The 10 commandments of God, which Moses received on the basis of two tablets of stone, are also referred to as the moral laws. However, the 10 commandments presented today in the Catholic and Evangelical churches are not the original specification, but rather idiosyncratic modifications.
Inhalt / Content
Who doesn’t know these? The 10 Commandments, which Moses received from God Himself written on tablets of stone on Mount Sinai. These 10 commandments, also known as moral laws, have a kind of “eternity clause”.
That alone symbolizes their setting in stone. The admonition to observe these laws extends from the handing over of the two stone tablets (Exodus chapter 20) to the last chapter of the Bible, Revelation 22, 14: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” (in Alexandrian or Gnostic Bible translations it says “Blessed are they who wash their clothes”).
The 10 commandments of God have never been repealed, even if this is repeatedly propagated in connection with the “old covenant” and “new covenant”. A sheer misrepresentation. The claim that the commandments were abolished could at best be substantiated by biblical quotations taken out of context and presented in isolation, and excessive interpretations. But there was never an abolition of the moral laws, and such a place simply does not exist in Scripture.
However, the corruption of God’s 10 Commandments did not come as a surprise. Already Daniel reported about a “fourth beast” (Roman Empire) in Daniel Chapter 7. From this beast emerged an initially small horn, which represents a subsequent ruler. This one is going to be very different than its predecessors. “Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.”
This horn “shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” The horn of the fourth beast is clearly the papacy.
|Order of the real 10 commandments||The 10 commandments according to Exodus chapter 20||Order of the changed 10 Commandments||The 10 commandments according to Catholic and EV churches|
|1||Thou shalt have no other gods before me.||1||Thou shalt have no other gods before me!|
|2||Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:||-||completely omitted|
|3||Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.||2||You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain!|
|4||Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.||3||Thou shalt sanctify the holidays!
Thou shalt sanctify Sunday!
|5||Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.||4||You should honor your father and mother!|
|6||Thou shalt not kill.||5||You should not kill!|
|7||Thou shalt not commit adultery.||6||Thou shalt not commit adultery!|
|8||Thou shalt not steal.||7||You shall not steal!|
|9||Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.||8||You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!|
|10||Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.||9||You shall not covet your neighbor's house!
You should not covet your next belongings.
|10||You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.|
The University of Augsburg presents such an example of the flimsy explanation of the modified or falsified commandments with the attempted explanation of why the Sabbath commandment should no longer be relevant.
While it is correctly stated here that there is a distinction between (unchanging) moral laws and (changing) ceremonial laws, the following statement is a telling one:
“The divine commandments are divided into moral commandments and ceremonial commandments. While the moral commandments are inherent in human nature and therefore immutable and valid for all men of all times and are recognizable in conscience as valid without revelation, ceremonial commandments are to be specially ordained by God and can be known only by revelation; they can later be modified or canceled.
The Sabbath commandment, along with the prohibition of images and many other Old Testament regulations outside of the Ten Commandments (e.g., food laws and commandments about other feast days apart from the Sabbath), are among the ceremonial commandments appropriate to the pre-Christian Old Covenant, but modified with the coming of Christ could and had to be.”
Here the author is simply claiming that the Sabbath commandment is part of the ceremonial law. In doing so, he ignores the fact that this fourth commandment is undoubtedly a part of the laws written in stone, i.e. moral laws.
This also applies to the 2nd commandment (ban on images). His logic: The first commandment is moral law, the second commandment is ceremonial law, the third commandment is moral law, the fourth commandment is ceremonial law, and all subsequent commandments are moral laws. Because the fourth commandment (the Sabbath commandment, Genesis 20:8-11) was a ceremonial law, it may also be changed as a “holiday” (now “Sunday”), in order to then be declared as a moral law again.
This is completely absurd and pure arbitrariness and cannot be justified with anything. The author cannot substantiate this assertion either and has probably therefore simply refrained from any attempts. At this point, the rest of the “performance” can already be thrown into the bin, since further derivations are only based on this untenable claim. The fatal thing: The disregard of the Sabbath commandment and the sanctification of Sunday as a substitute will become a main topic.
It is also significant that Augsburg played a central role in the Reformation. On the other hand, this circumstance is also typical. Such historically relevant centers were targeted particularly intensively and “permanently” by the so-called Counter-Reformation. Here the “Loyola education” plays an extremely important role. So-called modern theology (regardless of whether it is Catholic or Protestant) has long since developed into the accomplice of those who would like to see people separated from God.
The Sabbath (the 7th day of the week, i.e. Saturday!) is a sign of God’s authority. Already introduced after 6 days of creation as the 7th day of rest (Genesis 2:3). God sanctified this day. As early as the 4th century, the churches described the Sabbath as a “Jewish holiday”, which had no meaning for the Christian communities and had to be avoided. Another early concrete reference to the 7th day as “the Sabbath” already existed when Israel left Egypt.
But with the repeated memory and practice of this day, there was still no talk of a “Jewish Sabbath”. At that time there was neither the land of Israel nor the land of Judah. Designating the Sabbath as an “exclusively Jewish holiday” is therefore purely “arbitrary” in view of the determination according to Exodus 20:8. Christians celebrate Sunday (“sun day”) because it is the day of Jesus’ resurrection, one argument goes. This may be. But does this simply cancel the Sabbath? Not at all.
Jesus himself kept the Sabbath, his disciples kept the Sabbath and there is no passage in the Bible that could indicate that the 4th commandment was abolished (Sabbath in the New Testament). Paul once met with the other disciples on a first weekday and “broke bread with them”. This statement is all too readily used as a justification for an alleged abolition of the Sabbath.
The “breaking of bread” is equated with Jesus’ statement at the Lord’s Supper that this means “the breaking of His body (on the cross). But breaking bread was already in the Old Testament an expression for “sharing bread”, for a gift or just food. For example in Isaiah 58:7: “Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?” (in the German Bible it says break bread). The supposed Sunday sanctification by the disciples is therefore pure (desired) interpretation. In general, something wrong doesn’t become right if you hold on to it long enough and repeat it endlessly.
The early collection of the 2nd commandment (ban on images) by the Catholic The Church is quickly explained by the fact that if this law is observed, the whole armada of “holy figures and icons” and their (dead) veneration would otherwise have to be dispensed with. This is joined by the whole range of rituals, ceremonies, dogmas, quick and storm prayers. Martin Luther described the Eucharist practiced on Sunday as “atrocious idolatry”.
The body of Christ is ascribed to the “wafer” without further ado, in order to be worshiped and eaten afterwards. This represents nothing other than the eating of idols sacrificed while at the same time mocking Jesus. If you want to throw yourself down in front of a picture or a wooden or stone figure of a long-dead “saint”, you should better stick to Exodus chapter 20, verses 4 to 6: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Bible verses from King James Version