Reproduced 2002 by Bank of Wisdom, LLC
The
Ten Commandments
bY
JOSEPH
AN
INVESTIGATION
THE
DECALOGUE
MORAL
VALUE
LEWIS
INTO
AND
THE
AN
AS A CODE
ORIGIN
ANALYSIS
AND
OF
OF CONDUCT
IN
ITS
MEANING
ETHICAL
MODERN
Reproduced in Electronic form
2002
P.O.
Louisville,
FREETHOUGHT
Box 926
KY 40201
U.S.A.
PRESS
NEW
YORK
ASSOCIATION
1, N. Y.
OF
AND
SOCIETY
Reproduced in electronic form
2002
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
The purpose of the Bank of Wisdom
is to again make the United States the
Free Marketplace of Ideas that the
American Founding Fathers
originally meant this Nation to be.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom.
TO
THE
MEMORY
LUTHER
OF
BURBANK
AND
THOMAS
WHO
WHICH
AND
WERE
I
WHOSE
ALVA
MEMBERS
HAVE
THE
OF
SOURCE
THE
HONOR
ENCOURAGEMENT
EDISON
ORGANIZATION
TO
WAS
OF INSPIRATION
BE
PRESIDENT,
A CONTINUAL
OF
It has often been said that anything may be
proved from the Bible; but before anything can
be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible
itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible
be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it
ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted
as proof of anything.
THOMAS PAINE
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE
.
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What Are the Commandments?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Ten Commandments as Revealed in the Book of Exodus
.
The Ten Commandments as Revealed in the Book of Deuteronomy
The Difference between the Ten Commandments Recorded in the
Book of Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy .
.
.
.
The Conflicting Arrangement of the Ten Commandments as Revealed by a Comparison of the Protestant, Catholic and
Hebrew Versions .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The First Tables of Stone .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Second Tables of Stone and a Forgotten Set of Command-
ix
1
1
2
13
16
22
32
.
.
-
43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
55
The Prologue to the Commandments +.
.
.
Moses, the Bible Deity and the Children of Israel
Moses and the Magic Rod .
.
.
.
.
Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pharaoh’s
Heart Is Hardened
Frogs, Lice and Flies
.
.
.
.
.
58
62
68
71
7.5
79
84
89
93
ments
_
_
_
_
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
.
The Bible Deity and Abraham
.
.
.
Linculrl
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
The Three Plagues
.
.
.
.
.
The Plagues of Locusts and Darkness
.
The Murder of the First-born and the Feast
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of the Passover
.
.
.
.
The
of the Egyptians
.
Pal-&g
of the Red Sea and the Drowning
Were the Children of Israel Ever in Bondage in Egypt?
Moses as God .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Clergy and the First Commandment
.
.
.
TIIE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
_
_
.
The Sadism of the Bible Deity
.
Jealousy: The Attribute of Primitive
V
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
Gods .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
104
107
112
117
119
122
vi
CONTENTS
PAGE
Punishing the Innocent .
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Fear of Images and the Origin of Their Prohibition
Shadows, Reflections and Images .
.
.
.
.
Iconoclastic Fanaticism and Idolatry
.
.
.
.
A Threat and a Promise .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Glorified Punishment and Perverted Justice
.
.
The Observance of This Commandment
and the Origin
Semitism .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Bible God and the Idea of Monotheism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of Anti.
.
125
128
136
140
146
153
.
.
.
.
.
181
183
190
196
204
.
205
.
.
.
.
.
.
207
211
212
224
229
237
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
239
241
247
254
266
271
288
298
304
307
.
FIFTH COMMANDMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Parents as Vice-Regents of Grid _
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
The Element of Sympathetic Magic in Tribal Filial Obedience .
Faithfulness and Failure
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
323
THE
.
.
The Animistic Significance of Names .
.
Names of Gods Taboo .
.
.
.
.
The Magical Use of God’s Name .
.
.
What Is the Name of the God of Israel? .
The First Deadly Parallel .
.
.
.
The Second Deadly Parallel .
.
.
.
Title versus Name .
.
.
.
.
.
Blasphemy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Clergy and the Third Commandment ,
The Third Commandment and Oaths .
.
Taking God’s Name in Vain .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tnr;
THIRD
FUURTH
COMMANDMENT
COMMANDMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is There a Sabbath Day? .
.
.
.
Which Day Is the Seventh? .
.
_ The Sabbath as a Taboo
.
.
.
.
The Magic Association of the Numeral “Seven”
The Sanctity of Lhe Sabbath
.......
The Wife and the Sabbath ........
The Secret of Circumcision ........
Born on the Sabbath
.........
Christianity and the Sabbath
.......
THE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
,
and the Sabbath
1.56
172
325
334
336
vii
CONTENTS
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
Killing and Self-preservation
Is Killing Ever Justified?
Religious
Delusion
and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
Homicidal
Mania
Irresponsible and Accidental Killing
.
.
.
.
The Frequency of Murder and the Prevalence of Suicide
Moses Kills a Man
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Clergy, This Commandment, and War
.
.
Blood Taboo .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Animistic Belief in Blood Pollution
.
.
.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
The Sin of Sex and
What Is Adultery?
Bastardy
.
.
Sacred and Profane
Religious
Festivals
.
.
Some Aspects
.
.
.
.
.
.
Prostitution
and
Sexual
.
.
.
of Adultery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
Pmmiamity
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Celibacy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Confessional
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Erotic Adultery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Adultery and the Varied Sexual Customs of Mankind
.
Virginity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chastity
.
.
.
.
The Privilegi of ‘the ‘Firs; Night :
1
.
.
.
Promiscuity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Modesty
.
Sexual Hospitality
1
:
:
:
.
.
.
.
Group Marriage .
.
Fidelity and Unfaithfulness
:
:
:
:
:
.
Incest
.
A Provincial Taboo :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
.
Adultery as a Taboo Based on Sympathetic Magic .
Additional Evidence of the Prevalence of Sympathetic Magic
the Rihlid
Hebrews .........
Complementary Examples of Sympathetic Magic
...
.......
The Child and This Commandment
.........
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
What Constitutes a Theft? .........
Law, Ethics and Conscience .........
..........
Stealing as Atavism
Kleptomania ...........
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
among
.
PAGE
341
343
346
351
3.54
359
362
365
372
386
395
397
403
408
415
420
421
433
437
440
441
442
444
447
451
450
452
453
454
455
458
465
469
472
477
479
THE
483
493
.
497
.,.
CONTENTS
VI11
PAGE
Stealing as a Taboo in Tribal Society .
.
.
.
The Sin of Stealing and the Removal of Landmarks .
Religion and Thievery .
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Negation of Ethics .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
501
505
514
524
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
535
537
540
544
5.51
5.57
567
571
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
.
.
.
.
The Tribal Significance of “Neighbor”
.
Biblical Evidence of Hebrew Tribal Solidarity
The Clannishnessof Tribal Law .
.
.
The Stranger Tabooed in Tribal Society .
The Fulfillment of This Commandment. .
The Law and This Commandment
.
.
Sectarian vs. Universal Brotherhood .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TENTH COMMANDMENT
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
The Hidden Meaning of Coveting
.
.
.
.
Coveting, Witchcraft and the Evil Eye in Primitive Culture .
Coveting. and Counting .
.
.
.
Propitiatory Phrases
.
.
.
.
Amulets and Charms
.
.
.
.
.
.
Knots
.
.
.
.
.
Noise as a Prophylactic against Evil .
Neither a Sin nor a Crime ,
.
.
THE
EPILOGUE
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
. 575
* 577
. 582
. 592
. 595
.
.
601
.
.
602
604
609
.
.
.
613
.
*
.
.
615
.
.
.
.
625
.
PREFACE
“Some of the old laws of Israel are clearly savage taboos of a familiar type
thinly disguised as commands of the deity.“-Sm
JAMES G. FRAZER.
I
S LIFE a journey of enough importance to require help and assistance until our destination is reached? Is our mental equipment
at birth all-sufficient to direct us safely and securely along the
path of life? Is man a creature of predestination, or is he merely a
temporary, animate being born to face the struggles of existence without the slightest help?
Was man given knowledge to face the difficulties he is sure to
encounter, or is he but one of the myriad forms of life resulting from
the ever-changing conditions of the universe, to be tossed helter-skelter
upon the sea of existence?
Some say that he is; others, that he is not. Some say that we are
specially created beings formed in the likeness and image of an allpowerful Creator; others, that we are but tiny insects too insignificant
to be important enough to require special attention; others, that we
are but the result of the conditions around us; while still others tell us
that we are the masters of our own destiny.
Surely, with this vital difference of opinion concerning man’s place
on earth, we are justified in at least investigating
this essential phase
of life in an endeavor to learn the truth concerning our existence, and
thus fortify
ourselves for the struggles necessary to meet the cliffi-
culties of life.
If man has been furnished with a chart to guide him while on
earth, it should be infallible, it should be flawless, it should be perfect.
To be perfect, a chart must be scientific in every detail. It must
be in conformity with, and not in opposition to, Nature. It must tell
us what to do as well as what lzot to do.
ix
X
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
If man has used false charts in the past, he should exercise the
utmost care to be sure that he does not make the same mistakes in the
future. If he has been deceived by false appearances, he should guard
against future deception. Only stupidity will continually permit itself
to be falsely led.
Would a captain of a vessel, no matter how much faith he had,
rely upon a compass that violated every law of gravity, and instead of
continually pointing to the north, fluctuated from one direction to
another?
Human existence has often been compared to persons tossed into
the sea. Some finally reach shore after bitter struggles, better for the
experience and less fearful of future plunges; while others, yes, the
great, great majority of others, despite heroic efforts, are unable to
buffet the waves, and go down to their death, without seeing the land
they tried so desperately to ree.ch.
Would it not have been better, since all must plunge into the sea
to get to “yonder” shore, that fewer lives be produced and to them
given knowledge that would enable them to reach their destination,
instead of producing a vast multitude to suffer the agonies of death in
their struggle for existence?
How cruel must be that force which, if it knew the essentials of
swimming, withheld such knowledge from the Niagara of lives that
pour into the seal
If a mere man possesses knowledge of danger and withholds it from
his fellow man, either for profit or through indifference, he is held up
to execration
and scorn.
How
much more deserving
of condemnation
would be a “God” who possessed all the knowledge necessary for the
health and happiness of the human race, but who hecause of some
unknown and inexplicable cause withheld it! And if God manifests
no more interest in human life than the meanest of selfish men, how
utterly ridiculous to worship him for what in a man would be termed
brutal selfishness, greed and indifference!
Keflect for a moment on the untold millions of pitiful and helpless
creatures who have perished when only a little knowledge, just a ZittZe
xi
PREFACE
knowledge, would have enabled them to lift the cup of cool relief to
their parched lips, saved them from indescribable sufferings, and
stayed the hand of death!
The history
of man may be written,
his pleasures
and joys recounted; but never, never, will he be able to record the misery, pain,
sorrow, heartache and torture that he has suffered because of lack of
available knowledge.
Life is beset with a thousand difficulties. On every hand man
meets unexpected problems. When he thinks the goal has been
reached, he finds that it merely opens the door to new problems. One
mirage follows another. Either as an individual or as a member of
society, he is in one continual conflict. He is forever perplexed as to
what he shouId do, how he should conduct himself, and what is his
mission, if any, on earth.
So difficult does the problem of living occasionally become that
some, unable to cope with an agonizing situation, surrender the task
and enter the door to the shore
returned.”
to battle
from
which
as yet “no traveler
has
Others take up arms against “a sea of troubles” and prefer
the waves
in a nightmare
of existence
rather
than
fly
to
“troubles that they know not of.”
Like
a weary
traveler
lost in a bewildering
fnrest
is man trying
to
Each generation faces the same
conditions and meets the same difficulties.
The only ray of hope is to
instruct those who are to come and to help them from committing the
same mistakes made by the generation that is going.
Some piece together the experiences, the trials and the tribulations
and, to the best of their ability, formulate rules and regulations for
the guidance of others in the hope that they will take counsel and
avoid the mistakes others have made. To bring a little happiness and
a little joy without injury to others into this complicated world is all
that they seek to accomplish.
Some find that even by living up to the best of intended rules they
are not only unable to solve the problems of living, but are even unable
grope his way to light and freedom.
xii
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
to determine the proper conduct in life. Their best intentions often
cause their own undoing.
There are some, however, who tell us that the efforts of those who
labor to understand life and living are wasted in seeking to formulate
their own code of conduct for the human race. They tell us that no
one need make an effort to seek such knowledge; they tell us that it is
already here in a special revelation from the “God of the Universe” in
what is known as the Ten Commandments.
What are the Ten Commandments?
We are told by some that the Ten Commandments were written by
(‘God” himself-that they are divine, infallible and imperishable. We
were told, while still upon our mother’s knee, the story of how Moses
was put into the bullrushes to be saved when the cruel Pharaoh ordered
that all male children be destroyed; how Pharaoh’s own daughter
found him, saved his life and nurtured him; how afterwards he became
the great leader of the Children of Israel; and how, when God wanted
to rcvcal to his children his laws, he sent for Moses; and how, after
Moses had fasted for forty days and nights on Mount Sinai, God gave
him two tablets upon which were engraved this most priceless message
for the guidance of human beings.
So firm is the conviction of those who accept the Ten Commandments as God’s divine precepts, that they believe that all the ills and
torments with which mankind is plagued are caused by not practising
the tenets of the Decalogue as revealed by God to Moses.
It has been variously contended that the Ten Commandments are
so all-embracing that in addition to containing God’s rules for the
guidance of the human family and its mission while on earth, they
contain also the very foundations upon which are based our laws and
governments, and without which civilization could not exist!
It is also contended that if the Ten Commandments were universally accepted, all strife, discord, hatred, prejudice, misunderstanding
and injustice would vanish from the earth. There would be no more
deception, dishonesty or deceit. With the Ten Commandments as our
...
PREFACE
x111
guide, the human race would live together as one perfect and harmonious family.
Throughout the history of the race we find that many things have
been implicitly
believed in by the great mass of people, but rarely has
anything equaled the absolute faith accorded the Ten Commandments.
To show to what extent this belief may go, I need but mention that
in January, 1938, United States Federal Judge John C. Knox, whose
jurisdiction comprises the great City of New York, stated in a public
address that the laws of this Republic were founded upon the Ten
Commandments!
Alfred E. Smith, when Governor of the State of New York, stated
that this government was founded upon the “Commandments
of God.”
