Deuteronomy - Lesson 9

All right. In our previous session, we talked about the Decalogue, almost in the abstract as if it is an independent composition. But now we need to look at this document inserted into Moses’ address. What is it doing here? Why does he start here? And so, we have to talk about the preamble to his recitation of the Decalogue. And then at the end, we'll talk about - is there such a thing as post-amble? - the epilogue to this address and that will be the subject of this lesson. 

Well, the opening to Moses’ second address divides into four parts. You have: 

• Moses’ interpretation of the significance of the Decalogue for this generation. (5:1-5),
• The recitation of the Decalogue (5:6-22),
• His recollection of the People's Response to the Decalogue, (5:23-33), and then
• Moses plea for a careful hearing of himself who is the authorized spokesman for God after the Decalogue. (6:1-3). 

And that's where the Chapter division should come again. So, the chapter division not helpful here. 

So, let's talk about Moses first shema, Hear, O Israel. The preamble to the recitation. He begins by summoning the people to attention and appealing for fidelity. “Hear, O Israel the ordinances and the judgments that I declare in your hearing today.” This is a call to attention and then, “Learn them and keep them by putting them into practice,” literally, by doing them. But that's awkward in English. You don't do commands. You don't do laws. Well, we do lunch. So, in a way, it works. But putting them into practice. 

A couple of observations. One, this opening statement reminds us that Moses is not attempting to duplicate the narrative we have in Exodus or recite precisely. This is like the Gospel of John, where he doesn't attempt to retell the story that you have in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Rather, he gives us the theological significance, implications of this. Like impressionist art, he is trying to create a disposition. He is a preacher trying to reshape people's minds in all that follows. 

Second, his goal in this address is not to offer an intellectually stimulating lecture on the Decalogue, but to change behavior. That's the point. “Learn them and keep them by doing them.” So those are the first three verses. 

Then you have Moses’ rhetorical transportation [recte transformation] of his audience back to Horeb. This is really weird. “Yahweh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that Yahweh made this covenant, but with us, with us, these here today, all of us who are alive.” I mean, the Hebrew here is very awkward but he is emphatic. It's you guys who were at Horeb, when it's a lie. They weren't there, they hadn’t even been born. 

And so again, it's a matter of speech act theory. You've got the locution, which are the words people use, and the illocution, the meaning intended with the words. And third, perlocution, what people do with the words. 

When you first came in, you said, “I didn't mean to interrupt.” Really? Then why did you do it? Are you sleepwalking? This reminds me - I was teaching a course in Kentucky in the middle of summer, and it was hot as can be. And the air conditioner wasn't working. And suddenly the door opened and the maintenance guy stepped in and said, “I didn't mean to interrupt, but...” Really? Didn't he know what he was doing? Of course he meant to interrupt. But what was he actually saying? “Excuse me.” We knew what he meant. He said, “I'm here to fix it.” And we said, “Fine, we'll go have coffee, you can fix it.” And 10 minutes later, we were back and the room was cool. I was happy he interrupted. 

But the words we use and the meaning we intend are often quite different. If I'm fumbling around and wanting to write something and I can't find my pencil. I say, Have you got a pen? How would you interpret that? 

Student: You want to borrow one. 

Dr. Block: Do you want to borrow one? I didn't say (I know it's purely academic), Do you have a pen in your possession? Those are the words we're using. But the point we're making is often quite different from the words. This is very important for translation theory. What's the point being made? 

In here if you go by the literal translation, it's all a lie. Moses is saying God didn't make a covenant with our fathers. Yes, He did. They were there. They signed on. God made it with us. We were there. No, you weren't. It's all a lie. But he's playing a rhetorical game. He's trying to get them to a certain point in how they think about stuff. Guys, with what is happening here today, with our covenant renewal rituals we're having here underlying the book of Deuteronomy, we are in effect, transported back to Horeb. That's the outcome. That's the illocution. God is doing for us what He did for them. Only they blew it. So, this is important. 

