Division of the Decalogue.
By J. H. W.
Since writing the note recently published in the Review on the division of the commandments, I have seen the following reasons given by a correspondent for the order adopted by the Catholics and Lutherans:— “There is a grammatical difficulty in dividing the commandment on idolatry into two. The latter part says, ‘Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.’ To what does this plural pronoun them refer? Surely not to ‘any graven image,’ for that is the singular number. It must refer to ‘other gods.’” The difficulty would be real if “graven image” were the only antecedent of the pronoun them; but it is not. To half state a truth is to mis-state it. The antecedents of them are graven or carved image, and likeness. There is a distinction recognized here, for a likeness may be a picture, appearance, or any representation without being a graven image. Were a singular pronoun used it would be a query to which it referred, but as it now is, it refers to both. Again he says:— “In the repetition of the commandments in Deuteronomy, two distinct words are used in specifying the sin of covetousness, the one signifying to desire with lust, the other, to covet with greed.” The difference between the two words in Deut. 5, is not strong enough to justify the claim. In some of their definitions they are alike. Both are used in Gen. 3:6—the tree of knowledge was pleasant and to be desired. Here the lowest idea of lust is not admissible; nor is it in Micah 2:2, “they covet [lust after] fields;” Deut. 7:25, “thou shalt not desire [lust after] the silver;” and so in Josh. 7:21; Achan coveted (lusted) the wedge of gold. But a still more decisive fact is this, that in the original copy of the decalogue, Ex. 20, the same word is twice used. “Thou shalt not covet [hamad] thy neighbor’s wife; thou shalt not covet [hamad] thy neighbor’s house.” The reasons urged by this correspondent are clearly insufficient.