The late George W. Wickersham, noted attorney and Chairman
of the National Commission on Law Observance and Law Enforcement,
organized
to help solve problems
affecting
law and the social fabric,
asked in an interview (after admitting that the present age no longer
accepts the Biblical
view of a God who punishes according
to his favor
or disfavor) : “Has there ever been a better code of morals formulated
for the government of men than those which Moses delivered on the
tablets of stone to the Children of Israel? . . .” When his final report
was made public,
it is significant
that Mr. Wickersham
made no men-
tion of the use of the Ten Commandments!
That the Catholic Church still holds the Ten Commandments
to be
a vital part of its dogma iu emphasized in an authoritative
statement
by the Rev. Charles E. Gurley, which is quoted in part:
“You often hear it said, generally by way of criticism, that the
Church isn’t very modern or up-to-date. Perhaps this is true. But
what of it?
“If it is old-fashioned to respect the Ten Commandments and
insist upon their observance today, then the Catholic Church certainly is old-fashioned. If belief in the Decalogue is a sign ol decrepitude and decay, something to be associated only with ages that
have passed, then the Catholic Church is an outmoded institution.
For the Church still clings to God’s law and continues to enforce
it. . . .
‘M3E
Xiv
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“The Ten Commandments given to the people in grand, awful
solemnity upon Mount Sinai comprise all the duties and natural
rights of man. . . .
“Although the Ten Commandments were given at first only to
the people of Israel, yet it would be absurd to imagine that they were
not also imposed upon us. For Christians as well as for Israelites
this holy law was written, our divine Saviour repeatedly telling us
that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill and perfect it.
Moreover, He expressly bids us to obey His commands.
His words
are, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’
Far
from revoking these divine commandments, Our Lord gave them a
new force and a new authority.
We can attain heaven, He declares,
only by walking in the way of these commandments.”
Martin
Luther
put it very frankly
l
when he said:
“Thus we have in the Ten Commandments a summ%@ of divine
instructions, telling us what we have to do to make our whole life
pleasing to God, and showing us the true source and fountain from
and in which all good works must spring and proceed; so that no
wurk or anything can be good and pleasing to God, however great
and costly in the eyes of the world, unless it is in keeping with the
Ten Commandments.” 2
In an editorial
ment is made:
in the White
PZains (N. Y.) Reporter,
this state-
“No man in more than two thousand years has been able to improve upon the Ten Commandments as the rule of life. To no other
origin than to Divine Revelation can they be ascribed. Man constantly
improves
upon his own handiwork.
Thcrc never will be a
need for an Eleventh Commandment.
The Ten contain all there
is to guide human conduct in the proper channels.” 3
This is only another instance of how an apparently educated man
can make statements without the slightest foundation in fact when he
1 The Tablet, Dec. 9, 1939. (The Tablet is maintained by, and in the interest of,
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rmnklyn,
New York.)
2 C. H. Moehlman, D.D., The Christian-Jewish
Tragedy, p. 108.
3 White Plains (N. Y.) Repouter,
Sept. 19, 1%~.
PREFACE
XV
accepts religious doctrines on faith. If his conclusions were true, how
would this learned gentleman account for the ever-increasing number
of “Ten Commandments” that are continually being promulgated by
business
men, educators,
social
workers,
editors,
judges,
wives,
bands, sweethearts, lawyers, doctors and even ministers?
proof
of the inadequacy
of the Ten Commandments
hus-
They are
to meet all prob-
lems of life. The following are examples of what constantly appears
in the public press: “The Ten Commandments of Natural Education,”
issued by the Parents’ Association; “The Ten Commandments of
Love,” by Helen Rowland, noted newspaper writer; “The Ten Commandments on How to Be Happy and Married”’ by Miss Dorothy
LaVerne Backer, of East Orange, New Jersey, on the announcement
of her engagement.
Even Judge Sabath, of the Chicago Superior Court, who at the
time
of his statement
had handled
more
than
24,000
divorce
issued a set of Ten Commandments for happy marriages.
Joseph
Burke,
of the Court
of Domestic
Relations
of Chicago,
cases,
Judge
Illinois,
who handles more than 35,000 marital complaints each year, issued a
list. nf ‘Ten Commandments
for both husbands
and wives.
Certainly
the experience of these two judges must indicate that the Ten Commandments of Moses were not sufficient to accomplish the desired
result in the marital state, and an Eleventh Commandment on this
particular phase of life would certainly not be superfluous.
Mussolini issued Ten Commandments for his Fascist supporters.
The Nazis prepared “Ten Commandments for the German Soldier.”
Joseph Stalin issued Ten Commandments for the Bolsheviks.
Llewellyn Legge, Chief Game Protector of the New York State
Conservation Department, issued what he terms “The Ten Commandments for the guidance of those who go into the woods to hunt.”
Norman Daly, a magazine writer, issued a set of Ten Commandments for girls engaged to be married.
Miss Minnie Obermeier, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, New
York City, gave a new set of “Ten Commandments for Mothers.”
xvi
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Mrs. Herbert Lehman, wife of the former Governor of the State of
New York, issued the “Ten Commandments of Democracy.”
The Rev. Christian F. Reisner issued a special set of “Ten Commandments for Successful Wives.”
Lieutenant E. F. John, U.S.M.C., issued a set of “Ten Commandments for the Police.”
“I. P.,” a cook, issued through Gretta Palmer a set of “Ten Commandments to the Housewife Who Has Servants.”
The National Better Business Bureau issued a set of “Ten Commandments Designed to Hold Customer Good Will.”
The Rev. William L. Stidger, of the Linwood Methodist Church,
Kansas City, Missouri, issued a new Decalogue for Modern Youth.
Dr. Shirley W. Wynne, when Health Commissioner of New York
City, issued a set of “Ten Commandments for Wintertime Health.”
Hollywood, the great moving-picture colony, not to be outdone,
also issued a Decalogue.
Otto H. Kahn, the banker, gave the students of Princeton University a set of Ten Commandments to guide them in their banking
careers.
The Federal Bureau of Education at Washington issued “Ten
Commandments for the American School Teacher.”
Rabbi Jerome M. Lawn, of Beth Israel Temple, New York City,
offered a set of Ten Commandments for a successful marriage.
The American
Medical
Association
advised
the physicians
of the
country to “Give your patients the Ten Commandments of Good
Posture.”
The men of the White Methodist Church of Chicopee, Massachusetts, issued Ten Commandments for their wives. And the following week the wives of that church issued a similar Decalogue for their
husbands.
The Department of Health, of Clarke County, Georgia, issued
“Ten Commandments of Health.”
Rabbi Israel Goldstein, of the Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, New
York City, in his Rosh Ha-Shanah sermon, issued Ten Commandments
xvii
PREFACE
for “The American Jew,” which would certainly indicate an inadequacy
in the original Decalogue. He also issued a new “1942 edition” of
the Ten Commandments.
The Northern
Illinois Methodist
CZergynzan issued a Decalogue
for the Methodist Episcopal ministers, one commandment of which
prohibited stealing sermons from colleagues.
Mr. Kenneth Wishart, of Aberdeen, Mississippi, formulated a set
of Ten Commandments concerning the cow.
The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America issued a
set of “Ten Commandments for Social Justice.”
Preaching in the Episcopal Church of the Heavenly Rest, New
York City, the Rev. Dr. Henry Darlington suggested ‘(Ten Commandments for the New Year.”
Frau Ida Bock, an Austrian writer, alarmed at the constantly
increasing
number
of divorces
in her country,
issued
“Ten
Command-
ments for Husbands.”
The Rev. David Rhys Williams, seeking to interpret the advance
of the day, issued what he called the “Decalogue of Science.”
Then there are the famous “Sailors’ Ten Commandments.”
Albert Payson Terhune, the celebrated writer and lover of dogs,
issued on behalf of the canine family a set of “Ten Commandments
for My Master.”
Miss Anna Green, bitter, disillusioned, disconsolate, issued Ten
Commandments for other young girls so they would avoid the mistakes
that she had made in the realm of love.
Last but not least, an editorial in the WGte Plains (N. Y.) Reporter, but three months later, almost to the day, since the appearance
of the editorial
previously
mentioned,
states:
“Were Moses to come down from the Mount today with the
Commandments
beneath his arm, in all likelihood
there would
be another tablet, and on it would be imscribed: “Thou Shalt Be
Tolerant ! ’ ”
justifying, though a contradiction, the statement that “there never
will be a need for an Eleventh Commandment.”
...
THE
XVUl
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Literally thousands of such sets of Ten Commandments are formulated every year for the guidance of people, from that of the Ten
Commandments of advertising to a Decalogue on the feeding of pigs.
An appeal to the Ten Commandments is always impressive and
effective. When in doubt about a subject, reference to the Ten Commandments will always command attention. But if you should ask
those who proposed following the Ten Commandments to repeat them,
hardly one in ten thousand could do so correctly.
Even Rudyard Kipling implies, in his celebrated poem “Mandalay”“Ship me somewheres east of Suez
Where the best is like the worst,
Where there ain’t no Ten Commandments,
And a man can raise a thirst”-
that without the Ten Commandments no civilization could exist, that
there would be no restraint on primitive impulses, and lust, drunkenness and debauchery
would
be rampant.
If “there
ain’t no Ten Com-
mandments,” Kipling would have you believe that man would trample
his weaker brother underfoot,
rob him of his rights and privileges, and
commit acts of injustice without compunction or consideration.
Or as Ingersoll would say, they would have us believe, “that, had
it not been for the Ten Commandments, larceny and murder might
have been virtues.” 4
Like the others, Kipling is lamentably wrong, because leading
anthropologists
have found that primitive
people are inherently good.
In writing of the social status of the tribe of Veddahs, which happens
to be “east of Suez,” Professor Hobhouse says:
“The Veddahs consist of a mere handful of scattered families,
living sometimes in trees, in the rainy season often in caves; though
they are capable
of making
primitive
hub.
They
are hunters,
and
each Veddah, with his wife and family, keeps his hunting ground
for the most part scrupulously to himself. These very primitive
folk are strictly monogamous,and have the saying that nothing but
4Ingersoll,
Vol. 12,
p. 61.
PREFACE
Xix
death parts husband and wife. Infidelity among them is in fact
rare, and is generally avenged upon the paramour by assassination
at the hands of the husband. Though the husband is master in
his own cave, his wife is well treated, and is in no sensea slave.
The Veddahs are credited with affection for their children, and with
attachments to their parents after they have grown up.” s
Dr. Charles Hose, in a general reference to a long series of investigations of primitive
tribes “east of Suez” and other parts of the world,
finds them
“peaceful, happy, good-natured, faithful and kind to their wives,
and indulgent and considerate to their children; they have a
natural senseof right and justice, are truthful and honest. Having
no property, they are free from the temptation of greed and envy.
Being on terms of equality with their fellows, causes of jealousy
are rare. But they are quick and able to resent injury or in-
justice. . . . They think it perfectly
imonceivabb
that any persm
should ever take what does not belong to him, strike his fellow, or
say anything that is untrue.” a
Paul L. Hoefler, leader of the Colorado African Expedition,
who
returned to the United States after making a painstaking
investigation
of the social customs of a pygmy tribe in the Belgian Congo, writes
that “a man’s family is his only source of boasting and pride, and
these little men and women of the forest marry only for love”1 7 He
observes another significant condition when he says:
“When a young man loves a girl and she loves him, they ask
the father for permission to marry. If he consents they go to the
chief, who must also give consent. He then makes them man and
wife by giving one to the other, but only after a long talk on the
duties of a married couple. They now live together for a while
and, if both are satisfied, report to the chief, who seals the bonds
by some mystic rite.
The couple must now live together as long
as life lasts. There is no polygamy among them, and I was told by
s G.
Elliot
Smith,
Z..unmn
Nature,
6 Ibid., p. 26.
7New York Times, Oct. 6, 1929.
p. 14.
xx
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the chief that his people were very moral-that
very few were
untrue to their mates. If infidelity occurs, the chief may sever the
bends and release the innocent party, in which event the culprit
meets an untimely end, unless he is quick enough to fade into the
jungle and keep hidden away from the clan.” a
Mr. Hoefler’s conclusion is summed up in these words: “I wonder
if all the thousands of intervening years have brought the measure of
happiness to some of us that these little people enjoy. And there is no
evidence to prove that they ever received a revelation from God as to
how they should conduct themselves.” g
Dr. Robert H. Lowie, Professor of Anthropology, University of
California, records his observation of the Plains Indians. In his introduction, he states:
“The so-called savage tribes of the world are not like undisciplined hordes of apes. They do not live only to gratify their
animal instincts. On the contrary, all their behavior is regulated
by strict standards.
The aborigines of Australia are among the
simplest people on record, but neither in hunger nor in love do they
act like the wild beast of the forest.” lo
He was forcibly impressed by the code of morality and ethical conduct
that existed among these Plains
Indians
of North
America,
observing:
“These rules of conduct surely make Indian family relations
different from ours. But odd as they appear to us, they show rcfincment rather than brutality.
They prove that social intercourse was
not left to instinct, but was strictly regulated by social norms.
The Plains Indian was a stickler for the proprieties as he understood
them. Neither as a lover nor a spouse nor as a parent was he anything like the savage of popular fancy, but rather a human being
like ourselves who happened to work out somewhat different
standards of behavior while displaying much the same sort of
human sentiments.” l1
8 New York Times, Oct. 6, 1929
0 Ibid.
fOScientijc Monthly,
a1 Ibid., p. 464.
May,
1932, p. 462.
PREFACE
xxi
This is attested to by the noted anthropologist, G. Elliott Smith.
After an exhaustive study, he concludes: “The evidence that is now
accessible for study establishes the fact that man is by nature a kindly
and considerate creature, with an instinctive tendency to monogamy
and the formation of a happy family group bound together by mutual
affection and consideration. This is the basis of all social organization. The old theories of primitive promiscuity and lack of all sexual
restraint are now shown to be devoid of any foundation, and to be the
very reverse of truth.” I2
The charge that primitive peoples that know nothing about the
“glad tidings of great joy” and never heard of the Ten Commandments
are sexually promiscuous and completely without a workable social
organization, has now been. proved to be without the slightest
foundation.
Man’s conduct in society is self-regulatory. He soon learns that
the rights that he wants for himself must of necessity be granted to his
neighbor. If a man steals from his neighbor, his neighbor will steal
from him, If a man indiscriminately kills, his own life will not be safe.