Yahweh spoke with you face to face. (I dropped that in the translation.) Yahweh spoke with you face to face on the mountain, out of the midst of the fire. No, we're not, we're on the plains of Moab. But it's odd. But it's not hard to get what he's doing. He's a preacher. Preachers often use, we use our words. This is what gets us into trouble. There are literalists in our crowd. Nicodemus says, You mean I have to crawl into my mummy's tummy again and be born again? He's a literalist. You must be born again. Don’t you get the point, Nicodemus. You should know better what I'm talking about. Well, so that's what we have. 

A couple of observations here. Moses announces the significance of the events at Horeb. “On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Israel at Horeb.” 

Two. Rhetorically, Moses transports this generation - his immediate audience - back to there. Obviously, contrary to fact, he declares that Yahweh didn't make the covenant with their fathers, that is the Exodus generation, but with the people standing in front of him. Obviously, it's not true literally since most of these hadn't been born. Oh, there were some of those who were under 20 at Sinai, they were here. But the rest of them, it’s a brand-new generation, which is remarkable. 

Think about it. The people that bore the external marks of the covenant, circumcision, (now we're going to Galatians and Romans), they came out of Egypt. A circumcised people, they experienced the Exodus. They had met Yahweh at the mountain. They are dismissed as irrelevant while this generation, which was uncircumcised, they're the true covenant people. It's a shocker. It's a shocker. If only Paul's detractors would have picked this up. 

Third, Moses highlights how intimate and direct the original encounter with Yahweh was. Yahweh had invited the people into His presence for an audience with Himself. That's what worship involves, entrance into the presence of God that He might speak to us. It's not about us speaking to Him. It's about Him speaking to us. And this is an awesome moment. 

 And then he talks about his own role. “At that time,” oh, by the way, “I was standing between Yahweh and you to declare to you the word of God, Yahweh, because you were afraid of the fire and wouldn’t go up the mountain.” So, he's already hinting at what happened at the end of the Lord‘s speaking as we'll have more detail in verse 23 and following. 

An observation here. In recalling the people's response, he alludes to the moment Yahweh officially installed him as mediator of divine revelation from that point on. He will say more on this later, but that's the authority that underlies this address. Listen, I am the authorized spokesman. You saw it with your own eyes how the Lord authorized me. In most instances, the call of prophets happened privately. But the call of Moses to prophetic ministry happened publicly in the eyes of all the people. And so, he's alluding to that. 

Well, that sets the stage then for verses 6 to 22, which is the recitation of the Decalogue. And notice how he begins, “He said,” which reminds us that what follows is presented as a citation of God's own speech. The Decalogue may be the most familiar text in Deuteronomy, but it's often sorely misinterpreted. I've already hinted at that. But it presents us with a rare opportunity to observe a particular text in two versions, for what Moses recites orally, largely repeats what we find in Exodus. 

But you do have other references or examples of this that come very, very early. Here is a papyrus, which is in the Cambridge University Library. It's a nice little papyrus piece, but it was found in Egypt and it is dated to 150 to 200 B.C. So, this is older than any Hebrew manuscripts that we had until they discovered some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, it's very old. It's B.C., two centuries before Christ. 

Well, this is an interesting document because on it you find the Decalogue and (we'll come back to it later), the shema is at the bottom, right after. So, this was presumably a text that was used for private liturgical exercises, devotional exercises, presumably. It doesn't tell us what it is, but it's an eclectic text when it has the Decalogue, sometimes it follows Exodus, and sometimes it's like Deuteronomy. So, whoever produced this document says, let's catch the best of both worlds. And so, it's that. 

It also has some features that were unique to the Septuagint translation. So even there it goes off the Hebrew and sounds like the Alexandrian version that was used in Egypt. 

We also have a Dead Sea scroll of the Decalogue from 100 years later, about 50 B.C. So, there is a version and you can see how they were writing it - note, if you look closely - without vowels, it's always only consonantal text, without vowels, and then the spacing usually becomes significant, but not always. 

