Exodus or Deuteronomy or Both

[Dr. Shane]

Ever wonder which set of Commandments has the Fourth Commandent right?

I love the Commandment as found in Deuteronomy in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which don't even have it in Exodus)

[:"blue"] Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, your ox, nor your ass, nor your cattle, your stranger who is within your gates, so that your male servant and female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day to hollow it. For in six days the LORD made heaven, earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day; so the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it. (Deut. 5:12-15 DSSB) [/]

[phkrause]

They both are pretty much the same. In deuteronomy (which means the second law) moses is basicly going over everything that the israelites have been through just before they are to go into the promised land I believe, so the second time he goes through the ten commandments he seems to emphasize the commandments a little differently without changing what they are saying. But I do agree I like the deuteronomy reading also.

pkrause

[Robert]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

pkrause said:the second time he goes through the ten commandments he seems to emphasize the commandments a little differently without changing what they are saying.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The reason changes:

"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."

vs

"you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day."

The first reason is because God made the world perfect in 6 days and rested the 7th.

The 2nd reason is because He delivered the Jews from bondage.

Neither is a good reason for me to "rest"! Why? The creation no longer points to God's perfect work for it has been ruined by the fall. And I am not a Jew who was delivered from Egypt.

Rob

[Dr. Shane]

The Dead Seas Scrolls places both reasons together, which is interesting.

God has TWO claims to us. First, He made us. We belong to Him because He made us. He is the potter and we are the clay. Second, He redeemed us. He is like the boy who had his model ship stolen only to find it in a local pawn shop and to buy it back. God bought us with the precious blood of Christ.

To the Jews, God referenced their delivery from Egypt yet what He actually delivered both them and us from is SIN. "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin." (John 8:34)

When we keep the Sabbath holy we are recognizing both of God's claims on us. 1. He made us 2. He redeemed us.

[Gerr]

Takes a holy person to keep a holy day holy.

Takes a delivered person to celebrate a day that is symbolic of deliverance.

A person still under the bondage of spiritual Egypt cannot possibly appreciate the Sabbath.

[:"blue"]For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Rom 1:28,29 NKJ. [/]

Yep, takes a spiritual Jew to truly keep a spiritual Sabbath.

Gerry

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Robert said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

pkrause said:the second time he goes through the ten commandments he seems to emphasize the commandments a little differently without changing what they are saying.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The reason changes:

"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."

vs

"you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Both Exodus and Deut. versions of the Ten Commandments make mention of the Exodus movement and the deliverance of God's people from Egyptian bondage. Guess which of the two Catholics like the most, and why? I will post the reference for this when I come back...have to look it up first. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

In an article entitled The True Ten Commandments (This Rock: March 2004) you can read about how Catholics see the fourth commandment, and how they compare the two accounts of it in both Exodus and Deut. They start out in the article using the court case re the Ten Commandments statue being removed out of the courthouse, (somewhere in USA??), and the rest of it is quoted from the Rock article itself for your review:

Quote:

---

And yet, as Catholics watched the monument being removed from the judicial building in Alabama, they may have observed in a close-up shot of the commandments that they were not the same ten nor the numerical arrangement they had learned in childhood. The courthouse rendition read:

1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

Whereas the Catechism’s traditional presentation of the commandments for memorization are:

1. I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.

4. Honor your father and mother.

5. You shall not kill.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

7. You shall not steal.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

The early Christian church, received this catechetical tradition from the Church Fathers,especially Augustine. He relied heavily on the Decalogue as presented by Moses in

Deuteronomy 5. Thus, until the late Middle Ages, children memorized the commandments in the order as we still know it from the Catechism.

Even after the Reformation, Lutherans and Catholics agreed on this enumeration and arrangement. Calvin and other Reformers, relying more on Exodus 20 and its presentation of the Decalogue, and wanting to make a strike against the statuary and icons in the Catholic Church, enumerated the commandments in a different way.

Based on this new sixteenth century re-presentation of the Decalogue,

many denominations in America now teach the commandments much as they were seen on the Alabama monument. Thus one can see a problem would be created if public squares or public schools were allowed to display the Ten Commandments: Whose version should prevail?