His sexual life is governed by the same rule. Laws for human conduct
arose as a protection. Not only would Kipling have been disappointed
not to find unrestricted license among primitive and untutored tribes,
but he would have had to go IIHIC~ further than “east of Suez” to find
that laxity of human conduct that he implies exists “where there ain’t
no Ten Commandments.”
Miss May Mott-Smith, writer and artist, announced that after
being “exposed to the perils of New York,” she was gning back to the
safety of Africa, “where there ain’t no Ten Commandments” and
“ ‘white gorillas’ roam the streets.”
“Armed with nothing but a camera,” she said, “I lived for
eighteen months among a score of African tribes. Neither insult
nor assault was ever offered me. Since I have been here, synthetic
gin has corroded my stomach, The only thing that savagery
cannot
give me is good
12Smith, Human Nature,
dentistry.
p. 41.
In fact, only
an uneasy
tooth
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
xxii
brought me back to New York this time. Now that the molar has
been repaired, I’m off for the peace and beauty of the jungle for
another two or three years.“18
Ernest Thompson Seton
found that “one is hampered by the fact that association with man has
always been ruinous to the morals of animals.” l4 He states that the
morality of the animal squares most favorably with that of the human,
and he finds that “there is a deep-rooted feeling against murder in
most animals”; that filial devotion “is purely instinctive-which means
that the law of obedience has been a long, long time in successful
operation.” He observes that “promiscuity was doubtless the mode
when sex first appeared in the animal world,” but that now “monogamy
is their best solution of the marriage question, and is the rule among
all the highest and most successful animals.” Again and again he
In his study of the social life of animals,
gives
illustrations
of strictly
monogamous
s.nimgln
that
have
heen
forced against their will into promiscuous sexual relations by man to
in using the animals’ fur. And yet, so strong is the
high moral sentiment of some animals that they will not violate their
standard even under brutal treatment. He finds that animals have a
sense of property rights and often protect their neighbors’ belongings
from marauders.
“All the highest animals profit by each other’s
knowledge through intercommunications.
Falsification would certainly
work dire disaster,” says this student of animal life regarding lying
satisfy his vanity
among the animals.
In addition to the important fact that animals observed high ethical
rules of conduct without
the aid of an animal
Moses, Mr. Seton’s most
significant discovery was that he “could find nothing in the animal
world that seemed to suggest any relation to a Supreme Being”! The
fact that without “divine assistance” animals have attained the high
level of moral behavior that man with his “divine” blessings and guidance is struggling to achieve, suggests the serious question as to
whether man would not be better off without God’s help!
I3 New
York
Telegraph,
May 20, 1930.
Ten Commandments
I’Ernest Thompson Seton, The
of
the
Animal
World,
p. 25.
...
PREFACE
xx111
Prince Peter Kropotkin, noted scientist in the realm of animal life,
amassed an abundance of evidence to prove the prehuman origin of
morals. He found not only a high moral sense in all types of animals,
but that “life in societies is no exception in the animal world; it is the
rule, the law of Nature.” l5
He speaks of “the high development of parental love in all classes
of animals, even with lions and tigers,” and that among the carnivorous
beasts there is one general rule: tlzey never kill one another.lB
He
states that “compassion is the necessary outconie of social life . . . it
is the first step towards the development of higher moral sentiments.”
Kropotkin particularly stressed the high sense of sociability, common
action, mutual assistance and protection among all species of apes and
monkeys. His conclusion, based on his exhaustive studies, is as
follows:
“It is evident that life in societies would be utterly impossible
without a corresponding development of social feelings, and especially of a certain collective sense of justice growing to become a
habit.
If every individual were constantly abusing its personal
advantages without the others interfering
in favor of the wronged,
no society life would be possible.” 17
Charles Darwin stated that “besides love and sympathy, animals
exhibit other qualities connected with social instincts which in us would
be called morals,” I8 and that “man and the lower animals do not
differ in kind, but degree.” Ia
Some years ago agitation was started to have the Ten Commandments read in the public schools of New York City. The writer was
present at a hearing held before the Board of Education of that city,
and opposed the measure on the ground that the Ten Commandments
were a religious rather than a moral code, and as such had no place in
16Prince Peter Kropotkin,
1% Idem.,
17 T&m.,
Ethics,
Mutual
p. 52.
Aid, D.
** Charles Darwin, Descent
19 Ibid., p. 49.
Mutual
Aid,
p. 46.
51.
of Man,
p.
104.
xxiv
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
a public educational institution. Some other opponents of the measure
sought to prove their contention by reading the Ten Commandments
and commenting on each one separately to show its religious character.
This was stopped on the ground that the procedure was not only
irrelevant to the issue but was likely to cause dissension! Why?
This action provoked Heywood Broun, noted columnist of his time, to
comment:
“A group of adult educatorswas not able to hear the Ten Commandments through without rowing, and so it seems that there is
reason to withhold the Decalogue from the public-school curriculum.
Apparently the advocates of the plan were surprised at the opposition developed, for they proceeded on the assumption that practically all the varying religious groups could unite on this particular
code of ethics.
These optimists overlooked the fact that the
selfsame words may mean several things, not always similar, to
several persons.” z0
Professor Harry A. Overstreet, formerly head of the Department
of Philosophy of the College of the City of New York, admonished a
congregation of ministers meeting in the city of Chicago not to “teach
little children the Ten Commandments. . . . Children are too young
to understand.” 21
The confusion and dissension aroused by reading the Decalogue
recall to my mind the story I heard some time ago about an English
scientist who was traveling through Africa. He came upon a native
eating figs. Examining the figs with his magnifying glass, the scientist
observed that they were swarming with ma.ggnt.s. He told the native
of the danger of disease that would result from eating the decayed
fruit. The native stopped for a moment, listened to the scientist,
looked at the figs, but saw nothing to warrant his not eating them.
The scientist then took his magnifying glass and held it before the
eyes of the native. The latter, ignorant of the nature of the magnifying device, and of the virulence of the disease caused by the decayed
20 New York World, Jan. 27, 1926.
21New York Journal, Jan. 30, 1929.
PREFACE
xxv
figs, broke the glass, thinking that by doing so he would also destroy
the germs-and continued to eat the figs. He died in agony shortly
afterwards.
By the same token, I am led to ask: Do the people want the truth
about the Ten Commandments? Do they want them analyzed? Do
they want to see them under the magnifying glass of investigation?
Or are some people like the native of Africa who believed that by
destroying the instrument which revealed the maggots on the figs he
would, at the same time, destroy the germs? Are some people like the
proverbial ostrich who thinks that when he puts his head into the sand,
the storm has passed?
At one time, most people were like that. Any new idea, any new
proposal, was met with determined opposition. Anyone who dared
question conventional beliefs was stoned or otherwise put to death.
One need but recite the long list of martyrs to understand the brutal
ignorance and stupidity of the great mass of people who were unable
to comprehend things that were to their own advantage, and who
fought to retain those that were inimical to their welfare.
It is one of the strangest inconsistencies of the human being that
he will invent reasons and struggle to maintain conditions that are
detrimental to his own welfare, aye, that even enslave him.
I, for one, do not believe
that
the Ten
Commandments
arc too
sacred to be investigated and analyzed, despite the fact that there are
some who believe that if all else in the Bible were rejected, the lkralogue would be sufficient to convince them of the Bible’s divine
authorship. Neither do I believe that the Ten Commandments should
be blindly accepted, despite the fact that there are some who maintain
that they were written by the finger of God on tablets of stone and
handed to Moses for the guidance of the human race. I do not accept
these premises of the sacredness of the Decalogue, premises which
would automatically preclude challenging both their divine origin and
their moral and ethical value.
Once it was believed that the historical data in the Bible were
infallible; that science, as biblically recorded, was absolute, and that
xxvi
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
the morality of the Bible was most exemplary.
Yet these beliefs have
been exposed as without truth and without foundation.
Will the Ten Commandments,
as an ethical and moral guide, when
subjected to the same investigation
and analysis as have the other
portions of the Bible, meet the same fate? Will they likewise be
found to be falsely labeled, their injunctions
negative in value, and
their influence distinctly and incontrovertibly
harmful and detrimental
to human conduct?
A picture of an angry God pointing his menacing finger and shouting “Thou Shalt Not” has been man’s greatest stumbling block in his
heroic endeavor to emancipate himself from the fear, ignorance, superstition and savagery of his primitive
past.
INTRODUCTION
WHAT
ARE
THE
COMMANDMENTS?
ERE one to turn to the Bible for the Commandments,
he
would find them difficult to discover.
They are not written
on the first page of the Bible.
They are hidden among its
many pages and obscured by a multitudinous
number of texts. If the
reader thinks that the “Ten Commandments”
are as specific and as
definite as the Declaration
of Independence or the Constitution
of the
United States, he will be sadly disappointed.
To find them is like
looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
There is no table of contents in the Bible, nor is there an index to
the Holy Scriptures to indicate where the Ten Commandments
may be
found.
Were acknowledged leaders of the various religions
based upon the
Bible asked where the Decalogue could be found, there would be much
confusion
and contradiction
on their part.
Some would
say that the
Ten Commandments
are recorded in the 20th Chapter of the second
book nf the Five Books of Moses, called Exodus. Others would state
that they are to be found in the 5th Chapter of the fifth book of the
Five Books of Moses, called Deuterortomy;
while others would maintain that Chapters 22 and 23 of the Book of Exodus contain the
revealed words.
And yet “covenants”
as binding as the so-called
Decalogue are found in Chapters 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Book of
Exodus.
In view of these facts, let us “search the Scriptures” ourselves and
see what we find.
1
THE
2
THE
TEN
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
COMMANDMENTS
AS REVEALED
OF EXODUS
IN THE
BOOK
Although we have been told that the Ten Commandments
can be
found in Chapter 20 of the Book of Exodus, I think that the preceding chapter, describing the deliverance
of the Commandments
to
Moses, should be quoted as it provides an introduction
to this momentous event.
I quote Chapter 19 of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the
so-called Five Books of Moses: l
1 In the third month, when the children of
Israel were gone forth out of the land of
Egypt, the same day came they into the
wilderness of Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rcphidim,
and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had
pitched in the wxlderness; and there lsracl
camped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the
Lord called
unto
him
out
of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of
Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Eayptians, and hozet I bare you on eagles’ wings,
and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice
irldeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall
be a peculiar treasure unto me above all
people: for all the earth is mine.
The significance of these statements to the Decalogue will be
apparent when we come to the culminating
event. “God’s” flattery
of the Children of Israel by boasting how he miraculously
“bare you
on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself,” while at the same
time reminding them of “what I did unto the Egyptians”’
is not without a purpose. Because of subsequent events, we are deeply concerned
with the promise as stated in the fifth verse quoted above, where God
says: “NOW therefore’ if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
l The quotations used in this book, unless otherwise stated, were taken from the
authorized King James Version of the Bible, published by the American Bible Society.
INTRODUCTION
3
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all
people; for all the earth is mine.”
I now quote Chapter 19, verses 6 to 9:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom
of
priests, and a holy nation. These are the
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders
of the people, and laid before their faces all
these words which the Lord commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and
said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will
do. And Moses returned the words of the
people unto the Lord.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I
come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the
people may hear when I speak with thee, and
believe thee for ever. And Moses told the
words of the people unto the Lord.
These preparst.ions were essential to the magical performance that
was to follow. There are certain forms of “sanctification” that so
stultify the mind that imaginary events are as vivid and real as though
they had actually occurred. The methods of “purification” generally
consist of fasting, praying, repeating certain formulas, and sexual
abstinence. This was undoubtedly the reason for these instructions
as recorded in the above verses. Visions of having “seen” God are
not unknown in such states of hallucination.
I quote Chapter 19, verses 10 and II:
10 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto
the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes,
11
And
be
ready
agaimt
the
third
day:
for
the third day the Lord will come down in
the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Here is a distinct promise. By preparing themselves according to
the directions given by Moses, the children of Israel are to have the
rare privilege of watching God “come down in the sight of all the
people upon mount Sinai.” This consists of some form of ritual
purification, mentally preparing the people in the manner of the priests
and magicians which was so prevalent in primitive tribal life.
4
THE
I quote Chapter
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
19, verses 12 and 13:
1.2 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round
about,
saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount,
or
touch
the border
of it: whosoever
touchcth
the mount
shall be surely put to death:
13 There shall not a hand touch it, but he
shall
surely
be stoned,
or shot
through;
whether
it be beast or man, it shall not live:
when the trumpet
soundeth
long, they shall
come up to the mount.
What great mystery was concealed on the mountain
that made
death the penalty for anyone even to “touch the border of it”?
Why
the necessity for so much mystery when such an important
event was
to take place-except
as a precaution to avoid exposure?
All acts
associated with the event should have been open and aboveboard.
They should have been performed in the simplest manner so that all
might understand their meaning.
This one particular
event should
have been entirely devoid of confusion or deception.
Mystery aboul the ceremonies was deliberately
created, however,
and fear was the instrument
used to paralyze the mind in order to
make it more receptive.
This accounts for the taboo with the death
penalty for violation.
For so simple an infraction
as touching the
border with a hand, the culprit was to he “stoned” or “shot through.”
No living thing must violate this sacred performance,
and so beasts
were included in the taboo.
On too many occasions, especially in
matters concerning purported conversations and messages from gods,
mystery has been employed by charlatans to hoodwink the people.
I quote Chapter 19, verses 14 and 15:
14 And Moses went down
from the mount
unto the people,
and sanctified
the people;
and they washed their clothes.
15 And he said unto the people, Be ready
agninst the third day: come not at your wives.