Four or five years ago, I was in Bologna to celebrate the rediscovery of a scroll, a Torah scroll, that had been in the Bologna library for hundreds of years. Everybody always thought this was an 18th century poorly produced scroll, until the professor, Mauro Perani, discovered it and devoted his attention to this scroll and he discovered, No, this is not a late document. In fact, it is the earliest complete Torah scroll that we have. The whole thing is there from 1155 to 1225. This is the Torah scroll and we have the Decalogue. 

Well, here is the Decalogue from about 1200 B.C. This is how we have the Decalogue here. This is interesting for us when we're trying to figure out where do we divide the commands and everything, the spacing that they have. But in any case, this is the Deuteronomy version, and this is the Exodus version. They're both in this whole big, massive scroll. One person can hardly lift the whole thing. And you could see from this how big it is. Made of sheepskin leather. Well, it's very heavy. It's heavier than paper. 

Well, what else can we say about this? “He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform” the Greek words “that is the Ten Words, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.” We've seen all of this. 

But why ten words? We've emphasized, so you can memorize it, so that you don't have to have the document in front of you when you're having covenant renewal sermons. In fact, to this day, the Festival of Pentecost, in Jewish tradition 50 days after Passover, the Festival of Pentecost celebrates the covenant, God making the covenant at Sinai, and they recite the Decalogue as part of the covenant rituals. 

So, these are the words, debārîm. The ten words could be words, objects, events, statements. I prefer in terms of meaning, ten foundational principles or covenant relationship. 

But let's look at the distinctive character of Deuteronomy, because we're studying Deuteronomy, we're not studying Exodus. So, what we want to do is ask what is Deuteronomy doing with this thing that is uniquely Deuteronomic, or should we now say Mosaic? 

We mentioned this before. The first two commands, by my numbering, you've got the prologue, the front part, “I am Yahweh your God” which in Jewish tradition is part of the first word. So it's not a separate preamble. But here, command number one, “You shall have no other gods.” In the two versions, they are virtually identical. So, if you know the Exodus one, you know the meaning of this one. 

But notice that when we look at this command about no other gods, it has fragments of blessings and curses. In treaty documents, blessings and curses were regularly separated out into a section at the back. We'll have this in chapter 28; we'll see it there. But here, “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image in the form of anything in heaven above or on earth below or in the waters below the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself before them or serve them; for I, Yahweh your God, am Impassioned El”, impassioned God. Remember our discussion of jealous? I treasure this relationship. And that's why you don't go make other gods, because I have exclusive right to your allegiance. So that's where He starts. 

But then look at this, “who holds fathers who reject me accountable for the guilt they impose on their children to the third and fourth generations but who demonstrates unfailing love to a thousandth generation, to those who demonstrate love for me, and to those who keep my commands.” 

Well, what are we going to do with this? These are fragments of a curse and a blessing. I hold accountable those who are guilty and make other idols, and I hold the whole family responsible, or infected, by what the head of the household has done. This is the problem. This is the problem here. If the head of a household makes an image, all the household is contaminated by that image. Which is why you have the injunction to the head of the household, Don't do this because other people's lives are at stake. It's out of respect for God, yes, but it's also out of respect for the well-being of your household. Don't go there. And so, you have a virtual curse: They will suffer. 

Remember Achan when they took Jericho? Achan said, It's a shame to destroy all this silver and gold and whatever, and he kept a little bit. The interesting thing is when they dealt with Achan with whom else did they deal? We'll come to this in chapter eight, where he says, or chapter seven, if you touch that defiled object, you become defiled like it and subject to the same law. So that's what it means. If a head of a household brings an idol into the house the whole place is contaminated. That's the point. Watch it. That's the curse. But the other side of it is that it is to the third and fourth generation 

But that He demonstrates unfailing love. There's that word hesed, my favorite word in the Bible. It's on my license plate, hesed. It captures all the positive attributes of God in one word: mercy, grace, faithfulness, love, kindness, which is why we regularly render it with two English words. We have no English word in one word captures hesed, and so. Thy loving kindness is better than life. That's the old King James - loving kindness, love and kindness, or I think NIV, His unfailing love, something like that. That's what I do with this one. It's loyal love or unfailing love because it's covenantal commitment enacted. That's this word. 

