From: Exodus 20:1-17
The Ten Commandments
[3] “You shall have no other gods before me.
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water un-
der the earth; [5] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD
your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, [6] but showing
steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
[7] “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the LORD will
not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
[8] “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days you shall labor, and
do all your work; [10] but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in
it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant,
or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; [11]
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and
hallowed it.
[12] “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in
the land which the LORD your God gives you.
[13] “You shall not kill.
[14] “You shall not commit adultery.
[15] “You shall not steal.
[16] “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
[17] “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neigh-
bor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or any-
thing that is your neighbor’s.”
*********************************************************************************************
Commentary:
20:1-21. “Decalogue” comes from the Greek, meaning “ten words” (cf. the literal
sense of Deut 4:13). It consists of the Ten Commandments or moral code, recor-
ded here and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The Decalogue is dealt with in a very spe-
cial way here: for one thing, it is embedded in the account of the theophany, slot-
ted in between 19:19 and 20:18; for another, attached to the concise command-
ments (identical in Exodus and Deuteronomy) are other more elaborate command-
ments (giving reasons and explanations) which differ as between the two versions.
The fact that the Decalogue (and not any other legal code of the Pentateuch) is
repeated practically verbatim in Exodus and Deuteronomy and has from ancient
times been reproduced separately, as the Nash papyrus (2nd century BC) shows,
indicates the importance the Decalogue always had among the people of Israel
as a moral code.
On the supposition that the versions in Exodus and Deuteronomy can be reduced
to a single original text, the variations between them can be explained in terms of
the applications of the commandments to the circumstances of the period when
each version was made; the final redaction, which we have here, is the one held
to be inspired. The apodictic form (future imperative, second person: “You shall
not kill”) is that proper to biblical commandments and it differs from the casuisti-
cal type of wording that Israel shares with other Semitic people, as can be seen
from the Code of the Covenant (chaps 21-23).
The ten commandments are the core of Old Testament ethics and they retain
their value in the New Testament. Jesus often reminds people about them (cf. Lk
18:20) and he fills them out (cf. Mt 5:17ff). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church
have commented on them at length because, as St Thomas points out, all the
precepts of the natural law are contained in the Decalogue: the universal precepts,
such as “Do good and avoid evil”, “which are primary and general, are contained
therein as principles in their proximate conclusions, while conversely, those which
are mediated by the wise are contained in them as conclusions in their principles”
(”Summa Theologiae”, 1-2, 100, 3).
The commandments tend to be divided up in two different ways: thus, Jews and
many Christian confessions divide the first commandment into two—the precept
to adore only one God (vv. 2-3) and that of not making images (vv. 3-6); whereas
Catholics and Lutherans (following St Augustine) make these commandments
one and divide into two the last commandments (not to covet one’s neighbor’s
wife: the ninth; and not to covet his goods: the tenth).
There is nothing sacrosanct about these divisions (their purpose is pedagogi-
cal); whichever way the commandments are divided, the Decalogue stands. In
our commentary we follow St Augustine’s division and make reference to the
teaching of the Church, because the Ten Commandments contain the core of
Christian morality (cf. the notes on Deut 5:1-22).
20:2. Hittite peoples (some of whose political and social documents have sur-
vived) used to begin peace treaties with an historical introduction, that is, by re-
counting the victory of a king over a vassal on whom specific obligations were
being imposed. In a similar sort of way, the Decalogue begins by recalling the
Exodus. However, what we have here is something radically different from a Hit-
tite pact, because the obligation that the commandments imply is not based on
a defeat but on a deliverance. God is offering the commandments to the people
whom he has delivered from bondage, whereas human princes imposed their
codes on peoples whom they had reduced to vassalage. The commandments
are therefore an expression of the Covenant. Acceptance of them is a sign that
man has attained maturity in his freedom. “Man becomes free when he enters
into the Covenant of God? (Aphraates, “Demonstrationes”, 12). Jesus stressed
the same idea: “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt 11:30).
20:3-6 “You shall love God above all things” is the wording of the first command-
ment given in most catechisms (cf. “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2083)
summarizing the teaching of Jesus (cf. Mk 12:28-31, which quotes the text of
Deuteronomy 6:4-5. In the ten commandments this precept covers two aspects
— monotheism (v. 3) and the obligation not to adore idols or images of the Lord
(vv. 4-6). Belief in the existence of only one God is the backbone of the entire
Bible message. The prophets will openly teach monotheism, holding that God
is the sovereign Lord of the universe and of time; but this ban on other gods it-
self implies the sure conviction that there is only one true God. “You shall have
no other gods before [or, besides] me”, implies a belief in one God, that is mo-
notheism.