What the other acts of self-mortification
were that Moses demanded of the Children of Israel in order that they might “sanctify”
themselves, we do not know; but that sexual abstinence was one of
INTRODUCTION
5
them is stated in the verse quoted above: “Be ready against the third
day; come not at your wives.” It is also not clear why it was necessary for them to ‘(wash their clothes.” But this is certain: the three
days of preparation necessary for “sanctification,” during which urgent
physical functions were to be restrained for the purpose of preparing
a proper receptive mentality, coupled with the strain of three days of
anticipation, had their desired effect in confusing the senses and making the mind more susceptible to the mystical impressions being prepared for it. This method is almost universally practised when
“communion with God” is sought by the “inner self.” It varies with
different types of people, but the ultimate results are the same. Some
eat herbs and roots and some drink intoxicating beverages to produce
the mental exhilaration that results in visions and hallucinations. This
form of ritual was practised by nearly all primitive tribes and persists
even today. Many of the current religions could not exist were it not
for the mental intoxication that certain rituals produce to disarm the
mind from detecting the delusion. The early Hebrews had their own
methods of self-inducing feelings of grandeur and power, particularly
as to their connection and association with their Deity, They were
like the Negroes of the Niger, who have their “fetish water,” the Creek
Indians of Florida, who have their “black drink,” the Mexicans, who
have their “peyotl,” the Samoyeds of Siberia, who use a poisonous
toadstool, certain natives of the United States who smoke “stramonium” -all of which are used to bring about a feeling of direct communication with divine power and to produce ecstatic visions.2
Among the Kiowa Indians of Mexico, “mescal” is eaten as food
for the “soul.” Its psychic manifestations are considered “as supernatural grace bringing men in relation with the gods.” a In Greece
some form of intoxication was used in the celebrations of the established cults. The Pythia of Delphi, after a three-day fast, chewed
lwrcl lcavcs until she was intoxicated, thus producing a state of
ecstasy. The worship of Tracain Dionysus was celebrated in the dead
2 James H. Leuba, Psychology
elbid.,
p. 3.
of Religious
Mysticism,
pp. 2, 3.
6
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of night mid the weirdest of sounds, frenzied shouting and sighing,
which produced a state of “holy madness.” 4
Professor William James’s investigation of this phase of mysticism
is very pertinent here. He observes: “Nitrous oxide [and it might be
other substances], when sufficiently diluted with air, stimulates the
mystical consciousness in an extraordinary degree. Depth beyond
depth of truth seems revealed to the inhaler. This truth fades out,
however, or escapes, at the moment of coming to; and if any words
remain over in which it seemed to clothe itself, they prove to be the
veriest nonsense. Nevertheless, the senseof a profound meaning having
been there persists; I know of more than one person who is persuaded
that in a nitrous-oxide trance we have a genuine metaphysical revelation.” K The relationship of the above to the events as biblically
recorded is obvious as I continue quoting, Chapter 19, verses 16 to 19:
16 And it came to pass on the third day in
the morning, that there were thunders and
lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount,
and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud;
30 that
all the people that
was in the camp
trembled.
17 And Moses brought forth the people out
of the camp to meet with God; and they
stood at the nether part of the mount.
18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke, because the Lord descended upon it
in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as
the smoke of a furnace, and the whole
mount quaked greatly.
10 And when
the voice
of the trump&
sounded long, and waxed louder and louder,
Moses spake, and God answered him by a
voice.
These verses offer additional evidence that the restrictions and
taboos imposed upon the people were to bewilder them. When mystery is purposely introduced into any event, it is more than likely used
for the specific purpose of concealing a fraud. And tkat in substance
was the purpose of this ceremony.
4Leuba, Psychology of Religious Mysticism, p. 11.
6 William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 387.
INTRODUCTION
I continue with Chapter
19, verses 20 and 21:
20 And the Lord came down upon mount
Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord
called Moses up to the top of the mount;
and Moses went up.
21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down,
charge the people, lest they break through
unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them
perish.
The eagerness of the Children of Israel to see their God was
natural. Thousands would have been ready to pass through the valley
of the shadow of death for such a privilege.
I quote Chapter 19, verse 22:
22 And let the priests also, which come near
to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the
Lord break forth upon them.
It is quite obvious that their “vision” of God was an hallucination
which followed their “sanctification.”
There is a certain form of
religious ecstasy that creates from the imagination myslical figures
that appear real, having been impressed upon the mind by autosuggestion.
This is undoubtedly the vision of God that the Children of
Israel saw and heard. When in this state of complete self-hypnosis,
every mental picture suggested is vividly reflected in the devotee’s
mind, as he imagines that scene and event to be. Many are hypnotized into a “state of ecstasy” by genuflecting, kneeling or making
the sign of the cross. There are some awe-inspiring objects that make
overemotional people “feel” that they are in the “presence of God.”
Was Mount Sinai such an object? Some stand before the wide ocean
and claim that they feel “God’s” presence; others have a similar experience when viewing the starry heavens or the vast forests, before
altars in churches, and during religious revivals.
I quote Chapter 19, verses 23 to 25:
23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for lhou
chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the
mount, and sanctify it.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get
thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and
Aaron with thee: hut let not the priests and
the people break through to come up unto
the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.
25 So Moses went down unto the people, and
spake unto them.
There seems to have been a perfect observance of the rules laid
down by Moses, for it does not appear that the Lord visited his vengeance upon any of the people or broke forth upon them. And now the
supremely important event is to take place: The Ten Commandments are to be issued!
I quote Chapter 20, verses 1 to 17:
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage.
3
Thou
shalt
have
no
other
gods
before
me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image, or any likeness of uny tking that is
in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 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;
6
And
shewing
mercy
unto
thoumnds
of
them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 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.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it
holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work:
10
Rut the seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven
and
earlh,
the
sea,
mid
all
LhaL
in
lheru
i3, and
rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
INTRODUCTION
12 Honour
thy father
and thy mother:
that
thy days may be long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth
thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit
adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbour.
17 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.
I count in the above quotation seventeen separate and distinct
verses, with at least thirteen separate and distinct “commands.” That
these seventeen verses and thirteen separate and distinct commands
have since been condensed into what are known as the “Ten Commandments” is something that will require analysis, for we shall find
that not all the religions which accept these Commandments arranged
them alike. Some religious systems fail to include certain provisions
that are not in harmony with their ritual, while others number them
differently.
And then again, why
particularly
ten?
Why
not a different
num-
ber or an odd number? Why not only One Commandment incorporating all the rules promulgated
by the Rible Deity?
Anthropologists tell us that the explanation is simple. They tell
us that our fingers are the basis of our arithmetical table, and for that
reason we count and measure in units of ten.
Our criticism of the method employed in imparting these Commandments, or of the use of so many when a lesser number might
have been sufficient, is not exactly the point which prompts this study.
The important matter under consideration is that we are told that
there is a set of Ten Commandments in the Bible, and that they were
handed down by the God of the universe for the peoples of the earth
to follow as essential to their happiness and salvation.
There is, however, no justification for calling these the Ten Commandments. There are nine additional verses to the chapter that could
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
10
very properly be included and are just as vital as the “Commandments” now condensed into the Decalogue.
For the sake of continuity and for a better understanding of the
complete
text,
I quote
the
remaining
part
of
Chapter 20, which
is
verse 18:
18
and
pet,
the
afar
And all the people saw the thunderings,
the lightnings, and the noise of the trumand the mountain smoking: and when
people saw it, they removed, and stood
off.
Without the trappings and distractions of the early priestmagicians, Moses could not have successfully perpetrated his illusions.
Thunder and lightning in the days of the Biblical Hebrews was still
something to fear, and the priests knew full well its terrifying effect.
Psychologists today understand that certain rituals were perfected to
distract
and numb
the senses while
the religious
ceremnnies
were
being
performed. Modern spiritualists hold seances in dark rooms, thereby
depriving the participants of their sense of sight where sight would
prove disastrous to this particular form of deception. Others resort to
swinging lights as a medium of hypnosis; congregation singing and
response in churches have their use in accomplishing the proper mental
receptiveness by the process of sense deception.
The weird sounds of the trumpet have been used by the medicine
men of primitive societies for deceptive purposes. Its fear-inducing
effects are staggering, especially to ignorant, superstitious
people amid
surroundings as awesome as Mount Sinai was supposed to have been.
I quote
Clzaptw 20, verse 19:
19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou
with us. and we will hear: but let not God
speak with us, lest we die.
The consternation of the Israelites is evident from their pleading
with Moses that only he should speak to them. The angry acts of
God certainly gave them no assurance that they were not in danger.
God had commanded them not to touch or come near Mount Sinai
until they had heard the trumpet. Now that the trumpet had sounded
INTRODUCTION
11
and they approached for the message as well as for the sight of God,
there appeared “thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the
trumpet, and the mountain smoking.”
I quote Chapter 20, verse 20:
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear
not: for God is come to prove you, and that
his fear may be before your faces, that ye
sin not.
Once under the spell of the magician-priest, it is his pet phrase to
comfort his devotees with the words, “fear not.” This is done to
counteract the effect of the excitement that might get beyond control,
cause mental derangement, and produce unrestrained violence.
I quote Chapter 20, verses 21 to 24:
21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses
drew near unto the thick darkness where God
was.
22 And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus
thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye
have seen that I have talked with you from
heaven.
23 Ye shall not make with me gods of
silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods
of gold.
24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto
me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt
offerings,
and
thy
peace
offerings,
thy
sheep,
and thine oxen: in all places where I record
my name I will come unto thee, and I will
bless thee.
If an altar of earth had to be made and certain sacrifices performed, why did not God incorporate these instructions in the Commandments? Why was it necessary to make “burnt offerings and
peace offerings”? Sheep and oxen in those days were the standards
by which people measured their wealth. And what peculiar sort of
God was it who would record his name in the different parts of the
country where there were owners of sheep and oxen? The whole performance looks suspicious. It seems like a trick by which the people
are induced to “sacrifice” their possessions to the priests of the
“Lord.”
12
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The evidence from the above narrative is sufficient to prove that
this ceremony took place in the days of the most primitive tribal life
and among the most superstitious kind of people. The element of
blood sacrifice
stands
out prominently
as part of the ritual,
and we
GUI
determine the age of a religion just as effectively by its ritual as we
can determine the age of the earth by its geological formation.
I quote Chapter 20, verses 25 and 26:
25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of
stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone:
for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast
polluted it.
26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto
mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
Of all the important things in life that God could impart to man
on this only occasion in which he made a pilgrimage to earth, what
precious knowledge did he reveal? Let me repeat-it is so worthy of
reiteration: “And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt
not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou
hast polluted it.”
There is significant meaning in the words of verse 26, as it was
once universally part of the ritual taboo associated with “holy” altars.
That this entire narrative is but part of the scheme to make plausible
the ability of a priest-magician to commune with God is evident.
Such performances took place in all tribes similar to the early Hebrews.
In those days the priest-magician “talked wiU1 God” with more than
casual familiarity. Someone had to possessthat ability, for the primitive mind could not conceive that life could go on without the personal
direction of a deity. It was through the mediumship of the priests
that the god selected his “chosen people” for special favors and blessings, and protected them against the forces of evil.
That none shalt go up “by steps unto mine altar” lest “thy nakedness be discovered” only strengthens the delusion and is a threat to
inspire fear-the basic principle of all religious beliefs.
This, however, shall not deter us from a further search for the
Commandments as revealed in the Book of Deuteronomy.
13
INTRODUCTION
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
AS REVEALED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY
It
is nut
for rnG to dr;tc;rminc
wly
one vvsion
of the
Ten
Con--
mandments should be found in the Book of Exodus and another in the
Book of Deuteronomy.
If, as is contended, Moses was the author of
both books, then these precepts, if they were divinely spoken, should
be as infallibly identical as two perfect reflections of the same thing.
Let us see.
I quote the fifth of the Five Books of Moses, called Deuteronomy,
Ckapter
5, verses 1 to 5:
1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto
them, Hear, 0 Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day,
that ye may learn them, and keep and do
them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with
us in Horeb.
3 The Lord made not this covenant with
our fathers, but with us, even us, who aye all
of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord talked with you face to face in
the mount out of the midst of the fire,
5 (I stood between the Lord and you at that
time, to shew you the word of the Lord:
for ye were afraid
by reason
of the fire, and
went not up into the mount.)
I know that it is somewhat bold to contradict so great a lawgiver
as Moses or to doubt the veracity of one who has seen God “face to
1 must chdlenge
a. statement. recorded in verse
face.” Nevertheless
4, where the narrator says that the Lord did talk face to face with the
people. Our first version said that if anyone approached the mount
he would surely die. However, verse 5, immediately following, indicates that the writer of this version of the Ten Commandments was
well aware of this contradiction.
This contradiction is not to be lightly dismissed, in view of the
supposed seriousness of the event. Zf the event took place, then all
descriptions of what occurred should be as definite as any law of
14
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
nature. This disparity and contradiction cause several doubts to be
raised-first, as to the accuracy of the events, and second, as to the
validity of the narrative.
These are the Ten Commandments as recorded in the 5th Chapter
of the fifth of the Five Books of Moses, called Deuterolzomy:
6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house
of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have none other gods before
me.
8 Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the
earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto
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
me,
and fourth
10 And
them that
ments.
11 Thou
Lord thy
lwld
gorocrat~on
of them
that
hate
showing mercy unto thousands of
love me and keep my command-
shalt not take the name of the
God in vain: for the Lord will not
him guiltless
that taketh his name in
vain.
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as
the f.nrd thy God hath commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy
work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God: itz it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor
thinc
ox, nor thine
OS, nor
any
of thy
cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that
thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest
as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant
in the land of Egypt, and that tke Lord thy
God brought thee out thence through a
mighty hand and by a stretched out arm:
therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee
to keep the sabbath day.
16
Honor thy father
and thy
mother,
OS
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that
thy days may be prolonged, and that it may
INTRODUCTION
15
go well with thee, in the land which
Lord thy God giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not kill.
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
20
Neither
shalt
thou
bear
f&o
the
witness
against thy neighbor.
21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s
wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s
house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing
that is thy neighbor’s
I find that there are in this narrative sixteen separate and distinct
verses with at least thirteen separate and distinct “commands.” Why
they have been condensed into “ten” deserves some explanation.
Nothing in the narrative justifies this arrangement. Who is responsible
for the condensation of these so-called precepts of God?
Professor Andrew C. Zenos, Dean and Professor of Biblical Theology at McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, supports this
contention in his analysis of the Decalogue when he says:
“The arrangement of the moral precepts in the form of ten
commandments was neither demanded by the nature of the subject
nor suggested by logical or philosophical considerations. It is the
result of deference to the popular regard and conventiona value
of the number ten, rccognizcd at the time.” 6
However, in the condensation and rearrangement of these Commandments we shall find, as we did in those recorded in the Book of
Exodus, that not all the religions which accept these Commandments
as a divine reveIation.arrange them alike. Some are placed in different
positions and some are entirely omitted because they are not in harmony with the ritual of a particular creed.
The variations existing between the two sets of Commandments
require serious consideration, especially in view of the statement of
Moses that these were delivered to the Children of Israel who were
present
e New
at
the time and were still living.
Standard
Bible
Dictionary,
p. 174.
I/wsc 3 distinctly
states,
16
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even
us, who are all of us here alive this day.”