But the interesting thing is whereas He visits the sins of fathers to the third and fourth generation, He visits with unfailing love to a thousandth generation of those who demonstrate love for Me, and to those who keep My commands. 

 So, you can see in this one that the Lord doesn't delight in death, He doesn't delight in punishment. He delights in lavishing hesed on people to a thousand generations. The proportion here is unbelievable. And we need to capture this. There are lots of people who don't like the God of the First Testament (or the Old Testament) but if they read something like this, that should solve it. 

But notice how I'm translating love. “But to those who love Me and keep My commands.” Malamat says you use two words. Who demonstrate love for me, that is by keeping My commands. Jesus says, If you love Me, tell me. No, He doesn't. He says, if you love me, keep My commands. That's what the word means. All right. Those are the first ones. 

But now we come to the second group of commands, the Sabbath command, which is a long one in both cases, three verses, eight, nine, ten, eleven. Four in Exodus and four in Deuteronomy as well. 

Now, the change between remember the Sabbath. There's a reason why that's ‘remember’ and Deuteronomy has ‘observe’. It wouldn't make sense in the order. Because the first is about the original creation. Remember how God kept the Sabbath, that becomes the ground for how you keep the Sabbath in Exodus. But in this one, it's observe the Sabbath. It's not so much about memory. It's about doing, observing here. Šāmar means to keep, to guard. 

But the interesting thing here is, as pastor, he can keep reminding the people, These are not my words, he says, As Yahweh, your God commands you. That's Moses, the preacher talking. This is not my command, it's God's word. As Yahweh commanded you, six days you labor. 

But then he highlights the importance of this command by fleshing it out. “Neither you or your son or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock.” I guess then we could conclude sheep, except we don't use them for work. But I guess the thing is, if you're going to use any other animals for this kind of work, they're all covered. They're all covered. He's not leaving any part unaffected by this. 

But then look at this, “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and Yahweh your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and outstretched arm. So, keep the Sabbath.” And of course, it's not about just the head of the household, keep the Sabbath. This is all singular, you. You, head of the house, will keep the Sabbath. He keeps the Sabbath by insisting that everybody gets a Sabbath. It's not only that he doesn't work on Sunday, Saturday. It's that nobody in this household, they're all being refreshed. So, this is Deuteronomy at its best. 

All right. Let's go to honor your father and your mother. And here, as Yahweh your God commanded you, I'm not telling you. Now, we have to talk a little bit about this. But remember, this is addressed to an adult male. It is not addressed to a teenager. 

You know, we often abuse scripture by quoting it in the wrong contexts. If my son, teenage son, is sassing me, I have no business quoting this text. It's written to me. I need to hear it. What my sassy teenage son needs to hear is, or needs to witness is, me honoring my father and my mother. On the other hand, if my kids sass their mother. I will use this. I will. Not to protect me. It's not self-interest. It's to protect the right of my wife to the respect of the children. 

And, you know, we're all guys in this room. We do this with Paul and, you know, be subject to one another, husbands love your wives, and wives be submissive to your husbands. When I preach 1 Peter, is it 1 Peter Chapter 5, where he talks about how women should behave and then how men should behave? [recte Ephesians chapter 5] When I preach that text, I tell the men in the initial part to tune out, this is none of your business. They shouldn't even need to know that that's in the Bible if it's written for the other group. They have enough to deal with their own text; we’ll get to you. And that's in the. I've forgotten which order it is. 

But in any case, texts like this should be used discreetly, not in self-interest. That's abuse. You've got to respect me; the Bible tells you to respect me. That is off track completely. The Bible tells me to respect my mother and my father, and that's what my kids need to see in me. 

Or, if I am the youth leader and I see some of these kids sassing their parents, as youth leader, I can say to them, stop it. Stop it. Have you been brought out of Egypt? That's not a part of the redeemed people's character. We don't behave that way. We honor the rights of our parents. But in any case, that's honor your father. 

