The Decalogue in the New Testament

REGINALD H. FULLER

Professor Emeritus Virginia Theological Seminary

In the permissive society of today, where vice is so often paraded as virtue and where the sense of moral obligation is feeble, it is time for the church, following the lead of the New Testament, to restore the Decalogue to a prominent place in its liturgy and catechism.

T H E D E C A L O G U E IN T H E J E S U S T R A D I T I O N

HE MOST COMPLETE LISTING of the Decalogue in the Synoptic Gospels occurs in the pericope of the Rich Young Man, which is found in the triple tradition (Mark 10:l7-22//Matt. 19:16-22//Luke 18:18-23). In discussing this pericope we shall assume the priority of Mark. Although there are a few minor agreements between Matthew and Luke, these are not sufficient to r e q u i r e the a b a n d o n m e n t of the two-document hypothesis. 1 Klaus Berger has provided a thorough traditio-critical analysis of the Marcan version of the Rich Young Man. 2 The gist of it is as follows: T h e pericope represents a combination of two originally separate units, verses 1820 and 2122. T h e first unit sets forth the second table of the Decalogue as the precondition for inheriting eternal life. The second unit lays down a different precondition: renunciation of wealth and a life of

1. Minor agreements are: Omit m aposterss, Matt. 19:18//Luke 18:20; ephylasa, Matt. 18:20//Luke 18:21; ptchois (without article), Matt. 18:21//Luke 18:22; akousas, Matt. 18:22//Luke 18:23. 2. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1972).

243

discipleship, that is, following after Jesus. T h e second unit is closely related to the sayings which follow (vs. 2331). These sayings lay down similar conditions for entering the Kingdom of God. There is thus a sharp distinction between the teaching of the two units. T h e first follows the ordinary ethic of Hellenistic Judaism, namely, the observance of the second table of the Decalogue. T h e second unit on the other hand lays down a pattern of discipleship which reflects the ethical radicalism of wandering charismatics. 3 Again, the first unit speaks in Hellenistic terms of "eternal life" (zeainios), whereas the second unit is couched in Palestinian terms and speaks of "entering the Kingdom of God." Berger concludes that the radical set of sayings is authentic to Jesus, following the criterion of coherence. T h e first tradition (by the criterion of dissimilarity) originates in Hellenistic Jewish Christian catechesis. Verse 2 le ("y o u lack one thing"; hen se hystere) is a redactional link between the two traditions. Berger would thus eliminate the quotation of the Decalogue from the authentic Jesus tradition and assign it to Hellenistic catechesis. Berger's thesis is formidable, but it contains two loopholes. First, the Decalogue was current in Palestinian Judaism as a separate entity and not just as part of the Pentateuch. 4 Second, the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, which belonged to two separate lines of tradition (Q and SpM), exhibit the same combination of ideas: reaffirmation of the Decalogue with radicalization of its demands. Thus the criterion of coherence, applied in this way, actually supports the authenticity of the combination. Jesus demands of the Rich Young Man not only obedience to the Decalogue but also radical self-surrender to the life of discipleship. T h e pericope is similar in purport to the sayings about the cost of discipleship in Mark 8 : 3 4 - 3 8 and to the stories of the would-be disciples (Matt. 8:18-22//Luke 9:57-59 Q). This tradition of the Rich Young Man has been appropriated by the post-Easter catechesis and organized as part of a series of catechetical instructions: (1) Marriage and Divorce (Mark 10:2-12) (2) T h e Care of Children (Mark 10:13-16) (3) T h e Second Table of the Decalogue Radicalized by Jesus (Mark 10:17-22) (4) On Riches and the Rewards of Discipleship (Mark 10:23-31) Conditions of entry and rewards of discipleship were regular topoi in Hellenistic catechesis as shown by the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline para3. This concept is employed in various writings by Gerd Theissen; see his The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 8-16. 4. In cave 8 at Qumran. See F. E. Vokes, "The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in First Century Judaism," StEv V (1966), II, 148. T h e Nash Papyrus contains both the Decalogue and the Shema.