The ban on images was something that marked Israel as different from other peo-
ples. The ban not only covered idols or images of other gods, but also represen-
tations of the Lord.
The one true God is spiritual and transcendent: he cannot be controlled or mani-
pulated (unlike the gods of Israel’s neighbors). On the basis of the mystery of the
incarnate Word Christians began to depict scenes from the Gospel and in so do-
ing they knew that this was not at odds with God’s freedom nor did it make for
idolatry. The Church venerates images because they are representations either
of Jesus who, being truly man had a body, or of saints, who as human beings
were portrayable and worthy of veneration. The Second Vatican Council recom-
mended the veneration of sacred images, while calling for sobriety and beauty:
“The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they be venerated by
the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate
and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise the Christian
people may find them incongruous and they may foster devotion of doubtful ortho-
doxy” (”Sacrosancturn Concilium”, 125).
20:5-6. “A jealous God”: an anthropomorphism emphasizing the uniqueness of
God. Since he is the only true God, he cannot abide either the worship of other
gods (cf. 34:14) or worship of idols. Idolatry is the gravest and most condemned
sin in the Bible (cf. “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2113). Those in charge
of worship in the temple are described as being “jealous” for the Lord (cf. Num
25:13; 1 Kings 19:10, 14), because they have to watch to ensure that no devia-
tions occur. When expelling the money-changers from the temple (Jn 2:17), Je-
sus refers to this aspect of priests’ responsibility; “Zeal for thy house has con-
sumed me” (Ps 69:9).
On the Lord’s merciful retribution, cf. the note on Ex 34:6-7.
20:7. Respect for God’s name is respect for God himself. Hence this prohibition
on invoking the name of the Lord to gain credence for evil, be it at a trial (by com-
mitting perjury), or by swearing to do something evil, or by blasphemy (cf. Sir 23:
7-12). In ancient times, Israel’s neighbors used the names of their gods in magi-
cal conjuration; in such a situation the invoking of the Lord’s name is idolatrous.
In general, this commandment forbids any abuse, any disrespect, any irreverent
use of the name of God. And, to put it positively, “The second commandment
‘prescribes respect for the Lord’s name’. Like the first commandment, it belongs
to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sa-
cred matters” (”Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2142).
20:8-11 Israel’s history evidently influenced the formulation of the sabbath precept,
given that the usual apodictic mode is not used and that the prescriptions concer-
ning this day are very well developed.
The commandment includes three ideas: the sabbath is a holy day, dedicated to
the Lord; work is forbidden on it; one reason for it is to imitate God, who rested
from creation on the seventh day.
The sabbath is a holy day, that is, different from ordinary days (cf. Lev 23:3) be-
cause it is dedicated to God. No special rites are prescribed but the word “rem-
ember” (different from “observe” in Deuteronomy 5:10) is a word with cultic asso-
ciations. Whatever the etymology or social origin of the sabbath was, in the Bible
it is always something holy (cf. 16:22-30).
Sabbath rest implies that there is an obligation to work on the previous six days
(v. 9). Work is the only justification for rest. The Hebrew word “sabat” actually
means “sabbath” and “rest”. But on this day rest acquires a cultic value, for no
special sacrifices or rites are prescribed for the sabbath: the whole community,
and even animals, render homage to God by ceasing from their labors.
20:12 The fourth is the first commandment to do with interpersonal relationships
(the subject of the second “table” as ancient Christian writers used to term these
commandments: cf. “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2197). Like the sabbath
precept, it is couched in a positive way, its direct reference is to family members.
The fact that it comes immediately after the precepts that refer to God shows its
importance. Parents, in effect, represent God within the family circle.
The commandment has to do not only with young children (cf. Prov 19:26; 20:
20; 23:22;; 30:17), who have a duty to remain subject to their parents (Deut 21:
18-21), but to all children whatever their age, because it is offenses committed
by older children that incur a curse (cf. Deut 17:16).
The promise of a long life to those who keep this commandment shows how im-
portant it is for the individual, and also the importance the family has for society.
The Second Vatican Council summed up the value of the family by calling it the
“domestic church” (”Lumen Gentium”, 11; cf. Bl. John Paul II, “Familiaris Con-
sortio”, 21).