But today we are told by Biblical authorities that these separate
sets of Commandments
“exhibit some variants.” 7 And so we proceed
to find what these “variants” are, and why.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS AND
THEBOOKOFDEUTERONOMY
Some readers might consider that the “variants” which differentiate
the wording of the Commandments in the Exodus and Deuteronomy
versions are too inconsequential to be taken up in a separate section.
This would be a valid criticism if these variations occurred only in
the different versions of the Bible. But since they appear in the same
volume, they are serious differences and highly significant as to the
utter
unreliability
of the Biblical
narrative
concerning
the Ten Com-
mandments8
EXODUS
DEUTERONOMY
First Commandment, Chapter 20,
verse 2
2 I am the Lord thy God, which
have brought thee out of the land
of
Egypt,
out
of the
house
of bond-
First Commandment,
Verse 6
6 I am the Lord thy
brought thee out of
Egypt, from the house
Chapter 5,
God, which
the land of
of bondage,
age.
Already there is a noticeable difference between these two sets of
Commandments. In the Exodus version, the word ‘(have” is used, but
il is not present in the Dezlteronomy version. The last phrase in
Exodus reads, “out of the house of bondage,” and the Deuteronomy
version uses “irom the house of bondage.”
This first Commandment
does “exhibit some variants,” though slight.
7 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 492.
8These “variants” occur also in both the Hebrew and Douay Bibles.
INTRODUCTION
DEUTERONOMY
EXODUS
Second Commandment,
Verses
Chapter
3 to 6
20,
3 Thou shalt have no other gods
before me.
4 Thdu 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 heneath, or that is in the water under
the earth:
5 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;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and
keep my commandments.
Second
Commandment,
Chapter
Verses 7 to 10
5,
7 Thou shalt have none other gods
before me.
8 Thsu shalt not make thee afly
graven image, OYany likeness of ani
thing
that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself
unto 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,
10 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and
keep my commandments.
Again the facsimile “exhibits some variants.” The &ocEus version
reads, “thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them,”
while the Deuterortomr
version states, “thou shalt not bow down
thyself unto thenz, nor serve them”; also in the Ex&us
version we find
these words: ‘Lor that is in the water under the earth,” in contrast to
the
version, which says, “or that is in the waters beneath
Dezcte7olzomy
the earth.”
*
EXODUS
DEUTERONOMY
Chapter 20,
Verse 7
7 Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain: for the
Commandment, Chapter
S’,
Verne II
11 Thou shalt not take the name
of the Lord thy God in vain: for
Lord
the Lord
Third
Commandment,
will
not hold
him
guiltless
taketh his name in vain.
that
Third
will
not
hold
hkz
guiltless
that taketh his name in vain.
There is no difference between these two versions of the Third
Commandment, with the exception of the italicized
Deuteronomy version.
word h&n
in the
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
18
DEUTERONOMY
EXODUS
Fourth
Commandment,
Chapter
Verses 8 to 11
20,
8 Remember the sabbath day, to
keep it holy.
9
Six
days shalt thou labor, and
do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the Lord
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Fourth
Commandment,
Verses
Chapter
12 to 15
5,
17. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labor, and
do all thy work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor
any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates; that thy
manservant and thy maidservant
may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast
a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee
out thence through a mighty hand
ad by a bllCtl,llrLl UUL arm; lhrrrfore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the sabbath day.
In the Fourth Commandment as recorded in Exodus, ninety-four
words were used to express this Commandment, but in Deuteronomy
one hundred and thirty-three words were necessary to express it. However, the difference between the turnher of words is not so important
as the difference in what they say. The reason given for observing
the Sabbath as recorded in Exodus is “For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day”; the reason given in Deuteronomy is “that thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.”
Whether God commanded the Sabbath to be observed for the
reason that he Testecl” aller laboring for six days, or because “thou
wast a servant in the land of Egypt,” is a matter far more serious than
a mere “variant.”
Verse, 2 and 3 of the 2nd Chapter of Genesis, although supporting
INTRODUCTION
19
the reason for the Sabbath as recorded in Exo&s, are in direct contradiction to the reason stated in Deuteronomy. For additional evidence of conflict with the Deuteronomy version, consider these important quotations from &odus, Chapter 31, verses 12 to 17:
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of
Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall
keep: for it is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may
know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify
you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for
it is holy unto you. Every one that defileth
it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall
be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the
seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the
Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16
Wherefore
the
children
of
Israel
shall
keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath
throughout their generations, for a perpetual
rovennnt.
17 It is a sign between me and the children
of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord
made heaven and earth, and on the seventh
day he rested, and was refreshed.
It is obvious from this quotation that the Sabbath was to be observed because the Lord rested on the seventh day, which contradicts
the reason given for the Commandment as recorded in the very same
source, the Book of Exodus. This raises the serious question as to
whether or not the Sabbath is only as old as Moses or as old as creation
-and what a “variant” that is1 Q
One or the other must be condemned as false, and since it is
impossible to determine which one, and since both stand in the same
relation to each other, both should be rejected until substantiating
cvidcncc is found in support of one or the other version. Neither
possessesinternal evidence of being an “inspired” revelation.
9 The Sabbath as “a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever” will be
further discussed in the analysis of the Fourth Commandment.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
20
EXODUS
Fifth
DEUTERONOMY
Commandment,
Verse
Chapter
20,
Fifth
Commandment,
Verse
12
Cha#ter
5,
16
12 Honor thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long
16 Honor thy father and thy
mother, as the Lord thy God hath
upon
commanded
the
land
which
the
Lord
thy
God giveth thee.
thee;
that
thy
days
may
be prolonged, and that it may go
well with thee, in the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee.
There are twenty-two words in the version of Exodus compared
with thirty-eight words in Deuteronomy, and the latter contains an additional reason for honoring parents. Which is the correct and authentic declaration? Shall you honor your parents that “thy days may be
prolonged, and that it may go well with thee,” or that “thy days may
be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”?
DEUTERONOMY
EXODUS
Sixth
Commandment,
Verse
Chapter
20,
Sixth
13
Thou shalt not kill.
Commandment,
Verse 17
Chapter
5,
Thou shalt not kill.
The Sixth Commandment of only four words shows no variant.
EXODUS
Seventh
Commandment,
Verse 14
DEUTERONOMY
Chafiter
20,
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Seventh
Neither
tery.
Commandment,
Verse 18
Chapter
5,
shalt thou commit adul-
That there is a difference in wording in this Commandment is
important, though there is no difference in meaning.
DEUTERONOMY
EXODUS
Eighth
Commandment,
Chapter 20,
Eighth
Verse 15
Thou shalt not steal.
Neither
Chapter 5,
Commandment,
Verse 19
sIlJC
lhuu
sleiil.
The same difference prevails concerning this Commandment as the
previous one.
INTRODUCTION
21
EXODUS
Ninth
DEUTERONOMY
Commandment,
Chapter
Verse 16
20,
Thou shalt not bear false witness
rrp:ns+ thy neighbor.
Ninth
Commandment,
Verse 20
Chapter
5,
Neither shalt thou bear false witnw againat Lily nt;iglluur.
This difference is just as important a variation as in the previous
Commandments.
EXODUS
Tenth
Commandment,
Verse
DEUTERONOMY
Chapter
20,
Tenth
Commandment,
Chapter
5,
Verse 21
17
If Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor’s.
21 Neither shalt thou desire thy
neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou
covet thy neighbor’s house, his field,
or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thittg
that is thy neighbor’s.
The above Commandment has the same differences as the three
previously quoted with one additional “variant” and a very important
and significant transposition. In Exodus the first line of the Commandment reads, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” while
in Deuteronomy the first line reads, “Neither shalt thou desire thy
neighbor’s wife.” According to the best Biblical scholars, this indicates that the Deuterolzomy version was written in a later period of
culture than the Exodus version, because property in early Biblical
days was considered of greater value than a wife. In this text the
word “field” is also specified, whereas it is omitted in Exo~us.~~
In the face of these “variants” and the obvious conclusion that
one or the other must be wrong, which set is to be accepted and which
one rejected? For no matter how small the “variant,” it brands one
or the other as not being “divinely inspired.” The early rabbis, however, maintained that there could be no contradictions between the
texts because they were both spoken simultaneously and miraculously
by God.ll
lo Jewish
I1 Ibid.
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 4, pp. 492, 493.
THE
22
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
It is contended by some Biblical authorities that the italicized word
in the Bible indicates the insertion of a missing word from the text
of the manuscript from which it was translated. If this is true, then
the condusion
is inevitahle
that the Biblical
teat is not infallible
or
that there is no authority for the inserted italicized word.
THE CONFLICTING
ARRANGEMENT
OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
AS REVEALED BY A COMPARISON
OF THE PROTESTANT,
CATHOLIC
AND HEBREW VERSIONS I2
I have stated previously, and subsequent facts will prove, that not
all the religions which accept these Commandments as the revealed
words of God condense them in the same manner or interpret them
the same way. They arc arranged to suit the exigencies of the particular creed and to fit the ritual of the particular form of worship.
We are told by religious leaders that the Bible is the inspired word
of God, and that man must not presume to pit his finite intelligence
against it. Yet that is exactly what the religionists have done with
so important a part of the Bible as the Ten Commandments-God’s
supposed words written with his own finger!
We are told that regardless of other differences that might exist
among these three religions, they are in perfect accord on the Ten
Commandments !
If there is any pIace where perfect accord should exist in Biblical
matters among the sects, it should be in the Decalogue. If they do not
agree about the only message that God is supposed to have delivered
himself, how can we expect to find them in agreement on matters about
which they admit there exists much doubt and speculation?
Although
the Protestant,
Catholic
and
Hebrew Bibles vary
but
slightly and then only textually, the listing to follow reveals a deliberate change made by those responsible for the arrangement of the
Commandments.
1s AS based upon the Exodzls version.
INTRODUCTION
THE DECALOGUE
ACCORDING TO THE
PROTESTANT
VERSION 1s
l7rc.t rnmennnnlmrmt
Thou shalt have no
other gods before me.
THE DECALOGUE
ACCORDING TO THE
CATHOLIC
VERSION 14
Rbrf Pnrnmnr,Jmrwf
I am the Lord thy God.
Thou
shalt not have
strange Gods before me.
23
THE DECALOGUE
ACCORDING TO THE
HEBREW
VERSION 15
z7;rr+ rnmmnnnlmrat
I am the Lord thy God,
who brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slavery.
In the First Commandment, the reader will note that the words
“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage,” is left out of the Protestant version completely, and partially from the Catholic. It forms the First Commandment according to the Hebrews.
In the Catholic and Protestant versions, the reference to being
“brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” was
left out for very good and sufficient reasons!
That part of the Com-
mandment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Protestants or
Catholics. When t.he Cnmmandments were written, they were not in
existence. They were never in Egypt, and the Lord had no occasion to
free them from the yoke of bondage; by this very omission the Ten
Commandments are stamped as a purely provincial code, applicable,
if at all, only to the Children of Israel. In this respect both the Catholics and the Protestants have judiciously, yet deceitfully, refrained
from using it, despite the incontrovertible fact that it is part of the
Uecalogue, and just as vital as the other parts.
In some editions of the Hebrew Bible, the word “bondage” has
been substituted for “slavery.”
The explanation given for this change
by the best Biblical authorities is that the Jews do not want to characterize Egypt as a place of slavery while the Jews living in Egypt arc
I3 The Protestant version of the Ten Commandments used here is the generally
accepted King James version, issued by the American Bible Society.
14The Catholic version of the Ten Commandments used here is the one printed in
the Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri, “published with Ecclesiastical approval” and bearing the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop, New York.
P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1932.
I5 The Hebrew version of the Ten Commandments used here is the one printed by
the Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 192.2.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
24
enjoying liberty there. Was the integrity of the text sacrificed for the
sake of expediency? I6
In wording this Commandment, however, the Catholics were clevcrer
than
the
Protestants.
They
used
the
first
five
words
of
the
Corn-
mandment but left out the succeeding damaging phrase, and have
added, though in a corrupted form, the first part of the Second Commandment. The Protestants, unable to use the First Commandment
as biblically recorded, have daringly taken the first sentence of the
Second Commandment as the first one in the arrangement of the
Decalogue 1
In an address over radio station WEAF,l’ the second of a series
dealing with the Ten Commandments, the Rev. James M. Gillis,
C.S.P., made this statement: “On the tablets of Moses, the First
Commandment read: ‘I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have
strange Gods before me.’ ” l8
I challenge this statement of the Rev. James M. Gillis, C.S.P., and
state categorically! No such words appeared on the tablets of Moses
as biblically recorded, and in making that statement he either deliberately falsified the text or is ignorant of the facts. If the former, it
invalidates his right to discuss this question; and if the latter, it reveals his incompetence.
If the Rev. James M. Gillis does not accept my indictment, perhaps
he will abide by the following quotation taken from the Douay Version
of the Bible, “published with the imprimatur and approbation of His
Eminence John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.”
I quote Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 1 and 2:
1
And
the
Lord
spoke
all
these
words:
2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought you
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage.
18 R. H. Charles, The Decalogue, p. xxviii. The Protestant and Catholic Bibles use
the word “bondage” instead of “slavery.”
17 Nov.
23,
1930.
l* Published as The Moral
ington, D.C., p. 23.
Law by the National
Council of Catholic Men,
Wash-
25
INTRODUCTION
Why did the Rev. James M. Gillis fail to include the words, ‘(who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,”
particularly when he states that “the Ten Commandments are not
the voice of man-they
are the revelations
of the mind and will
of the
Almighty,” and “whether He whisper or whether He thunder, the message is the same, the infallible, everlasting moral law, in brief, the
Ten Commandments”? l9
In the course of his discussion of the Ten Commandments, the
Rev. James M. Gillis states that “a lie is a lie, whether it come out
of the mouth, or off the page,” and that “if to the lie is added fraud,
restitution must be made-otherwise, in the Catholic system absolution for the sin cannot be obtained.” 2o According to his own standard,
James M. Gillis himself is placed in the category of those doomed by
the dogma of his own Church.
PROTESTANT
Second Commandment
4 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:
5 Thou shalt not bow
down thyself to them, nor
Serve them: for I the Lord
thy God ails 3 jealous
God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the
children unto the third
and fourth generation of
them that hate me;
6 And showing mercy
uuto thousands of them
that love me, and keep
my commandments.
CATHOLIC
Second Commandment 21
Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord thy God
in vain.
HEBREW
Second Commandment
3 Thou shalt have no
uL11rr
gods before Me.