While Jewish versions of the commandments follow Exodus 20 primarily, their enumeration does not exactly follow that of the Reformers. The first commandment in Jewish life is usually the creedal statement of verse 2 of Exodus 20: "I am the Lord your God." This affirmation of monotheism and loyalty corresponds to the famous "Shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4. The second commandment in Jewish faith encompasses both verses 3 and 4 against polytheism and the making of or worship of images of other deities or gods.

It is only with the third commandment that there is correspondence to the Reform list. In all traditions the second through eighth commandments as listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church basically correspond to one another. The divergence happens in the first and second commandments and then at the end in the ninth and tenth commandments.

In an attempt to find the most original Decalogue between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5,scholars have found that both decalogues are a mixture of older and newer traditions, as

each book was being written in an earlier millennium. While some may argue that an earlier Decalogue should have primacy, others will argue, more correctly it seems to me,

that the latest tradition encoded in sacred Scripture has primacy as the further development in understanding that God intended.

In the commandment regarding keeping the Sabbath, the rationale for keeping it provided by Deuteronomy is seen by scholars to be more ancient than the one provided by Exodus, though both rationales are important. (cf. Exodus 20:8–11 and Deuteronomy 5:12–15).

---

Now, there are a number of questions we could ask here. here is the first one, in keeping with the stated topic of this thread...Is it true that Reformers of the 16th century have changed the true Bible version of the 4th commandment to correspond to their alleged preference for the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments?

Are the Exodus and the Deut. versions of any of the ten commandments; but especially of the fourth commandment, really that polarized to one another that they actually form different "versions?"

Is it right to call the two, "different versions" and ask: "Whose version should prevail?"

[David Koot]

As a point of interest, David, Ex. 20 records God's oral proclamation of the 10 c, verbatim in His own words. The Deut. rendition is Moses' review of the giving of the 10 c, in his own words. I would expect that his review of the Law in Deut. was not intended to be verbatim, but a reminder of the principles. Also of interest is his mention to the people of one important reason why God reminded them of the Sabbath in Ex. 20:8 - 11. They had not enjoyed the Sabbath while in bondage, but had been forced to work. Thus, the sacredness of the Sabbath had no doubt been largely lost sight of.

Dave

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

David Koot said:

As a point of interest, David, Ex. 20 records God's oral proclamation of the 10 c, verbatim in His own words. The Deut. rendition is Moses' review of the giving of the 10 c, in his own words. I would expect that his review of the Law in Deut. was not intended to be verbatim, but a reminder of the principles. Also of interest is his mention to the people of one important reason why God reminded them of the Sabbath in Ex. 20:8 - 11. They had not enjoyed the Sabbath while in bondage, but had been forced to work. Thus, the sacredness of the Sabbath had no doubt been largely lost sight of.

Dave

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree with you David, yet the Catholics will say to this: "Our Catechism is simply a reminder/teacher of the principles involved."

I am wondering if anyone has taken the trouble to see...do the Exodus and the Deut. versions of the 4th or other commandments really polarize against each other? Are they really two different versions? Is it true that reformers, in the 16th century, changed the version to what they currently use, from what the Catholics currently teach in their Catechism? Did the catechism version in fact exist in original Bible writings? Did reformers of the 16th century use the current catechism version of the ten commandments previous to the reformation? How can we verify our answers here?

[David Koot]

Interesting questions, David. One fact is that no word, verse or chapter breakdown existed in the original. The letters were run together, and no doubt it took quite a scribe to know how to distinguish the words--and today, no doubt someone quite familiar with Hebrew/Aramaic.

Comparing the two passages side by side, I find very few differences. The only significant one, in fact, would seem to be the reason stated for the Sabbath. Comparing the two:

"Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

"De 5:15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day."

Ex. 20 speaks of the creation of the Sabbath. De. 5 states a reason why God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath. Two separate aspects of the Sabbath, which are not in conflict. The subsequent, additional reason given for reminding the Jews to keep the Sabbath, would not take away from the fact that God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath at Creation.

