, sets aside the Author of the decalogue as a being unsuited to the spiritual requirements of the present age. Looking at the decalogue, “from a modern standpoint,” Mr. Wheeler says:— A thoughtful man who would rewrite the decalogue to-day would almost certainly lay far more stress on the positive duties, with the idea of promoting active benevolence rather than blameless lethargy. The four commandments which deal with man’s relation to God would probably be replaced by one simple injunction to obey at all cost the voice of God within, while the four which treat of his conduct toward his fellows would be combined into one comprehensive prohibition of all interference with the lives of others.
If this modern critic knew a little more about the subject whereof he speaks, he would know that the ten commandments are summed up in two “great” commandments, which are, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;” and, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” “On these two commandments,” said Jesus, “hang all the law.” The ten commandments, therefore, according to the exposition of them given by the highest possible Authority, are fulfilled by love; they demand love; and love is the most positive thing in the world. He who will love God with all his heart and mind, and his neighbor as himself,—he whose life manifests this love to God and to man,—is discharging the “positive duties” of life to the fullest possible extent. This critic who objects to the decalogue on the ground that it is “negative” in character, would substitute for it an injunction “to obey at all costs the voice of God within,” and a “comprehensive prohibition of all interference with the lives of others.” But merely to refrain from interference with the lives of others would be a negative sort of goodness, falling very far short of that unselfish love for one’s fellow beings which the law of God requires. The life of Jesus of Nazareth, who “went about doing good,” filling every day full of unselfish acts for the uplifting of humanity about him, is a perfect illustration of the positive character of that law. Christ did nothing more than fulfil his Father’s law. To substitute for the first four commands of the decalogue an injunction to obey “the voice of God within,” would, furthermore, lower the standard of life infinitely below the plane of true Christianity, since it would lead an individual to look within himself to find God, and thus to sink eventually to the lowest level of heathenism. In Christianity, the voice of God without stands superior to the voice within; conscience is always to be instructed and guided by the written Word; while the eye of faith looks, not within to behold God, but to the courts above, to the sanctuary which God pitched, where is his throne, and into which Jesus, our mediator, is for us entered. It is well for us that the decalogue has not been rewritten by the modern critics.