4 Thou shalt not make
unto thee a graven image,
nor any manner of 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;
5 Thou shalt not bow
down unto them, nor servo
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
bate Me;
6 And
showing mercy
unto the thousandth generation of them that love
Me and keep My commandments.
18 Rev. James M. Gillis, The Moral Low, p. 13.
*OIbid., p. 81.
21 Since the language used in the Douay Version of the Bible differs only textually
26
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
In addition to the italicized words which differentiate the Protestant and Hebrew versions of the Second Commandment, we find that
the Catholics leave out the entire Second Commandment. They omit
it because it would interfere with the most lucrative part of their ritual
-the worship and adoration of saints. Catholics not only make
“graven images” in direct prohibition and violation of the Second
Commandment, but they also worship these images in defiance of an
angry and vengeful God. That the Roman Catholic Church has practised this defiance with impunity for centuries indicates either the impotence of the Bible God or the falsity of the Commandments.
Catholic historical records show that the Church has continuously,
since the fourth century, published a mutilated set of Commandments
and maintained it as the true version by prohibiting anyone from
reading the Bible! 22
Since the Seventh General Council, 787 A.D., the Second Commandment has either been omitted or falsely explained away. In fact,
so cleverly did the Catholic Church perpetrate this fraud that up to
and even after the Reformation it was not discovered, and formed the
Decalogue as accepted by the Anglican Church as late as 1563. So
strongly was this mutilated version of the Commandments intrenched
that even Martin Luther did not discover the imposition until several
decades after his schism with Rome,23 and accounts for the Lutherans
accepting the Catholic version of the Decalogue.
I am constrained to refer to the text of the Decalogue in Exodm
of the Douay Version of the Bible for additional evidence of the perfidy of the Catholic Church in omitting the Second Commandment.
The heading at the beginning of the chapter is “The Ten Commandments.” I quote Chapter 20, verses 4,5 and 6:
from the King James and Hebrew Versions, we will not concern ourselves with it.
does
not
in
the
slightest
degree
in the Catholic Catechism.
referred to the Douay Bible.
22 That
is one
of
the
reasons
mitigate
the
mutilation
For a comparison
why
was strangled and burned at the stake.
aa Charles, op. tit., pp. 61, 63.
Tyndale,
of
the
Commandments
This
printed
of the complete text, the reader is
who
translated
the
Bible
into
English,
INTRODUCTION
27
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven
thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor
of those things that are in the waters under
the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve
them: I am tne Lord tny tied, mignty,
jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me:
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of
them that love me, and keep my commandments.
In order to omit the Second Commandment from the Decalogue,
not only must verses 8, 9 and 10 be eliminated from CIzapter 5 of the
Book of Deuteronomy,
but the above verses 4, 5 and 6 must also be
deleted from this chapter as well as from other portions of the Bible.
While the Catholic Catechism omits this Commandment from its
arrangement of the Decalogue, the Catholic Encyclopedia
admits its
validity as part of the Ten Commandments and even its application
to the prohibitions of making and worshiping graven images! 24
The Catholic Church stands convicted not only by evidence taken
from its own records, but by its own authorities. The listing of the
Ten Commandments as they appear in the Douay Version of the Bible
has additional value to us besides furnishing incontrovertible evidence
in indicting the Catholic Church for deliberate deception in omitting
the Second Commandment from the Decalogue.
That image worship is a degrading superstition and was condemned by the early Church Fathers in scathing terms, is one of the
amazing contradictions
of Catholicism.
St. Augustine, undoubtedly
the
foremost of the group, said: “He who worships an image turns the
truth of God unto a lie.” Even the crucifix, which is worshiped and
adored today, is as much an idolatrous instrument as the image of a
man or woman. It was introduced as part of the worship of the
Church only in the latter part of the sixth century, and finally authorized by the Council of Constantinople, 692 A.D. The crucifix was
a4 Catholic
Encyclopedia, art. “Images,” Vol. 1, p. 664.
28
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
unknown until the sixth century, and liberal Protestants
still abhor
its use as being beneath the dignity of an intelligent
person.25
The Christians of France, Germany and England condemned the
action of the Seventh General Council authorizing
the worship of
images, and foremost among the opponents was Charlemagne.
It would require too lengthy an analysis to give the complete reason why the Roman Catholic Church violates this Commandment
and
omits it from its version of the Decalogue.
Suffice it to say that when
Constantine embraced Christianity,
he found that the incurably superstitious would not relinquish
their idols, and so the Church, after a
feeble and unsuccessful effort, merely incorporated
image worship as
part of its ritual.
The financial returns more than justified the compromise with “God’s Word.”
In order to make up for the omission of the Second Commandment,
the Catholic Church moved up the third and made it the second. It
will be interesting, as we continue this comparison, to see for ourselves
how they schemingly provided for the “ten.”
With the exception of using tht: first sentence: ot this Cornmandment as the first of the Decalogue, the Protestants and the Hebrews
differ only slightly
in the wording,
which
is not particularly
important
in this comparison.
CATHOLIC
PROTESTANT
Third Commandment
7 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.
Third Commandment
Remember thou keep the
Sabbath
nay.
HEBREW
Third Commandment
7 Thou shalt not take
the
nanw
nf
the
T,nrd
thy
God in vain; for the Lord
will not hold him guiltless
that taketh His name in
vain.
For the first time there is perfect accord hetween the Protestants
and Hebrews on one of the Commandments.
The Catholics, however,
in order to make up for the omission of the Second Commandment,
merely move up the next one, making the fourth the third.
There
seems to be no justification
for the mutilated
form in which they exa6 Charles, op. cit., p. 43.
29
INTRODUCTION
press it, nor can I find a reason for its mutilation, except to avoid
the embarrassing question of why it is to be observed.
CATHOLIC
PROTESTANT
Fourth
Commandment
KememRer
tne xs?~Wtk
day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day
is the sabbath of the Lord
thy God: in it thou shalt
not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates:
For i~ six days the
Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that
in
them
is,
and
rested
Fourth
TIyn~r
Fourth
Commandment
thy
Fnthcr
thy Mother.
the
rind
Rumlimbe.
the
sabbath
day to keep it holy. Six
days shalt thou labour,
a&l do all thy work. But
the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the
Lord thy God; on it thou
shalt not do any work,
neither thou, nor thy son,
nor thy daughter, thy
manservant
nor
thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates; For
in six days the Lord made
the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in
them,
seventh day: wherefore the
Lord blessed the sabbath
day, and hallowed it.
HEBREW
Commandment
and
r&cd
on
the
seventh day; therefore the
Lord blessed the sabbath
day, and hallowed it.
While the difference between the Protestant and Hebrew versions
is mostly italicized words, we find that again the Catholic Church has
misplaced the Fifth Commandment and listed it as the fourth, with
the same omissions.
PROTESTANT
Fifth
Honor
thy
mother:
CATHOLIC
Commandment
thy father
that
thy
Fifth
and
days
may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God
giveth thee.
Commandment
Thou shalt not kill.
HEBREW
Commandment
Honour thy father and
thy mother: in order that
thy days may be prolonged upon the land
which the Lord thy God
giveth thee.20
Fifth
Again the Catholics have moved the sixth to the place of the
fifth, whereas the Protestant and Hebrew differ only textually.
2aIt is significant that in the Deuteronomy
version of the Ten Commandments
phrase “and in order that it might go well with thee” is included.
the
30
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
PROTESTANT
Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill.
CATHOLIC
Sixth
Commandment
Thou shalt not commit
adultery.
HEBREW
Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill.
In this Commandment, the PrOteStUXS and the Hebrews are alS0
in accord, while the Catholics have placed the Seventh Commandment
in the position of the sixth. It is a notorious fact that when the Catholics wish to admonish their adherents against the violation of this
Commandment, they never refer to it by number.27
CATHOLIC
PROTESTANT
Seventh
Commandment
Thou shalt not commit
adultery.
Seventh
Commandment
Thou shalt not steal.
HEBREW
Commandment
Thou shalt not commit
adultery.
Seventh
Once more the Protestants and the Hebrews are in accord, while
the Catholics continue to move up a Commandment in order to provide for the omission of the second.
In passing, I should like to mention that this Commandment was
once placed before the one referring to killing because at one time
adultery was considered the greater offense. In fact, in the oldest
Biblical manuscript, a parchment known as the “Nash Manuscript,7’
the prohibition of adultery precedes that of killinga2*
PROTESTANT
Eighth
Commandment
Thou shalt not steal.
CATHOLIC
Eighth
Commandment
Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy
neighbor.
HEBREW
Eighth
Commandment
Thou shalt not steal.
The agreement between the Protestant and Hebrew versions of this
Commandment only emphasizes the falsity of the Catholic arrangement.
27 The misnumbering of the Commandments by the Catholics has caused considerable
confusion when they are referred to by number in the public press. For instance, in
a news story when a murderer is condemned for violating the Sixth Commandment
(Thou shalt not kill), in the minds of Catholics he is being charged with having committed adultery !
** Charles, op. cit., p. xxv.
INTRODUCTION
PROTESTANT
Ninth
31
CATHOLIC
Commandment
Ninth
Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy
neighbor.
Commandment
Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour’s wife.
HEBREW
Ninth
Commandment
Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy
neighbor.
The significance here lies in the fact that the Catholics have taken
a part of the Tenth Commandment and made it the ninth! Refer
again to the 17th verse of the 20th Chapter of Exodus of the Douay
Bible, and it will be plainly seen that this Commandment is in one
complete sentence and does not lend itself to a division such as the
Catholic Church made in order to cover up its duplicity by omitting
the Second Commandment. I quote for the convenience of the reader:
Thou
neither
servant,
ass, nor
shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house:
shalt thou desire his wife, nor his
nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his
any thing that is his.
If the Tenth Commandment were divided into two verses or two
sentences in the Bible, its separation could have been defended on
that score; but even such a flimsy excuse cannot be resorted to as a
defense in this rrlonurnental
piece of brazen
deceit
and hypocrisy.
Certainly the Tenth Commandment does not admit of separation. It
deals with but one human trait-covetousness-expressed
in one cnmplete sentence. In addition, the first line of the Commandment, in
both the Hebrew and Protestant versions, reads, “Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor’s house . . .” 29 The Catholic arrangement of
the Decalogue makes “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife” the
Ninth Commandment, and coveting the neighbour’s property the tenth.
Catholics apparently use the Deuterolzomy version as the source for
the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. By doing this, they are placed
in the position of accepting the reason for the observance of the Sabbath as the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. “Confusion worse
confounded! ”
2QThis was noted in the analysis of the difference between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions, p. SC. Also note variation in the spelling of the word neighbor.
32
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
PROTESTANT
CATHOLIC
Tenth Commandment
Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor’s house, thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor‘s
wife,
nor
his
Tenth
HEBREW
Commandment
Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour’s goods.
man-
servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass,
nor any thing that is thy
neighbor’s.
Tenth Comm@ndmen.t
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.
While the Protestants and Hebrews agree as to the Tenth Commandment, the Catholic version continues with a mutilated arrangement, leaving out vital details of the Biblical text, essential to the
understanding of this Commandment.
Before turning our attention to an analysis of the ethical, moral
and philosophical value of the Commandments, I should like to mention an incident which occurred just before a former mayor of the
City of New York, James J. Walker, departed for an extended European trip. The Grand Street Boys’ Association held a dinner in his
honor. At its conclusion, as a token of the good will and harmony
I among those present, who comprised Protestants, Jews and Catholics,
Supreme Court Justice Edward Riegelman presented to Mr. Walker,
on behalf of the association, a golden scroll of the Ten Commandments written
in Hebrew, with the following
remark:
“This
is pre-
sented by Hebrews, through a Protestant, to a Catholic as an expression of the plane upon which all hope to stand.”
If “the plane upon which all hope to stand” is no better than their
agreement on the Ten Commandments, then they are all doomed to
fall!
THE
FIRST
TABLES
OF STONE
Any study of the Decalogue without some reference to the Tables
of Stone would be incomplete,
though we have already
Commandments as recorded in ExocEus and Deuteronomy.
fore proceed to examine the Biblical narrative
listed the
We there-
concerning them.
The fact that the narratives describing the deliverance of the Ten
INTRODUCTION
33
Commandments do not appear consecutively in the Bible has caused
much confusion. The chapters must be painstakingly combed in order
to connect the many references to the Commandments and the Tables
of Stnne and make the story comprehensible.
This recmires the elimination of many misplaced and interpolated passages that have no
bearing on, or relationship to, the events described. To separate one
from the other is a difficult and arduous task.
As there is confusion and contradiction about the Commandments
themselves, so there is confusion and contradiction about their method
of deliverance. Just as we have found-so far-that
there are two
sets of Commandments,30 so we find that there are two sets of Tables
of Stone, and the narratives concerning them are equally conflicting.
I quote the Book of Exodus, Chapter 24, verses 1 to 9:
1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto
the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and
Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel;
and worship ye afar off.
2 And Moses alone shall come near the
Lord;
buL
Lhey
shall
not
cvux
nigh;
neither
shall the people go up with him.
3 And Moses came and told the people all
the wnrdn nf the Lord, and all the judgments:
and all the people answered with one voice,
and said, All the words which the Lord hath
said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the
Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and
builded an altar under the hill, and twelve
pillars,
according
to the twclvc
tribes
of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of
Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and
sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the
Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put
it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled
on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant,
and read in the audience of the people: and
they said, All that the Lord hath said will we
do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled
it on the people, and said, Behold the blood
30 There are actually several “sets” of Commandments, but for convenience and to
avoid more confusion they were omitted from this study.
34
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of the covenant, which the Lord hath made
with you concerning all these words.
9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab,
and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel.
Among peoples of primitive culture, the binding of any “covenant”
was consecrated by the use of blood, and this custom prevailed also
Let me repeat the words: “All that
among the Biblical Hebrews.
the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.”
In response, “Moses
took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the
blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
This, then, was the binding agreement between
the Children of Israel and the Bible God. There has been a “meeting
I quote Chapter
of the minds,” and for the terms of the “contract,”
24, verses 10 and 11:
10 And they saw the God of Tsrael: and
there wus under his feet as it were a paved
work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the
body of heaven in Izis clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of
Israel he laid not his hand; also they saw
God, and did eat and drink,
It is not an uncommon experience among primitive
and superstitious people to have visions of their god. It was not a difficult thing
for the priest-magician
of primitive
tribes to provide such visions to
specially favored members of the clan. Neither was it a difficult mental task to “see” the settings of the surroundings.