244

enesis (I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). T h e reward may be defined either as eternal life as in Galatians 6:8 or as entrance into or inheritance of the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:21). Berger may well be right in his contention that the terminology of eternal life, as contrasted with Kingdom of God (Mark 10:17), is of Hellenistic origin, but that does not rule out the basic authenticity of the story of the Rich Young Man. Two other catechetical modifications appear in the pericope. First, there is the insertion of an additional prohibition, "do not defraud," between commandments 9 and 5. Explanations vary as to the source of this addition. Some regard it as a paraphrase of commandment 10. 5 Others think that it derives from a different part of the pentateuchal legislation (Exod. 21:10; Lev. 19:13; and Deut. 24:14 have all been suggested). 6 Also noticeable is the final position of commandment 5. Many manuscripts omit it, including the original reading of (Vaticanus). It is tempting in view of its omission in both Matthew and Luke (a minor agreement) to suppose that it was a later scribal addition. 7 On the other hand its omission by Matthew and Luke could be due to their having noticed independently that it was not part of the Decalogue. If it is original, it was probably added at the pre-Marcan stage when the unit was expanded for catechetical purposes. Perhaps commandment 5 was added at the same time. If, then, Mark was utilizing a preformed catechism, he chose to place it in the context of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem. Jesus is challenging his disciples to take u p their cross and follow him, and the catechetical teaching gives concrete shape to that life of discipleship. For Mark's church, faced as it was by persecution, the bourgeois ethic of the Deca logue was insufficient. Yet even if the Wanderradikalismus of the Galilean ministry could no longer be followed literally, Mark's Christians had to be ready to abandon everything and follow Jesus to persecution and martyrdom. Matthew has reshaped the Marcan story of the Rich Young Man. Here are the major changes of concern to us: Mark 10 v. 17, To inherit eternal life? v. 18, Why do you call me good? Matthew 19 v. 16, To have eternal life? v. 176, Why do you ask me about the good? v. 17d, If you want to enter life v. 19, You shall love your neighbor as yourself

5. E.g., Erich Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium (Tbingen: J.C.. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1926), ad loe. 6. As noted (though rejected) by Klostermann, ad loc. 7. So Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan 8c Co./New York: St. Martin's, 1966), ad loc.

245

v. 20, From my youth v. 20c, What do I still lack? v. 21, You lack one thing v. 21, If you would be perfect For Matthew the young man's question is no longer one about future eschatology. He wants to possess (scho) already, here and now. His question is reworded in terms of Hellenistic philosophy. Jesus' answer is set in the same framework. He takes the young man's question to be one not of eschatology but about the "good," that is, the life of virtue. Jesus defines the good life in terms of the second table of the Decalogue plus the commandment of love. This is in accordance with the best standards of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy. T h e young man has already lived a virtuous life, but he is still not satisfied and vaguely desires something more than the good life. Jesus articulates his problem. It is after all a question of eschatology. What the young man really desires is "treasure in heaven." T o gain that, he must aspire to something higher than the life of virtue. He must seek to become teleios, perfect. To that end he must sell his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus in the life of discipleship. T h e Decalogue and the love commandment are not enough for perfection. We have here a double standard. It is, however, a double standard not within the church but between the church on the one hand and good Judaism and good paganism on the other. The higher standard does not mean the abandonment of the Decalogue and the love commandment. Matthew would expect his readers to remember how Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount had radically reaffirmed the Decalogue and the love commandment (see below). Matthew's reshaping of the story of the Rich Young Man is commensurate with his Sitz im Leben. T h e synagogue across the street observed the Decalogue and the love commandment as part of the Torah. The Cynics and Stoics in the philosophical school further down the street taught and practiced the good life, the life of virtue. No doubt some members of Matthew's church were content with the same standard of ethical achievement. That was "good" as far as it went, but Matthew wants to encourage his Christians to aspire to greater heightsto be teleioi. Luke's version of the Rich Young Man (18:1823) follows Mark with minimal variations. He changes the order of the commandments (7,6, 8,9, 5). This is the same order as in Paul except that Paul omits commandment 5 (Rom. 13:9, see below). This is the same order as we find in Philo and in the Nash papyrus. Evidently Paul and Luke are drawing upon the same Hellenistic Jewish catechesis. Like Matthew, as we have seen, Luke omits "do not defraud" between commandments 9 and 5, that is, unless it was absent from Luke's text. We turn now to the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:27-48). Of the six antitheses, the first two are interpretations of com246