20:13. The fifth commandment directly forbids vengeful killing of one’s enemy,
that is, murder; so it protects the sacredness of human life. The prohibition on
murder already comes across in the account of the death of Abel (cf. Gen 4:10)
and the precepts given to Noah (cf. Gen 9:6): life is something that belongs to
God alone.
Revelation and the teaching of the Church tell us more about the scope of this
precept: it is only in very specific circumstances (such as social or personal self-
defense) that a person may be deprived of his or her life. Obviously, the killing of
weaker members of society (abortion, direct euthanasia) is a particularly grave
sin.
The encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” spells out the Church’s teaching on this com-
mandment which “has absolute value when it refers to the ‘innocent person’. [...]
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Succes-
sors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, ‘I confirm that
the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely im-
moral’” (Bl. John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae”, 57).
Our Lord taught that the positive meaning of this commandment was the obliga-
tion to practise charity (cf. Mt 5:21-26): “In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord
recalls the commandment, ‘You shall not kill’ (Mt 5:21), and adds to it the pro-
scription of anger, hatred and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples
to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies (cf. Mt 5:22-28). He did not defend
himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath (cf. Mt 26:52)?” (”Cate-
chism of the Catholic Church”, 2262).
20:14. The sixth commandment is orientated to safeguarding the holiness of mar-
riage. In the Old Testament there were very severe penalties for those who com-
mitted adultery (cf. Deut 22:23ff; Lev 20:10). As Revelation progresses, it will be-
come clear that not only is adultery grave, because it damages the rights of the
other spouse, but every sexual disorder degrades the dignity of the person and is
an offense against God (cf., e.g., Prov 7:8-27; 23:27-28). Jesus Christ, by his life
and teaching, showed the positive thrust of this precept (cf. Mt 5:27-32): “Jesus
came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount,
he interprets God’s plan strictly: ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not
commit adultery.” But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Mt 5:27-28). What God has
joined together, let not man put asunder (cf. Mt 19:6). The tradition of the Church
has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human
sexuality” (”Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2336).
20:15. Because the Decalogue is regulating inter-personal relationships, this
commandment condemns firstly the abducting of persons in order to sell them
into slavery (cf. Deut 24:7) but obviously it covers unjust appropriation of ano-
ther’s goods. The Church continues to remind us that every violation of the right
to property is unjust (cf. “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 2409); but this is
particularly true if actions of that type lead to the enslavement of human beings,
or to depriving them of their dignity, as happens in traffic in children, trade in hu-
man embryos, the taking of hostages, arbitrary arrest or imprisonment, racial se-
gregation, concentration camps, etc. “The seventh commandment forbids acts
or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial or totalita-
rian—lead to the “enslavement of human beings”, to their being bought, sold and
exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin a-
gainst the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by vio-
lence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St Paul directed a Chris-
tian master to treat his Christian slave ‘no longer as a slave but more than a
slave, as a beloved brother...both in the flesh and in the Lord’ (Philem 16)” (”Ca-
techism of the Catholic Church”, 24 14).
20:16. Giving false testimony in court can cause one’s neighbor irreparable da-
mage because an innocent person may be found guilty. But, given that truth and
fidelity in human relationships is the basis of social life (cf. Vatican II, “Gaudium
Et Spes”, 26), this commandment prohibits lying, defamation (cf. Sir 7:12-13),
calumny and the saying of anything that might detract from a neighbor’s dignity
(cf. Jas 3:1-12). “This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy peo-
ple to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses a-
gainst the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral
uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they un-
dermine the foundations of the covenant” (”Catechism of the Catholic Church”,
2464).
20:17. The wording of this precept is different from that in Deuteronomy: there
the distinction is made between coveting one’s neighbor’s wife and coveting his
goods (cf. Deut 5:21). “St John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or con-
cupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In
the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concu-
piscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods” (”Catechism of the Catholic
Church”, 2514).
*********************************************************************************************
Source: “The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries”. Biblical text from the
Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries by members of
the Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre, Spain.
Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, and
by Scepter Publishers in the United States.
From: 1 Corinthians 1:22-25
The Wisdom of the Cross
*********************************************************************************************
Commentary:
20-25. After stressing the importance of the message of the Cross, St Paul now
contrasts the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world.