This accounts for
the “paved work of a sapphire stone” under God’s feet. What they
saw was a vision of the mind and not an image of the senses.31
To continue, I quote Chapter 24, verse 12:
*l This constantly occurs among highly emotional people who suffer from religious
hallucinations.
It recalls to my mind that in Italy there is a well which priests have
utilized with great success. They tell the faithful believer, particularly after he had
attended church services, that if he has performed his religious duties with scrupulous
fidelity he will be able to see the face of Jesus Christ by looking long and intently at
the bottom of the ~~11. Nu faithful believer has ever been known to go away without having “seen” the face of his Saviour reflected in the waters below. It is quite
likely that the Children of Israel “saw” their god in very much the same manner.
35
INTRODUCTION
12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up
to me into the mount, and be there: ,and I
will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and
commandments which I have written; that
thou mayest teach them.
Here is a promise that must be repeated for emphasis because
of its important bearing upon subsequent events. The Lord tells
Moses to “come up to me into the mount” and “I will give thee tables
of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that
thou mayest teach them.” This is a definite and unequivocal statement that the Commandments have already been written by the Bible
Deity.
I quote Chapter 24, verses 13 to 16:
13 And Moses rose up, and his minister
Joshua; and Moses went up into the mount
of tied.
14 And
he said unto the elders, Tarry ye
here for us, until we come again unto you:
and,
behold,
Aaron
and
Hur
m-e with
you.
if
any man have any matters to do, let him
come unto them.
15 And Moses went up into the mount, and
a cloud covered the mount.
16 And the glory of the Lord abode upon
mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six
days: and the seventh day 1~ called unto
Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
Magic is an essential part of all primitive religions, and the religion
of the early Hebrews was no exception. The mystery of cloud formations has always awed primitive man. He saw both good and evil
omens in them.
I quote Chapter 24, verses 17 to 18:
17 And the sight of the glory of the Lord
zws like devouring fire on the top of the
mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
18 And Moses went into the midst of the
cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and
Moses was in the mount forty days and forty
nights.
36
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
It is generally the experience of those who have “seen” God that
“the sight of the Lord was like devouring fire.” Fire holds a fascination even over the mind of modern man; in primitive society “consuming fire”
and “the
blazing
sun”
stimulated
the awe-struck
mentality
of primitive man to “see” all kinds of majestic beings.
I now quote Chapter 25, verses 1 to 3:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they
bring me an offering: of every man that giveth
it willingly with his heart ye shall take my
offering.
3 And this is the offering which ye shall take
of them; gold, and silver, and brass.
“Sacrificing unto the Lord” is not without ritualistic significance.
Equally essential is the value of the sacrifice. The more valuable
the “offering,” the more it is supposed to be likely to receive favorable
approval. Precious metals were considered too good for the use of
man, so they were invariably “dedicated” to the Lord.
The following verses from Exodus, Chapter 25, verses 21 to 29, are
quoted as an example of primitive ritual:
21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above
upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put
the testimony that I shall give thee.
22 And there I will meet with thee, and I
will commune with thee from above the mercy
seat, from between the two cherubim which
we upon
the
ark of the testimony, ot all
things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
23
Thou
nhait
also
make
a table
of
shittim
wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof,
and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit
and a half the height thereof.
24 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold,
and make thereto a crown of gold round
about,
2.5 And thou shalt make urrlu it a border of
a handbreadth round about, and thou shalt
make a golden crown to the border thereof
round about.
26 And thou shalt make for it four rings of
gold, and put the rings in the four corners
that aye on the four feet thereof.
INTRODUCTION
27 Over against the border
shall the rings be
for places of the staves to bear the table.
28 And thou shalt make the staves of shittim
wood,
and overlay
them with gold, that the
table may be borne with them.
29 And thou shalt make the dishes thereof,
and spoons
thereof,ana cuverscnerttul,~IIU
bowls thereof,
to cover
shalt thou make them.
withal:
of pure
gold
To continue the narrative directly concerning the Tables of Stone,
we must skip to Exodus, Chapter 32, verses 1 to 3:
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down
out of the mount,
the
people
gathered
themselves
together
unto
Aaron,
and said unto him, Up, make us gods,
which
shall go before
us; for as for this
Moses,
the man that brought
us up out of
the land of Egypt,
we wot not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron
said unto them, Break
off the
golden earrings,
which art? in the ears of your
wives,
of your sons, and of your
daughters,
and bring then unto me.
3 And
nll the people brake
off the golden
earrings
which were in their ears, and brought
them unto Aaron.
In order to explain the events that follow, the anxiety concerning
the delay of Moses “to come down out of the mount” must have been
more important than is implied. VeYSeS2 and 3 present a serious
matter. What did Aaron want with the “golden earrings, which are
in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters”?
I quote Chapter 32, verses 4 to 6:
4 And he received
them at their hand, and
fashioned
it with a graving
tool, after he had
made it a molten calf: and they said, These be
thy gods, 0 Israel, which brought
thee up out
of the land of Egypt.
5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar
before
it;
and
Aaron
said, Tomorrow
is
6 And they rose
and offered burnt
offerings;
and the
to drink,
and rose
mndc
proclamation,
and
a feast to the Lord.
up early
on the morrow,
offerings,
and brought
peace
people sat down to eat and
up to play.
38
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Aaron wanted this gold to fashion it “with a graving tool” to make
into a “molten calf.” Equally important are the words, ‘(when Aaron
saw it, he built an altar before it.” Then he made a proclamation
and said: “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord.”
The relationship of these events to the TabIes of Stone and the
delivering of the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel is
extremely important. They had to decide whether they were going
to accept this new god who, Moses explained, had brought them out
of the land of bondage, or to continue to worship the golden calf.
There seems to have been some doubt as to who was responsible
for their deliverance. This is evident from the words mentioned in
Verse 4 after the golden calf had been fashioned by Aaron: “These
be thy gods which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”
It is indisputable that the early Hebrews worshiped a golden calf
as their deity. The bull was to them the symbol not only of strength
but of fertility. 32 One authority states: “Portable images of a bull
overlaid with gold occupied, down to the time of the prophets, a prominent place in the equipment of the Israelitish sanctuaries.” 33
There are innumerable hidden references in the Bible in which
the Hebrew deity was compared to a wild bu11,34and it is also the
opinion of authorities that the abbir of the Old Testament should be
rendered “bull” rather than “mighty one.” 36 This view is also supported by those anthropologists who contend that the original home
of the Semitic peoples was in Arabia, where the wild bull was a sacred
animal and adorned the temples as guardian and protector.36
In order to impress upon the Children of Israel the importance
of discontinuing this form of worship, some act of extreme displeasure
had to be committed to bring them to a realization of their new god’s
disapproval of their conduct.
Vol. 3, p. 511.
p. 631,
34 Numbers, Chapter 23, verse 22.
53 Hastings, bcyclopaedia
of Religion
and Ethics,
selbid., p. 881.
82 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
83Encyctopaedia
Bib&a,
Vol. 2,
p. 888.
INTRODUCTION
39
I quote Chapter 32, verses 7 to 9:
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get
thee down; for thy people, which thou
broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have
corrupted themselves:
8 Thev have turned aside au;cklv out of the
way which I commanded them; they have
made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and
said, These be thy gods, 0 Israel, which have
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have
seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked
people.
If the Hebrew deity had brought the Children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt in the miraculous way described in the Bible, then
indeed there was justification for his anger and his uncomplimentary
remark about them. If they could attribute their deliverance to the
molten
god (the golden calf) and not to their new god, then indeed
suspicion is cast upon the whole episode.
I quote
Chapter
32, verses
10 Now
wrath
may
10 to 12:
therefore
wax
hnt
let me alone, that
agninst
them,
and
that
my
I
may consume them: and I will make of thee
a great nation.
11 And Moses besought the Lord his God,
and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot
against thy people, which thou hast brought
forth out of the land of Egypt with great
power,
and with
a mighty
hand?
12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak,
and say, For mischief did he bring them out,
to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn
from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people.
In primitive societies, the gods possessed the qualities of both
compassion and vindictiveness. Were they not impatient with displeasing conduct, they could not be indulgent with weakness and forgive sins.37 The Bible Cod also gives vent to his “fierce wrath.”
37 Westermarck, Morals,
Vol. 2, p. 603.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
40
Moses,
however, pleads with him to “repent of this evil against thy
people.”
I quote Chapter 32, verses 13 and 14:
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,
thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine
own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply
your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this
land that I have spoken of will I give unto
your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14 And the Lord repented of the evil which
he thought to do unto his people.
We now anxiously await the deliverance of the precious Tables of
Stone with the infallible commandments of conduct which was SO ceremoniously agreed upon in the first eight verses of Chapter 24.
I quote Chapter 32, verse 1.5:
15 And Moses tnmerl, and went dnwn from
the mount, and the two tables of the testimony wcw in his hand: the tables were
written on both their sides; on the one side
and on the other were they written.
The above verse is worth a. cmeful rereading. Moses has the two
Tables of Stone, and we are now informed that “the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they
written.” This is the first intimation that the tables of stone were
written on both sides.
Before passing to the next verse, I should like to mention here
that the Tables of Stone, even though written on both sides, had to
be of considerable size, The question therefore arises as to whether
a person, even though he possessed unusual strength, could have carried them front so great a height to the people below. According to
the Jewish Encyclopedia,
“The weight of the Stones was too heavy
for one man to carry, SOthe lcttcrs are ascribed to miraculous power:
The letters virtually carried the stones and only when they began to
fly away did Moses feel the weight of the stones”1 3*
38 Vol. 4,
p. 497.
INTRODUCTION
I quote Chapter
41
32, verse 16:
16 And the tables were the work
and the writing
was the writing
graven
upon the tables.
of
of
God,
God,
The significance of this verse cannot be too strongly emphasized,
and it deserves repeating.
It states that “the tables wlere the work of
God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.”
This is verified by Biblical testimony as revealed in verse 18 of Chapter 31 of Exodus:
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had
made an end of communing
with him upon
mount
Sinai, two tables of testimony,
tables
of stone, written
with the finger of God.
If this were true-that
Moses received “two tables of stone, written with the finger of God”-he
had in his hands the most valuable
thing ever possessed by man-the
handiwork
of God and words of
his own
writing.
Rcflcct
Moses should have guarded
nfwl
for
a moment
this priceless
on their
inestimable
value!
possession with his life, if
be.
For the action which follows,
I quote Exodus,
Chapter
32, verse
19:
19
nigh
the
and
brake
And it came to pass, as soon as he came
unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and
dancing:
and Moses’
ang:~r wnu~d
hnt,
he cast the tables out of his hands, and
them beneath
the mount.
If this narrative is true, then Moses committed
the most tragic
act in all the history of mankind-and
without the slightest justification. If we refer to verses 7 and 8 of this chapter, previously quoted,
we shall find that the Bible God was fully acquainted with the acts
of the Children of Israel in making a molten calf. Moses also had
knowledge of what they had done, and in the verses that follow, particularly IO, 11 and 13, the Bible God repented of this evil against Lois
people and all was well again. In the face of these facts, Moses’ act
42
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
is not only unpardonable and incomprehensible, but criminal. “He
cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.”
For what follows the destruction of the two precious Tables of
Stone containing the Ten Commandments, I quote Chapter 32, verses
20 to 24:
20 And he took the calf which they had
made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it
to powder, and strewed it upon the water,
and made the children of Israel drink of it.
21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did
this people unto thee, that thou hast brought
so great a sin upon them?
22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my
lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that
they are set on mischief.
23 For they said unto me, Make us gods,
which shall go before us: for as for this
Moses, the man that brought us up out of the
land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of
him.
24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath
any gold, let them break it off. So they gave
it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there
came out this calf.
Now that the golden calf has been destroyed, what are the Children
of Israel to do, and what about the Ten Commandments? 3g
To follow the continuity, I skip to Chapter 32, verses 30 and 31:
30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that
Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a
great sin: and now I will go up unto the
Lord; pcradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.
31 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and
said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin,
and have made them gods of gold.
The ability to forgive sins endears any god to his people, hence
Moses intervenes on behalf of the Israelites and prepares to atone
for their sins. He “returned unto the Lord,” and this brings us to
the narrative concerning the second Table of Stone on which Moses
ss Four additional misplaced verses follow the above, and they will be omitted for
the reasons stated previously.
INTRODUCTION
43
induces the Bible God to write again the Ten Commandments for the
Children of Israel.
THE
SECOND
TABLES OF STONE AND
SET OF COMMANDMENTS
A FORGOTTEN
Were it not for the fact that Moses destroyed the Tables of Stone
that God is supposed to have given him containing the Ten Commandments, this phase of our study would have been completed. But in
verse 17 of Chapter 33 of the Book of Exodus, just quoted, there is a
promise that God will rewrite these Commandments at the request of
Moses, “for thou hast found grace in my sight. . . .”
It is because the Biblical narratives are not an orderly array of
events that it is such a difficult task to follow the continuity of the
story. It is obvious to any student of the Bible that “God’s Word”
has no proper sequence as to time and events. The contradictions and
interpolations
in the Bible
are proof
of this.
It is only
by the most
painstaking efforts that the meaning of the events behind the confused
text is made clear and understandable.
This
situation
is plainly
evi-
dent in this chapter as we proceed to the narrative concerning the second set of the Tables of Stone.
I quote the Book of Exodus, Chapter 34, verse 1:
1
And
the
Lord
mid
unto
Moses,
Hew
thee
two tables of stone like unto the first: and I
will write upon these tables the words that
were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
Here is a promise that we hope will be fulfilled. We have every
assurance that it will be done, for God tells Moses to “hew thee two
tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables
the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.”
I quote Chapter 34, verses 2 and 3:
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up
in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present
thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
44
3 And no
neither let
the mount;
feed before
man shall come up with thee,
any man be seen throughout all
neither let the flocks nor herds
that mount.
repeat in effect the details that we noted in. the
previous ceremony concerning the preparation for this event. No one
must go near the mount and “no man shall come up with thee,”
I quote Chapter 34, verse 4:
The
above
verses
4 And
unto the
morning,
the Lord
his hand
he hewed two tables of stone like
first; and Moses rose up early in the
and went up unto mount Sinai, as
had commanded him, and tcok in
the two tables of stone.