The Decalogue in the New Testament

Interpretation

mandments 6 and 7 (prohibition of murder and adultery), which they follow in the canonical order. T h e third antithesis, the prohibition of divorce, is clearly a supplement to antithesis 2. Note its unique truncated introduction, "it was said" (erreth de). Also the comments that a husband divorcing his wife makes her an adulteress and a man who marries a divorcee is himself an adulterer are further applications of commandment 7. Antithesis 4, the prohibition of oaths, is usually taken as an application of commandment 3, against taking the divine name in vain. Yet it may be an application of commandment 9, the prohibition of false witness, for both commandment 9 and antithesis 4 enjoin absolute truth. This view has the attraction of preserving the canonical order of the Decalogue (6, 7, 9) and confining the antitheses to the second table. Antithesis 5 is based not on the Decalogue but on the lex talionis (Exod. 21:24-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21). However, this antithesis is really an articulation of the antithesis that follows, which in turn is an interpretation of the love commandment (Lev. 19:18). Now, as we have seen, Matthew placed the love commandment climactically at the end of the second table of the Decalogue in his version of the Rich Young Man. T h e same arrangement occurs in Romans 13:811 and is apparently presupposed in James 2:811. There is thus considerable evidence for a catechesis consisting of the second table plus the love commandment. The social commandments are articulations of the commandment to love the neighbor. Matthew however goes beyond the normal teaching of this catechism. He radically reinterprets it by means of the antithetical formulation and his appended comments (5:2326, 2930, 376, 4647). There has been much discussion of the precise import of this radical reinterpretation of the law. Is the law abolished? Is it carried to a logical and extreme conclusion? T h e introduction to the antitheses, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill (plrsa) it" (v. 17) supports the second alternative. This is certainly the case with antitheses 1,2,5, and 6, that is precisely those which are based on the second table and the love command. T h e situation is different, however, with antitheses 3 and 4. Here concessions previously allowed are withdrawn, but they are withdrawn precisely in order to radicalize the commandments which they interpret, that is, the prohibition of adultery and the precept of truth, respectively. Thus despite the appearance of abolition created by antitheses 3 and 4, the overall purpose is not abolition but the bringing of the law to its eschatological fulfillment. T h e final antithesis (the commandment to love the enemy) concludes with the injunction, "you therfore must be perfect (teleioi), as your heavenly Father is perfect." In its immediate context perfection means love of Israel's enemies as well as one's fellow Israelites, just as God sends the rain and sunshine upon the ungodly as well as the righteous. Per247

fection thus denotes wholeness, inclusiveness; but since the love commandment sums up the five preceding antitheses, radical obedience to the social commandments is also part of what is involved in perfection. God demands total obedience, including radical obedience to the second table radically interpreted. It is worth noting that on the two occasions when Matthew uses the word "perfect" (teleios), it is in connection with the second table of the Decalogue. Perfection includes radical love of the neighbor. This for Matthew is the Christian standard, as distinct from the Mosaic law as observed by the synagogue across the street. Are the antitheses authentic to the historical Jesus? T h e substance of antitheses 3, 5, and 6 have Q parallels in non-antithetical form (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:3-4 par.; Luke 6:29-30; Luke 6:27-28, 32-36). In these cases the antithetical form is clearly the work of Matthean redaction. Antitheses 1, 2, and 4 are peculiar to Matthew. We cannot be certain whether the antithetical form in these instances is pre-Matthean or redactional. It is, however, noticeable that it is precisely these antitheses (1,2, and 4) that reinterpret the second table. As we shall see, Jesus himself radicalized other commandments of the Decalogue in this way. T h e antithetical form is integral to these antitheses, and without it they collapse. For these reasons we conclude that antitheses 1,2, and 4 probably go back to Jesus himself. In any case they are consistent with his treatment of other commandments of the Decalogue elsewhere. At the very least the antitheses represent the Wirkungsgeschichte of Jesus' authentic teaching. We turn now to individual commandments of the Decalogue in the Jesus tradition. T h e r e is perhaps an indirect allusion to commandment 1 (against polytheism) in the Q version of the temptation story. Jesus protests to Satan, "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10 par. Q). T h e wording however is closer to Deuteronomy 6:13, and few would assign the temptation story to the authentic Jesus tradition. Yet it forms an adequate summary of the basic orientation of his life and teaching. Commandment 4, on Sabbath observance, figures prominently in the Jesus tradition. It plays a role in aphorisms (e.g., Mark 2:27, 28 par.; J o h n 5:17), in parabolic sayings (Matt. 12:11-12 [Q? SpM?]; Luke 13:15 [Q? SpL?]; 14:5 SpL), in healing stories issuing in conflict over the Sabbath (Mark 3 : 1 - 6 par.; Luke 13:10-17 SpL; 14:1-8 SpL; J o h n 5:1-10; 9:1-14; cf. 7:22-23), and in a conflict story proper (Mark 2:23-28 par.). E. P. Sanders, who rightly insists on Jesus' fundamental loyalty to the Torah, is inclined to question the authenticity of this whole tradition. 9 He