By “wisdom of the world” he means the attitude of man when he is not pursuing
his proper goal: this term “world”, which has various meanings in Sacred Scripture
(cf. note on Jn 17:14-16), in St Paul has the pejorative meaning of “all sinful men”,
people estranged from God (cf. 1 Cor 1:27; 2:12; 3:19; 5:10; 11:32). This human
wisdom cannot attain knowledge of God (cf. Rom 1:19-25), either because it de-
mands external signs or because it accepts only rational arguments.
For the Jews only signs will do—miracles which prove God’s presence (cf. Mt
12:38ff; Lk 11:29); they want to base their faith on things the senses can perceive.
For people with this attitude, the cross of Christ is a scandal, that is, a stumbling
block, which makes it impossible for them to gain access to divine things, because
they have in some way imposed limits as to how God may reveal himself and how
he may not.
The Greeks—St Paul is referring to the Rationalists of his time—think that they are
the arbiters of truth, and that anything which cannot be proved by logical argument
is nonsense. “For the world, that is, for the prudent of the world, their wisdom
turned into blindness; it could not lead them to see God [...]. Therefore, since the
world had become puffed up by the vanity of its dogmas, the Lord set in place the
faith whereby believers would be saved by what seemed unworthy and foolish, so
that, all human conjecture being of no avail, only the grace of God might reveal
what the human mind cannot take in” (St Leo the Great, “Fifth Nativity Sermon”).
Christians, whom God has called out from among the Jews and the Gentiles, do
attain the wisdom of God, which consists in faith, “a supernatural virtue. By that
faith, with the inspiration and help of God’s grace, we believe that what he has
revealed is true—not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of rea-
son, but because of the authority of God who reveals it, who can neither deceive
nor be deceived” (Vatican I, “Dei Filius”, chap. 3). The same council goes on to
teach that faith is in conformity with reason (cf. Rom 12:1) and that, in addition
to God’s help, external signs—miracles and prophecies—and rational argument
do act as supports of faith.
21. “In the wisdom of God ...”: this has been interpreted in two ways, which com-
plement one another. Roughly, the first interpretation is this: according to God’s
most wise designs, since the world could not attain knowledge of God by its own
efforts, through philosophy, through those elaborate systems of thought the
Greeks were so proud of, God decided to save believers through the preaching of
the Cross, which to human eyes seemed foolishness, a stumbling block (v. 22).
The second interpretation, favored by many Fathers and by St Thomas Aquinas,
contrasts divine wisdom—as manifested in creation and in the Old Testament—
with human wisdom. It runs on these lines: since the world, because of its distor-
ted view of things, failed to attain knowledge of God, despite the way he manifes-
ted himself in creation (cf. Rom 1:19-20) and Sacred Scripture, God has decided
to save man in a remarkable, paradoxical way which better reflects divine wisdom
—the preaching of the Cross.
In both interpretations it is clear that the Apostle is trying to squeeze into one
expression a number of truths—that God’s salvific plans are eternal; that human
wisdom, which is capable, on its own, of discovering God through his works, has
become darkened; that the Cross is the climax of the all-wise plans of God; that
man cannot be truly wise unless he accepts “the wisdom of the cross”, no matter
how paradoxical it may seem.
25. In his plan of salvation God our Lord wants to use things which to man’s mind
seem foolish and weak, so that his wisdom and power will shine out all the more.
“All that Jesus Christ did for us has been meritorious for us; it has all been neces-
sary and advantageous to our salvation; his very weakness has been for us no
less useful than his majesty. For, if by the power of his divinity he has released
us from the captivity of sin, he has also, through the weakness of his flesh, des-
troyed death’s rights. As the Apostle so beautifully said, ‘the weakness of God is
stronger than men’; indeed, by this folly he has been pleased to save the world
by combating the wisdom of the world and confounding the wise; for, possessing
the nature of God and being equal to God, he abased himself, taking the form of
a servant; being rich, he became poor for love of us: being great, he became little;
being exalted, humble; he became weak, who was powerful; he suffered hunger
and thirst, he wore himself out on the roads and suffered of his own free will and
not by necessity. This type of folly, I repeat: has it not meant for us a way of wis-
dom, a model of justice and an example of holiness, as the same Apostle says:
‘The foolishness of God is wiser than men’? So true is this, that death has freed
us from death, life has freed us from error, and grace from sin” (St Bernard, “De
Laudibus Novae Militiae”, XI, 27).
*********************************************************************************************
Source: “The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries”. Biblical text from the
Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries by members of
the Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre, Spain.
Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, and
by Scepter Publishers in the United States.