You shall not kill. You asked about this, does this mean? Of course, it doesn't mean any kind of killing. God authorized sacrifices. You shall kill. You shall kill. But the word here involves the willful taking of another human being's life in self-interest. There are lots of occasions in the scripture where God tells people to kill other people in battle, whatever else; wipe out the Canaanites. This is not a contradiction to that. Remember, we're talking to the head of the household. He is not to go around cheapening other people's lives by taking their lives in his own self-interest. 

So the willful taking of another person's life, this is taboo here. Don't you go doing that. Of course, you can slaughter an ox to eat it or offer a sacrifice, but you don't take another person's life who is made in the image of God as you are yourself. This is making Pharaoh out of yourself. Self-interest. 

You shall not steal. You shall not testify falsely. This is interesting. Testifying falsely means to tell an untruth in a court of law. Testifying uselessly is, in the course of the proceedings, talk about stuff that gets people off track. And of course, the famous one is - it depends what ‘is’ is. Some of us remember that. It's pathetic. This is about making comments in legal proceedings that don't lead to justice, that lead you off track. The guilty should always be punished and the innocent should always be set free. And any legal system that tries to make a guilty person look innocent is a faulty system. But we have people who earn a living doing that, making right look wrong and wrong, look right. And we do it all the time. That's not justice. That's not righteousness. 

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Oh, now look what he's done with that one. Exodus had, “You shall not covet your neighbor's house,” and then, “You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or female servant or ox or donkey.” Interpret the function of this first statement: “You shall not covet your neighbor's house.” What does house mean? 

Student: Household? 

Dr. Block: Household, household. On the surface, that's how an exploitative husband, head of the household could interpret it - household. And then he talks about what follows - that means coveting your neighbor's wife, male servant, female servant. When you do it that way, what's the status of the woman in the neighbor’s household? 

Student: She’s part of his belongings. 

Dr. Block: She’s part of the belongings. She's just property like everybody. And of course, this is where this is where the literature is. In the First Testament, in ancient Israel, it was a patriarchal world in which women were nothing more than property of their husbands. But you've got to distinguish very quickly between the picture painted in the narratives of scripture and the picture painted in the constitutional documents. These are two different things. 

Abraham went off track when he gave his wife to aliens and said, “Have her, you can have her, just spare my skin.” This is abuse of the first order. What's wrong with you, Abraham? But he’s the head of the household. I guess he can do that. No, you don't do that. You shall not covet your... 

But what does Moses do here? He reverses the order. House, wife. He has ‘wife’ first, and then ‘you shall’. In budgeting, I know nothing about finance, but in budgeting we have line items. In this new budget, he gives the woman her own line item. He isolates her from the household and makes her a point herself. “You shall not covet your neighbor's wife,” period. 

But then look at what he does to the next. “You shall not desire.” To be sure that you're treating these as two separate commands, he changes the verb. They're virtual synonyms. It's stylistic. But look at what he does, “You shall not desire your neighbor's house”, and he adds, “his field.” Now, what does house mean? 

Student: The home? The physical building. 

Dr. Block: It’s not household anymore. It's the home, as opposed to the field where you do your work. It's the house, the actual house, the building. Don't covet your neighbor's house, home. It's not household. 

And then he says the rest of it, “You shall not desire your neighbor's house or his field, his male servant or female servant, his ox or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” What he's done is he has taken the wife completely out of the household so that if you're inclined, as men often are, to treat everybody around you like property, he says, We're not going there. If you are the king in this household, she's queen. And we're isolating her for that sort of respect. Honor your father and your mother. They're both in that. 

But you see, again, what Moses is doing. He's a pastor. He knows how men are. He knows that we can be literalists. And if you take that Exodus version that she's part of the household, which means she's property, that is, in fact, how they often treated women. And that's the problem. The narrators, the narratives expose the problems of Israel rather than describe the ideals. In most instances, they are flawed characters. 

So, this is what's happening here in the Decalogue. You notice what's happening is that he is protecting potential victims of male abuse. In our culture, we need to hear this, guys. I am the biggest threat to my kids’ and my family's well-being. And it's me, the person with power, who needs to be reined in. It ain't about power. It's about securing the well-being. So, this is what we have. 