8. Jesus and the Laws ofPunty: Tradition, History and Legal History in Mark 7, J S N T SupSer 13 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1986), 9 4 - 9 6 . 9. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 264-67.

248

The Decalogue in the New Testament

Interpretation

argues that it reflects the Hellenistic church's need to legitimate its abandonment of Sabbath observance. In this case all these traditions would fail the criterion of dissimilarity. If, however, they are authentic, they would originally have had a different meaning, which Sanders confesses his inability to recover. Yet the tradition is too widespread to dismiss. It has multiple attestation, both form- and source-critically. We may venture to suggest therefore that the original meaning of these traditions was that Jesus intended to fulfill the divine purpose behind the Sabbath commandment: "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). This saying was apparently too radical for Matthew and Luke, and so they omitted it. Jesus interprets commandment 4 by means of the love commandment. This accords with Matthew's claim that Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In the Corban controversy (Mark 7:9-13 par.) Jesus is represented as citing and reaffirming commandment 5 against a Pharisaic ruling, namely, that money vowed to the temple (Corban, offering) could not be used to support one's parents. R. P. Booth has expressed reservations about the authenticity of this tradition on the ground that it shows a concern for minutiae of the law unusual for Jesus (criterion of coherence). As opposing evidence he cites (rather unconvincingly, given the history of the Synoptic tradition) the fact that Mark attributes it to Jesus. Booth concludes that the evidence is slightly weighted in favor of authenticity. A stronger argument would be the consistency of the Corban unit with Jesus' attitude to the Decalogue as evidenced elsewhere. Here again an individual commandment of the Decalogue is treated as an articulation of the love commandment. As such it takes precedence over cultic requirements. With this we may compare the saying about reconciliation with the neighbor, which Matthew attached to antithesis 1 (5:23-24), and the role of the priest and Lvite in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). We have already noted that independently of the antitheses the Jesus tradition condemns divorce and remarriage as adultery and therefore a breach of commandment 7. This teaching appears in a pronouncement story (Mark 10:2-12//Matt. 19:3-12) and as an isolated logion (Luke 16:18), a Q saying which Matthew (see above) has converted into antithesis 3 of the Sermon on the Mount. T h e prohibition of divorce is also attested independently as a dominical teaching by Paul (I Cor. 7:10). There are many complicated issues involved in the interpretation of this material and to discuss them would take us too far afield. All we are concerned with here is Jesus' citation of commandment 7. Two points may be noted. First, the Decalogue's prohibition of adultery takes precedence over the Mosaic permission of divorce. T h e latter is viewed as a temporary concession, now abrogated with the advent of the Reign of God. In this case the Decalogue 249

