Edmond Grace SJ explains the reasons for the different emphasis on the ten commandments in the Chatholic and Church of Ireland traditions.
During a quiz we were asked, ‘What is the seventh commandment?’ I said, ‘Thou shalt not steal’, whereas my Church of Ireland friend said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. In the debate which followed I got my old Green Catechism, which showed I was correct, but she got her Book of Common Prayer, which showed she was correct. In the Book of Common Prayer the second commandment forbids the worship of graven images. Why did the Catholic Church change or drop this commandment?
There are two versions of the ten commandments in the Bible – one in Exodus (20:1-21) and the other in Deuteronomy (5:6-21). In both, just after the first commandment prohibiting the worship of false gods, there is a prohibition on making, worshipping or serving ‘a carved image or likeness of anything in heaven or on earth, beneath or in the waters under the earth.’
Different Treatment
These two versions do differ in emphasis in their treatment of the prohibition on coveting. In Exodus the first item to be mentioned is the neighbour’s house, then his wife, servant, ox, donkey or ‘anything that is his’.
Deuteronomy, however, makes a distinction between coveting a neighbour’s wife and coveting his house, field, servant, ox, donkey ‘or anything that is his’.
Catholic tradition
The Catholic Church has followed this distinction between wives and property to the point that it presents the prohibition as two separate commandments.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, ‘the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.’(2514). One deals with lust, which tends towards adultery, and the other with greed, which tends towards theft.
It is a neat distinction, and in some ways even a useful one, but it can only be presented within the ten commandment framework by playing down the distinction between the worship of false gods and the making of graven images.
For a long time this was done simply by dropping any reference to the ban on graven images, which left Catholics open to the charge of rejecting scripture.
In fact, the New Catechism quotes in full the ban on graven images but only as an elaboration of the first commandment which states: ‘You shall have no gods before me.’ In defence of this apparently cavalier treatment of scripture it is worth considering these points.
1. The commandments are not numbered and itemised in the Bible; they are simply listed in a particular order which varies slightly at the end of the list.
2. The earlier commandments – dealing with the worship of false gods, the Sabbath and honouring one’s parents – are all explained and elaborated to some degree; there is a case to be made that the prohibition on graven images merely elaborates, but does not add anything to, the prohibition on the worship of false gods.
3. The later commandments – against killing, adultery, theft, false witness and coveting – are expressed simply and absolutely; furthermore in each version there are two prohibitions on coveting.
Sacred significance
In Exodus the first prohibition – on coveting a neighbour’s house – does not just pertain to property but to the sacred significance of a person’s home, the place where he lives and has a right to find rest and contentment. In other words, while a person’s home is their property, it is more bound up with personal happiness than any other piece of property.
Coveting leads us to undermine another person’s happiness and the greatest source of happiness is the love of another person, especially the love of husband or wife. For this reason the way Deuteronomy’s first prohibition on coveting refers to the wife of a neighbour probably gets closer to the point than Exodus.
Given that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-32) Jesus has much to say about lust and adultery – and not a word about greed and theft! – it is appropriate for Christian teachers to highlight the distinction between coveting a neighbour’s wife and coveting his possessions and give greater emphasis to the former. To see the wisdom of this, one only needs to ask: Which is worse – to be deprived of your possessions or of the trust which you have in those who love you?
Context of worship
There remains the question of the prohibition on graven images and the apparent Catholic belittling of it. The New Catechism points out that even in the Old Testament God allowed images of things both in heaven and earth to be made and used in the context of worship.
In Exodus, chapter 25, God called for a throne of mercy to be made of pure gold and placed above the ark of the covenant, and for two ‘cherubs’ to be made of beaten gold and fastened to both ends of the throne.
In the Book of Numbers, chapter 21, we are told that God instructed Moses to have a bronze serpent made and placed on a standard so that those who had been bitten by fiery serpents could be cured by looking at it.
All around Solomon’s temple, according to 1 Kings 6:29, there were carved figures of cherubs, including two made of olive wood whose wings stretched from wall to wall.
What is strictly forbidden by the commandments given by God to Israel is the making of graven images with a view to treating them as idols.
It was clearly permissible to make images, even of heavenly beings like cherubs, as a means of drawing people’s attention to the presence of God in the ark of the covenant and the temple.
Naiveté and confusion
When Protestant reformers set about destroying statues and images which were used as a help to prayer and devotion by many people they justified their actions by their own interpretation of scripture, but this interpretation was not shared by the writers of the Old Testament.
Finally, the Book of Common Prayer gives a faithful version of the commandments as recorded in chapter 20 of Exodus whereas the old Green Catechism gives an edited account of the version in chapter 5 of Deuteronomy (even though it refers the reader, in the copy you sent me, to Exodus 20!).
So, on the one hand, we have literal accuracy, which can lend itself to simplistic interpretations, and, on the other, an undeniably confusing presentation of an old teaching which has stood the test of time.
This article first appeared in the
Messenger, a publication of the Irish Jesuits.