As for Augustine and co., hmmmm . . . as I recall, that was after the falling away, in which idolatry was brought into the established Church. Got their ducks lined up, no doubt, but the citation of precedent and authority dates to POST-apostasy, hence is not Scriptural from the git-go.

As for the Reformers, pre-Reformation . . . they were schooled in the established Church liturgy and traditions, in a number of cases. Luther was, Calvin was, various othes. Since the Church catechism and prayer book, etc., had supplanted the Bible, that would presumably be what they were aware of. As the Bible became more readily available, these men, and others, began to discover discrepancies between the catechism and the Bible, hence chose to follow the Bible. Thus the divergence between the Reformers' teachings and the catechism.

KIM that no such catechism existed in Bible times, or in the early church. It was not until after the Council of Laodicea, I believe, that such things came more into use. (Or was it Chalcedon? Or Nicea? Gotta look that one up.)

As for the line you referred to:

"Our Catechism is simply a reminder/teacher of the principles involved."

Fine, so long as the Catechism is in harmony with Scripture. If not, then we would follow Scripture, whereas the RCC might say that Church tradition, magisterium, etc., has the authority to supplant or 'update' Scripture.

Dave

[David Koot]

Of course, the 'piece de resistance' of the recent RCC apologetics, in regard to the 10c, is, IMO, their rationale for splitting up the 10th c. into two. Harrumph! Attempting to divvy it up into personal interest and property interest? Suggesting a parallel with the 6th c. and 8th c.? Indeed. Well, then, how would one respond to that bit of creativity?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The only significant one, in fact, would seem to be the reason stated for the Sabbath.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That difference doesn't exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day to hollow it. For in six days the LORD made heaven, earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day; so the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The only difference I see is one says "remember" and the other says "observe".

[David Koot]

Another point of interest is Ex. 31:12 - 18. This reference to the Sabbath as being a sign between God and His people forever, again states the Creation account of the Sabbath. It would seem to reinforce Gen. 2 as being an important reason for keeping the Sabbath. Once again, it looks like Moses, in the Deut. 5 passage, added an additional reason why God reminded them of the Sabbath. That would not appear to be in conflict with Ex. 20. As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is, indeed, interesting. I seem to recall reading something similar, elsewhere in Ex. or Deut.

[Guest]

If you check carefully, you will see that the reasons actually are not different, between Exodus and Deut. This is what Catholic Leadership want people to think. Read first, Ex.20:2

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Next, look at Deut.5:6

I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

In both Exodus and Deut. accounts of the ten commandments, the theme of redemption(deliverance from Egypt)is quoted as the main reason for keeping any of the ten commandments. The real reasons do not change mysteriously with the fourth commandment. The reason is the same for all ten commandments, in both Exodus and Deut.

In Deut.5, right after the fourth commandment, Moses reminds us in vs.15 of the deliverance from Egypt, not just as a reason to keep the Sabbath; but as a reason why they are even able to now keep it. Because God provided them a way to keep it by His deliverance. This was a repeat/reminder of the reason given in both Ex and Deut, for the keeping of all ten commandments.

This reminder is not mentioned in Exodus; but this is in keeping with the writers of all 66 books of the Bible who always wrote on the same themes, each adding different things which would build on to but not change previously stated truth; for the purpose of giving us a more complete story.

The four disciples are actually a good NT example where you can look at the account of the crucifiction in all four gospels, and each of the four disciples seems to mention some detail that the others do not mention. This simply adds more inside details to the story, it does not change the truth that Jesus died.

Likewise, Moses' parenthetical mention of the Exodus in Deut.5:15 does not "change" the reason - it simply re-states and reinforces the previously stated, the eternal truth of redemption as typified in Ex.2:2, and in Deut.5:6

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

David Koot said:

Of course, the 'piece de resistance' of the recent RCC apologetics, in regard to the 10c, is, IMO, their rationale for splitting up the 10th c. into two. Harrumph! Attempting to divvy it up into personal interest and property interest? Suggesting a parallel with the 6th c. and 8th c.? Indeed. Well, then, how would one respond to that bit of creativity?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

OK; lets do a little homework on this one.

What year did Catholicism make this change and split up the commandments as such? And what Bibles would we find same in? And why would they want to make this change when they did?