takes precedence over other parts of the Torah. Second, commandment 7 is reinterpreted positively to mean life-long matrimonial fidelity and is grounded in God's loving purpose in creation. T h e multiple attestation of this tradition and its consistency with Jesus' characteristic radicalism argue for its authenticity. Once again, as elsewhere, obedience to specific commandments is the fulfillment of the love commandment in a concrete situation. It is a response to the prior love of God toward humankind and is made possible by that love. This point is further expressed by the context in which Mark and Luke place the divorce saying. Mark inserts it into the section about discipleship and following the suffering Son of Man, while Luke locates it in the journey to Jerusalem. T h e hermeneutical key to the understanding of Jesus' requirement of fidelity in marriage is the love commandment. Previously this command may in certain circumstances have necessitated divorce and permission to remarry. Now with the advent of God's salvation in Jesus' ministry, this concession is withdrawn. Nowhere in the Jesus tradition is there any direct allusion to commandment 8, "You shall not steal." Jesus realistically assumes that there are thieves in the world. He warns against laying up treasures on earth where thieves break through and steal (Matt. 6:19-21 par. Q). Another instance of this realism is the parable of the nocturnal burglar (Matt. 24:4344 par. Q). T h e Johannine Christ also recognizes that sheepstealing goes on and contrasts himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:1, 8, 10). Apart from the possible allusion in antithesis 5 (see above), there are no other allusions to commandment 9, the prohibition of false witness. There is an allusion to commandment 10, "You shall not covet," in the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Sower (Mark 4:19). T h e seed sown among thorns represents those who hear the word but in whom the word is choked by "the desires (epithymiai) for other things" (namely, in addition to the cares of this world and delight in riches). There is also an allusion to commandment 10 in the warning against trying to serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24 par. Q) and in the admonition against anxiety (Matt. 6:25-34 Q). Finally there may be an allusion to commandment 10 in the story of the Rich Young Man, who refuses to sell all his property and to give the proceeds to the poor. If so, coveting is here widened to include not only desiring what one does not yet possess but clinging to what one already has when God requires its surrender.
T H E DECALOGUE IN T H E P A U L I N E C O R P U S

At first sight it would appear that the Decalogue plays only an incidental role in Paul's discussion of the law. The Judaisers' demand for the circumcision of gentile converts led him to propound a theology of the law 250

The Decalogue in the New

Testament
Interpretation

and its place in salvation history. It is arguable, however, that when Paul speaks of the various functions of the law, he has the Decalogue primarily in mind. This is true of his reflections on law and gospel and of his teaching on the so-called "elenchthic" function of the law (see below). In II Corinthians 3:118 the apostle introduces a series of contrasts between the ministry (diakonia) of the Old Covenant and the New. T h e Old Covenant was issued as a written document {gramma, vs. 6, 7), whereas the New Covenant is inscribed by the Spirit in the hearts of the believers (vs. 2, 3). The Old Covenant was written on tables of stone (v. 3). It produces condemnation and death (vs. 9,6b), whereas the New Covenant resulted in righteousness (v. 9) and life (v. 6b). The Old Covenant had a certain splendor which caused Moses to put a veil over his face and hide the reflection from the Israelites (vs. 7, 13), whereas Christian believers behold the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces (v. 18). T h e allusion to the veil shows that Paul is basing his argument on the more primitive form of the Decalogue as given in Exodus 34 rather than on the more familiar version of Exodus 20. It is hard, however, to see how the cultic laws of Exodus 34 could have resulted in condemnation and death. One would expect this to be the function of the ethical commandments of Exodus 20, and one wonders whether it was this form of the Decalogue that Paul really had in mind when he contrasted it with the splendor of the New Covenant. That it is the ethical form of the Decalogue that had this negative function is shown by Romans 7:725. In this classic discussion of the negative or elenchthic function of the law Paul cites commandment 10 "You shall not covet" (v. 7). T h e commandment produces an awareness of sin, a sense of guilt, and therefore condemnation and death. We may legitimately conclude that wherever Paul speaks of the elenchthic function of the law, he has the Decalogue primarily in mind. Moreover this shows that the issue at stake was not only the question of circumcision or the food laws but the more basic question of the place of the Decalogue in salvation history and its significance for the Christian believer. If this is the case, Paul must have arrived at his teaching on the law as the result of his conversion. 10 It was not merely a polemical weapon against the Judaizers. That it was largely the Decalogue which had this elenchthic function is further demonstrated by the catalogues of vices in the Pauline epistles. These catalogues originated in Hellenistic Judaism, where they were borrowed from Stoicism but formulated in the light of the Torah and especially the Decalogue. Take, for instance, the catalogue of vices in

10. Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 137-42.