And then, of course this text ends with the document clause of verse 22. In my Bible, the heading, Moses interceded, (this is New American Standard), comes before verse 22. Wrong. Whoever did this, the editors, didn't know what they were doing. Verse 22 belongs with verse 21 and then you have the break. “These words,” it's a colophon; it's a title at the end reminding us of what's happened. “These words the Lord spoke to the assembly at the mountain, from the midst of the fire and the cloud and the thick gloom. He added no more,” period. “He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.” Now it's closed. 

This is the document clause in a covenant procedure. God has provided the Israelites with a document confirming that this covenant is real. In keeping with ancient Near Eastern tradition, He provided the Israelites with a copy of the basic document and reassured Israel of His commitment by creating a copy for Himself. I know your commitments, I got it. But I also know mine, I've got that too. 

Again, I remind you, these two tablets have nothing to do with vertical and horizontal dimensions of covenant life. Nothing to do with that. That's fiction. It may be homiletically edifying, but it's exegetically without foundation. Don't go there. The significance is far bigger than that. 

Concluding comments. The Decalogue seeks to create a domestic environment in which the head of the household serves those in his charge, (I use that word very intentionally) serves those in his charge as a responsible and compassionate husband and father. This has profound ethical implications for the role of the head of household. 

This picture from King and Stager illustrates what a household looks like. It's a compound which has multiple dwellings. And presumably papa and mama are there. And you've got the kids, and they’ve got the grandkids. You could have four generations in a place like this. And theoretically, the head of the household is the oldest person. But by the time you get to my age, then I am literally the oldest person, but I'm not the functioning head anymore. You've left it to the next generation. That's the one he's talking to. The ones who are exercising the authority in this family unit. And you are to keep everybody's well-being in mind in the way you run that outfit. This is an economic unit which they had. 

Now, let's talk about the difference between patriarchal structures and patricentric structures. In patriarchal structures, archon, rule, is the problem. This is how it works. It's called, the Hebrew word for family is, ‘house of the father.’ 

Two or three times in scripture, you have ‘house of the mother’, but in those cases, it always refers to the wife who, or a daughter, who goes back to the house of her mother. It is not about administrivia, administration of the household. It's the house of the mother, because that's where a daughter finds security if the marriage isn't working out very well. And so, Naomi tells Ruth, don't come with me. We're going to a threatening world for you. You'll be an alien. It's a different land. It's a different country, different God, everything. Go back to your mother's house. You'll be at home there. She'll welcome you back. Once a mother, always a mother. So that's what. 

But here, the assumption here is papa is forgetting about mama. That's what the word means. It's the house of the father. And this is the word for family. The problem happens when the father becomes the center of the universe so that all of the economy functions to maintain the status of the male head. This is where David Klein was off track. He thinks that's what it's doing, functioning, bolstering. No, it's doing the opposite. This is the problem in patriarchal world. 

What's the alternative? That's the alternative. This is patricentricism. It is the house of the father, but the father is not the center of the universe here; the father is the chief servant of all so that his energies are expended in the interests of the other people rather than him seeing to it that all the energies are there to make him happy or whatever, sustain him, support him. 

This is my way of representing a regenerate world. In Egypt they've got the patriarchal world. In Israel, we've got patricentric and it's a responsible patricentricism where the husbands view themselves as God's agent of mercy and grace to all those in their charge. It's not a power position. It's a privilege, but not power. It is a position of responsibility. 

Concluding comments. The Decalogue seeks to create a domestic environment in which the head of the household serves those in his charge as a responsible, compassionate husband and father. This has ethical implications for the role of the head of the household, for the nature of covenant ethic. Remember, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself.” And that applied, first of all, to the head of households. You shall demonstrate love. And if this is what drives us, it will be a healthy world again. 

We understand now Jesus’ reduction of all of the commands to simple. If we lived according to this, you wouldn't need any of the other commands. It would all be taken care of. You wouldn't need any commands on abusing animals or abusing other people or stealing or murder or whatever. Because in cases of conflict, we’d always defer to one another. Your rights are more important than mine. And I'm here for you rather than you here for me. This is where we've got our culture of individual; the individual as the center of the universe is so faulty. 

Love. Covenant commitment demonstrated in action in the interest of the other person. That's what we have happening here. 

The relationship of the Decalogue to the other constitutional documents. And this is responding to many theologians and New Testament scholars especially, who try to salvage the Decalogue as a Christian document; we don't have to do anything with the rest. And I've heard so many sermon series by preachers on the Decalogue. I've never heard any on Deuteronomy seven, eight or nine or ten or eleven, never, not once, haven't heard any sermons on that. But the Decalogue we will. But we usually preach the Exodus version when we should be preaching the Deuteronomy version because it addresses more explicitly the issues that are problematic. 

But the relationship, the world view of the Decalogue is not one bit different from the worldview of all the rest of the Torah. Now, speaking of Pentateuch. This is the world of the covenant, where he is creating a picture of the world in which love governs. Not as an emotion. Why can't we just love each other and get along? It's not that. But where we all live in the interests of the other person rather than in self-interest. 

Well, the account ends with the people's response to the revelation. We've talked about this before. They said, Stop, stop. We can't handle any of this. We'll all die. He reviews it here in frightening detail. They beg Moses to come, and you be the lightning rod. You go into the presence of the Lord; you take the shock and then relay to us what He does. And Yahweh approves their response. 

It's interesting. I've heard so many people say that, You know, the Israelites should never have done this. This was an act of unbelief. But Moses’ interpretation here is quite different. Verse 28, “The Lord heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me. And the Lord said, ‘I've heard the voice of the people on this matter and that’s a good idea.’” He approves. They've done well in everything they've said. But then He says, “If only this disposition would prevail”, and of course, God knows this crew. And He anticipates it won't always be this positive, but in this moment, that's right, that's a good idea. 

And that's why Moses is then inducted into the position of prophet, the mouthpiece of God. Which leads then to six, verses 2 to 3, which sets the stage for him now unpacking the Decalogue. And the rest of this document, that is this sermon, he won't get past the first command or the second command, but he unpacks. He sets the stage. “This is the command, the ordinances and the stipulations that the Lord has commanded me to teach you that you might do them in the land so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God. Keep all His ordinances, His commands that I command you all the days of your life, O Israel,” here's another shema, he ends with a shema, “O Israel. You should listen. Be careful to do it that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly just as Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has promised you in the land flowing with milk and honey.” 

This is the dream, people. Here it is. We're laying it out before you. The land's over there. Enjoy. But keep the covenant. Because God has graciously called you to relationship with Himself. 

Well, I think that's as much as we have to say about this. The Decalogue is, to me, a very precious document. 

When I was young, we had somebody who came around to our churches, out in the country schools of Saskatchewan, he was from the other side of the river, but he went around to the schools encouraging people to memorize scripture. You could do that in those days. And he came to our school, and if you would memorize 200 verses of scripture, then you would either get a free Bible or whatever else. There was a reward for memorizing. And you had to affirm to the teacher that you had memorized 200 verses of scripture. And our teachers weren't necessarily Christian but they were part of this and they supported it. 

And my first encounter with this document, seriously, was I memorized this as a kid. But I learned to hate this text because I memorized it while I was in an unregenerate state. And my reason for memorizing it was all wrong, to get a reward. Even if it was a Bible. I mean, I grew up in a Christian home and you got to have a Bible. I'd have a new Bible, not just a hand-me-down from one of my older brothers. Eight older brothers. So not just a hand. I’d have my own new Bible, so that's why I did it. But I did it when I hadn't left Egypt. No, I hated this text. 

But not until after, long after I had left Egypt, I rediscovered this text and I discovered the glorious gospel that is here. This is not legalism. It's anything but. God doesn't, God is not into a legalistic worldview. Never has been. He's into a covenantal worldview where everybody exists for the sake of everybody else. To the praise of His glory.