251

Romans 1:2931. This includes the following items which are paralleled in the Decalogue: covetousness (10); murder and strife (6) disobedience to parents (5). T h e list in I Corinthians 510 includes immorality, that is, sexual immorality; greed = covetousness (6); robbery (8); idolatry (2, a rare allusion to the first table). A little later (vs. 96-10) Paul cites another list and explicitly qualifies the renunciation of these vices as a condition for inheriting the Kingdom of God. This phrase suggests that such catalogues originated in the baptismal catechesis of the pre-Pauline church. They serve to summon converts to repentance. In a certain sense Christ is the end of the law for believers (Rom. 10:4). This is so insofar as the law had been misconstrued as a way to righteousness, to a right relationship with God, and to salvation. "Everyone who believes" is freed from the use of the law as a means to righteousness. Law in this context will mean especially the ethical commandments of the Decalogue. Outside of the faith relationship the Decalogue was experienced chiefly in its elenchthic function. It would be an exaggeration to claim that this function has ceased altogether for the believers. It continues insofar as they too are still subject to sin. There is however a positive function of the law in the life of the believers. Paul said of himself that he was now ennomos Christou, under the law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21). He uses a similar phrase with reference to all believers in Galatians 6:2, where he states that the bearing of one another's burden is the fulfillment of the "law of Christ." T h e law in this context will mean the commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Paul has in fact quoted the love commandment a few verses earlier when he says that the whole law is fulfilled in this one "word" (5:14). T h e law of Christ will also include the second table of the Decalogue as an articulation of the love commandment. This is indicated in the paraenesis of Romans: . . . he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments: "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Rom. 13:8-9). T h e law of Christ is therefore the second table of the Decalogue plus the love commandment, the former as a series of articulations of the latter. Paul never discusses the relation between the law of Moses (which he thinks of primarily in its elenchthic function) and the law of Christ, which for him has a positive role. Evidently he thinks that the moral law as enunciated by Moses is still valid for the believers. Why then does Paul call it "the law of Christ"? He never cites the love commandment as a saying of the historical Jesus (contrast, e.g., I Cor. 7:10) or the story of the Rich Young Man. Perhaps he calls it the law of Christ because it was part of the traditional Christian catechesis. 252

The Decalogue in the New Testament

Interpretation

Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus there are occasional allusions to individual commandments of the Decalogue. Paul reminds the Thessalonians how they had "turned from dead idols to serve a living and true God" (I Thess. 1:9). This formula, which was probably adopted from Hellenistic Jewish apologetic directed to the gentile world, recalls commandment 2, the prohibition of idolatry. The earliest kerygma, addressed as it was to Palestinian Jews, could begin immediately with the Christ event as the fulfillment of Israel's messianic hope; but in preaching to the Gentiles Christian missionaries had to begin with the "first article." They had to establish belief in the one God before they could proceed to the Christ event. The same concern for the first article underlies another formula cited by Paul: ". . . there is no God but one." . . . for there is [only] one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist (I Cor. 8:4, 6). There is perhaps a slight reminiscence here of commandment 1, but the main influence is probably the Shema (Deut. 6:4). In Romans 2:21-22 Paul accuses his fellow Jews of practices incompatible with three commandments of the Decalogue (8, 7, 2). This is a rather sweeping indictment, but no doubt there was some laxity among the Jews as there is in all societies, ancient or modern. Again, it is the Gentiles' breach of commandment 2, the prohibition of idolatry, which leads to the vices of pagan life (Rom. 1:23,24-32). This was "a commonplace of Jewish propaganda of the time."11 The Sabbath commandment (4) does not seem to have been an issue in Paul's time, unless Colossians is authentic to Paul (Col. 2:16). For the writer of Colossians the syncretistic practices of his opponents included the observance of the Sabbath. Probably this had little to do with the Jewish observance of commandment 4, which had to do with salvation history, but rather with some kind of cosmic religion. 12 Paul himself does not seem to have expected his gentile converts to observe the Sabbath. The Corinthians assembled on the first day of the week, rather than on the Sabbath (I Cor. 16:2). Here is another instance where Paul is feeling after the later Christian distinction between the ceremonial and the moral law. In the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians children are enjoined to obey their parents (Col. 3:20; Eph. 6:1-3). In Ephesians this exhortation is buttressed with a citation of commandment 5 and the

11. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York: Harper & Bros., 1932), ad loc. 12. Hans Conzelmann in H. W. Beyer et al., Die kleineren Bnefe des Aposteb Paulus, NTD 8 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), ad loc.

253

further comment that this is the "first commandment with a promise." Actually, commandment 2 already contains a kind of promise, that is, "showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." Nor does any commandment after 5 have a promise attached to it. Perhaps the author meant: "This is the first commandment of the second table, and it has a promise attached to it." T h e wording of the promise, "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth" is closer to Deuteronomy 5:16 than to Exodus 20:12. Long life and prosperity on earth are promised in Deuteronomic fashion to children who obey commandment 5. This is typical of the bourgeois ethic of the deutero-Paulines. Again, if we accept the variant reading in Romans 13:9 (Aleph and other manuscripts), commandment 9 is included in the citation of the second table of the Decalogue. In I Timothy 1:8-11 there is a formal statement on the purpose of the law. It is intended "not for the righteous, but for the ungodly and sinners." T h e list of sinners includes those who break certain commandments of the Decalogue: murderers of fathers and mothers (commandments 5 and 6), manslayers (6), immoral persons (i.e., those guilty of sexual immorality) (7), sodomites (perhaps 7), kidnappers (8), liars and perjurers (9). Note how carefully this list follows the canonical order of the Decalogue. T h e problem in this passage is the function attributed to the law. For Paul himself, the elenchthic role of the law was universal: "All have sinned" (Rom. 3:23), and the law served to expose their sin. In First Timothy the law functions differently: It is intended for those guilty of heinous crimes. This is what was later called the political function of the law, that is, the law as enforced by the state. Paul himself had already taught that "rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad . . . If you do wrong, be afraid, for he (namely, the ruler) does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath upon the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:34).
T H E LETTER OF JAMES

Modern commentators tend to see James as a product of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, slightly Christianized. Its sources are largely catechetical. James sets forth the love commandment as the "royal law" (James 2:8). This means either that it is the law of Christ the King or the law of God's Kingdom. Like Paul and Matthew, James treats the specific commandments of the second table as articulations of the love commandment. He cites commandments 7 and 6, in that order, to this effect: For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty (James 2:11-12). 254

The Decalogue in the New Testament

Interpretation

T h e word here translated "under" is dia. It does not mean "by the standards o f but denotes the agent of the action. It is the law that judges. T h e law is one of freedom, that is to say, it is not enforced externally but represents what the believers will freely desire to do. Once again, the law serves to guide the moral life of the believers.
CONCLUSION

For the Old Testament and Judaism the law embraces the whole of the Torah, but for the New Testament writers the central part of it is the second table plus the love commandment. Although the New Testament writers never formulated a systematic doctrine of the law, they recognized the three functions which were systematized by the Reformers, especially the Lutheran Formula of Concord: the elenchthic, the political, and the moral. T h e Decalogue played a major role in fulfilling these three functions. In the permissive society of today, a society in which vice is so often paraded as virtue and where the sense of moral obligation is feeble, it is time for the church to bring back the Decalogue into its liturgy and catechesis. 7:538:11) We have not dealt with this passage in the body of the article. T h e reason is that it is difficult to know where to place it. It is not part of the original text ofJohn, since it is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts. In some manuscripts it appears at Luke 21:38. It is certainly more Lukan in style and content and fits the Lukan context better. However, there is no possibility that it is part of the original text of Luke either. Many think it represents an early and perhaps authentic floating tradition. If so, it could be included among the authentic Jesus material. It is certainly coherent with Jesus' attitude to the outcast. There are many issues at stake in this pericope (see the commentaries ad loc). Here we are only concerned with the attitude of Jesus toward commandment 7, the prohibition of adultery. T h e pericope represents Jesus as refusing to condemn the woman, but he does tell her to go and sin no more. Clearly Jesus is represented as upholding the validity of the Decalogue. Adultery is unquestionably a sin. He thus accepts the elenchthic function of the law. Yet in accordance with his openness to the outcast he offers the woman forgiveness and the possibility of a new life. "The delicate balance between the justice of Jesus in not condoning the sin, and his mercy in forgiving her, is one of the great gospel lessons." 13
A P P E N D I X : T H E P E R I C O P E DE ADULTERA (JOHN

13. R. E. Brown,TA? Gospel According to John I-XII, AB 29 (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1966), 337.

255

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.