Here is a most direct and unequivocal statement. Moses “hewed
two tables of stone like unto the first . , . as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the twn tnbles of stone.” There
can be no mistaking the event narrated here. The Lord had the
Tables of Stone and he was to write upon them the same Commandments that appeared in the first tables which Moses in anger had
smashed to pieces.
I quote Chapter 34, verses 5, 6 and 7:
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and
stood with him there, and proclaimed the
name of the Lord.
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and
proclainxd, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant
in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping merry for thousands, forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin, and that
will by no means clear the guilty; visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
and upon the children’s children, unto the
third and to the fourth geneuutiolz.
In the above verses we
Commandment as recorded
tion that the new code will
verse 6, quoted above, the
find the substance of part of the Second
previously, which we take as an indicaresemble the previous one. However, in
Lord refers to himself as “merciful and
INTRODUCTION
gracious, long-suffering,
and abundant in goodness and truth,”
tradiction to being a jealous and vindictive god.
I quote Chapter 34, verses 8 and 9:
45
in con-
8 And mf33e3 made nastc, ana Doweu ni3
head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in
thy sight, 0 Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee,
go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people;
and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take
us for thine inheritance.
Here again is the sense of ‘(guilt” that is essential to secure the
help of a god. For if the Children of Israel were not a “stiffnecked
people,” there would be no necessity to “pardon our iniquity and our
sin,” and for the Bible God to “take us for thine inheritance.”
I quote Chapter 34, verse 10:
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant:
before all thy people I will do marvels, such
as have not been done in all the earth, nor in
any nation: and all the people among which
thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it
is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
What follows is a set of Commandments
used by the early Hebrew
tribe and antedating the present Decalogue
by many centuries!
This
set of Commandments
not only proves the antiquity
of the Biblical
narrative, but is indisputable
evidence of the evolutionary
process of
ethical and moral concepts. It is contended that these “covenants”
deal only with the most primitive
form of ritual duties and have no
“moral” implication whatsoever,40 such as might be attributed to the
later Decalogue.
It is the opinion of the best Biblical scholars that “God’s covenant
with the Israelites,41 which will be quoted below, is a set of “commandments” that were considered a revelation from God in the earliest days
4oCharles, o$. cit. See also Sir James G. Prazer, Polklove
in thr Old Testament.
Hereafter referred to as Frazer.
41 Caption heading in Bible at beginning of the Book oj Exodus, Chapter 34.
46
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
of their tribal existence, and are not in any sense a duplicate of the
‘(words that were written in the first tables.”
The strange thing about the rest of the verses of this chapter is
that they record an entirely diflerent set of commandments
that only
in part bear any resemblance to the previous ones. Some are similar
in meaning and intent, and some are entirely
different.
It becomes
a matter of vital interest as to what this code of “God’s covenant with
the Israelites” is composed of.
I quote Chapter 34, verses 11 to 14:
11 Observe thou that which I command thee
this day: behold, I drive out before thee the
Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite,
and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the
Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land
whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in
the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break
their images, and cut down their groves:
14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for
the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous
God.
The above verses might be considered the substance of the first
two Commandments as previously
recorded, in which we are not inter-
ested at the moment. We are concerned with the Biblical assurance
that God was to write upon this second table of stone “the word:
that were in the first tables.”
To that end we continue the narrative, and I quote Chapter
verses 15, 16 and 17:
15
Lest
thou
make
a covenant
with
the
in-
habitants of the land, and they go a whoring
after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their
gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his
sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto
thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring
after their gods, and make thy sons go a
whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
34,
INTRODUCTION
47
The purpose of this “covenant” was to keep the seed of the tribe
of Israel from pollution by other tribes as a means of perpetuating the
solidarity of the clan.
It
is
not
my
Zntentkn
here
to
cannlyae
this
cet
of
Commandments
for its ethical or moral value. I record it simply because of its relationship to the narrative concerning the Tables of Stone. I think,
however, that a comment on the language is pertinent, especially the
use of the word “whoring.”
In primitive societies the crudity of language reflected the crudity of thought, and those who married outside
the tribe were considered guilty of a heinous offense. Such an act was
condemned as the lowest in human conduct, and therefore characterized as “whoring.”
“To go whoring” is a typical Biblical expression
and reflects the low mental level of the Biblical authors. The prohibition against images is also stated.
I now quote Chapter 34, verses 18 to 26:
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou
keep.
Seven
days
thou
shalt
eat
unleavened
bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of
the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou
carnest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and
every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox
or sheep, that is male.
20
But
the
firstling
of
an
ass
thou
shalt
redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him
not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the
firstborn
of thy
sons thou
shalt
redeem.
Ancl
none shall appear before me empty.42
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the
seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time
and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks,
of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the
feast of ingathering
at the year’s end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your men
children appear before the Lord God, the God
of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before
thee, and enlarge thy horders: neither shall
any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go
41The ceremony connected with the redemption
by the Hebrews.
of the first-born
is still
practised
48
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice
in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto
the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land
thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord
thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his
mother’s milk.
A condensation
of these “covenants”
into Ten Commandments
gives one a better understanding
of what was known as the earlier
Decalogue of the Hebrew tribes.
Professor K. Budde, in his History of Ancient Hebrew Literature,
has done this, and lists the Commandments
as follows:
Thou shalt worship no other god
(For the Lord is a jealous god).
Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
All the first-born are mine.
Six days shalt thou work, but on
the seventh thou shalt rest.
The feast of unleavened bread
shalt thou keep in the month
when the ear is on the corn.
Thou shalt observe the feast of
weeks, even of the first fruits
of the wheat
harvest,
and the fca&
of ingathering at the year’s end.
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread.
The fat of my feast shall not remain
all night
until
the morning.
The first of the first fruits of
thy ground thou shalt bring unto
the house of the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in
its mother’s milk.40
4sQuoted by Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, p. 361.
INTRODUCTION
49
I had hoped that this set of Commandments would clear up the
reason for the observance of the Sabbath day. The reader will recall
that according to the Fourth Commandment in Exodus, Chapter 20,
the Sabbath
was to be observed,
“for in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh
day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it”;
whereas the Fourth Commandment according to Deuteronomy,
Chapter 5, states as follows: “And remember that thou wast a servant in
the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence
through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord
thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Instead, the reason given in this set of Commandments only adds more confusion to
the conflicting claims.
The last “covenant” mentioned in verse 26, which reads, “Thou
shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk,” will be extremely signifycant in the analysis of the Commandments.
It will prove to be the
key to the very foundation
upon which the religion of the Children
of Israel is based. In passing, I might mention that this Command-
ment is still observed by the orthodox Hebrews with the same fanatical
zeal as any of the Commandments of the other Decalogues.
I quote Chapter 34, verses 27 and 28:
27 And the ‘Lord said unto Moses, Write
thou these words: for after the tenor of these
words I have made a covenant with thee and
with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty
days and forty nights; he did neither eat
bread,
nor
drink
water.
And
Hc
wrote
upon
the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments.
The fact that this set of Commandments is not in “the words that
were in the first tables” is one of the most damaging contradictions
yet found in the Bible. We have had repeated to us again and again
that the Bible God was to write upon this second table of stone the
words of the first, but now we are told that “the Lord said unto Moses,
Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
50
made a covenant with Israel.” Not only are these covenants not an
exact duplication of the Commandments as previously given, but
Moses, and not God, performed the work, They are orders for the
crudest conduct prevalent in the most primitive of societies.
Even if the second tables of stone were in existence, they would
not have the same value as if they were written by God. But even if
written by Moses and only dictated by God, they would still be of
inestimable value. Since there is no mention of their destruction, we
might appropriately ask: Where are these second tables of stone? If
they were not destroyed, what happened to them?
There is another important difference between the narratives concerning the Ten Commandments as recorded in Exodus and Deuteronomy. These are just as vital as the “variants” of the texts already
observed, and we shall proceed to examine them. In the Exodus version it is stated that “. . . God spake all these words, saying . . .” l *
while the Deuteronomy
version states, “And he wrote them in two
tables of stone and he delivered them unto me.” 46
Did the Bible God speak the Commandments and did Moses write
them, or did God write them himself upon the two tables and give
them to Moses? This is of extreme importance, because there is a
vast difference between speak&g “these words” and witilzg them. If
Moses wrote them down after hearing God speak them, it is quite
likely that an error might have been made in their transcription, especially if he wrote
them
after
having
fasted
for
forty
days
and
fnrty
nights. If an omnipotent God wrote them himself, there could be no
possibility of error.
If this was to be a sacred bond between the Children of Israel
and their God, the Bible Deity should not have delegated Moses to
perform the task. Under these circumstances, the Commandments
came to the Children of Israel at second hand, and cannot be considered in the same light as if they had come directly from God.
As for the Ten Commandments being a revelation of God to the
44 Book
45 Book
of Exodus,
Chapter
of Deuteronomy,
20, verse 1.
Chapter
5, verse
22.
INTRODUCTION
51
children of the earth, I am constrained to quote Thomas Paine. He
said:
“It is a contradiction
in terms and ideas to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in
Kevenxion is necessarilylimitea to me nrsc communicawricmg.
tion-after
this, it is only an account of something which that person
says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself
obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in
the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I
have only his word for it that it was made to him.
“When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the
two tablets of the commandments from the hands of God, they were
not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority
for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it
than some historian telling me so.” 46
The assurance given in verse 1, Chapter 34, was not fulfilled. The
first “tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing
of God, graven upon the tables.” This is in direct contradiction to
the statement contained in verse 18, Chapter 31, which specifically
states that God wrote them with his finger. I quote:
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had
made an end of communing with him upon
mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables
of stone, written with the finger of God.
To conclude the introduction, I quote Exodus, Chapter 34, verses
29 to 35:
29 And it came to pass, when Moses came
down from mount Sinai with the two tables
of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came
down from the mount, that Moses wist not
that the skin of his face shone while he
talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of
Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face
shone;
awl
they
were
afsaid
to
come
nigh
him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron
and all the rulers of the congregation returned
unto him: and Moses talked with them.
46 Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, p. 8.
52
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
32 And afterward all the children of Israel
came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him
in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done soeakine with
them, he put a vail on his face. 34 But when Moses went in before the Lord
to speak with him, he took the vail off, until
he came out. And he came out, and spake
unto the children of Israel that which he was
commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of
Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone:
and Moses put the vail upon his face again,
until he went in to speak with Him.
There is more revealed in this narrative of the Bible concerning
the Tables of. Stone and the Ten Commandments
than merely the fictional basis of the revelation from Sinai.
It is also indisputable
evidence of a flagrant piece of religious fakery.
This is the imposition
upon mankind of a corrupting
and demoralizing series of superstitious
taboos as a divine code of morals.
This we shall proceed to prove.
The
First
Commandment
“I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.”
THF!
RTRT-E
DEITU
AND
ARRAUAM
LINCOLN
W
ERE WE not quoting the words of one who is supposed to
be the God of the universe, we would judge them to have
been uttered by some braggadocio leader who was trying to
impress his followers with the great deed he had performed.
If George Washington, the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Army, had made a similar statement at the conclusion of our War
for Independence, much of his value as a leader would have been lost.
Egotism and self-praise are not very commendable qualities. Accomplishments should speak for themselves. It is rarely necessary to
make worthy deeds appreciated by boasting about them.
Does anyone really believe that if there is a God over this vast universe, he would be so small and petty as to make the egotistical statement which constitutes the first declaration of the Decalogue? Does
anyone really believe that this is the most important message such a
God could impart to the children of the earth to express his importance
and as a manifestation
of his power?
Is il possible
that
there
are
those who believe these are the words of a God who is considered the
Creator and Ruler of the universe, the Almighty
One who is responsible for all that is?
These words are, however, an indication of the character of a tribal
god, attesting to his primitive origin. They place him in an ignorant
and superstitious age when deception and “sorcery” enabled the priestmagicians to dominate and enslave the primitive peoples over whom
they ruled.
To determine the ethical and moral value of this Commandment,
let us assume that the Bible God did free the Children of Israel from
the yoke of Egyptian rule (though it might be asked why he permitted
their enslavement in the first place). Why, then, did he permit them
5.5
56
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
to become slaves under the yoke of the Romans? Was slavery under
one tyrant more desirable than under another?
While he was setting the Hebrews at liberty, why did he not free
others
who
were
held in bondage?
Was
freeing
of the Children
of
Israel the most important problem in the world at that time? The
Hebrews were not the only people who were slaves. Were not the
other enslaved peoples equally deserving of liberation? Is not slavery
itself an obnoxious institution, and are not all peoples worthy of freedom? Slavery at that time was a universal institution. Enslaved
humanity under brutal tyrants everywhere filled the air with cries of
agony and despair. Why was he so partial to the Hebrews? If this
God was omnipotent, there is no question as to his ability to perform
the task. If he could and he did not, he deserves the sternest condemnation.
Would not the little knowledge that we have today, acquired after
thousands of years of struggle with the forces of nature, have been
of more benefit to mankind than the exodus of an insignificant tribe
of people? Think of the great progress that would have been made
if this God had shown the people how to construct the printing press,
the automobile, the electric light, the motion picture, the electric dynamo or the X-ray machine, or to produce anesthesia, or had revealed
the secrets of radium, or any one of the hundreds of inventions and
discoveries that man has used so advantageously to liberate himself
from physical
pain and to cure the ills to which
flesh is heir.
Why,
in
his first statement to the people of the earth, did not this God reveal
the laws
that
govern
nature,
and the formulas
by which
the matc-
rials of the earth could be used? The Bible does not contain even
the basic law of the earth upon which we live-the law of gravitation.
While we are speaking of the liberation of the Hebrews from bondage, it will not be irrelevant to mention Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to
free the Negro slaves in this country. By way of comparison, Lincoln’s task was just as arduous as that of the God of Israel; in fact,
it was more so, for Lincoln was only a common mortal. He had to
combat others stronger than himself. He also had to fight in the open
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
57
against the invisible foes of racial, political and social prejudices. He
had to fight the Bible’s own pronouncement that slavery existed by
divine approval. In support of the institution of slavery, ministers
of religion consistently quoted scriptural edicts, such as Leviticus,
Chapter
25, verses 44 to 46:
44 Both thy hondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are round about you; of them shall ye
buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye
buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land: and they shall
be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
for ever: but over your brethren the children
of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another
with
rigor.
Ministers also quoted Timothy,
Chapter
6, verse 1:
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honour,
that the name of God and his doctrine be not
blasphemed.
These Biblical quotations were flung in the face of Lincoln to justify
the enslavement of human beings.
Lincoln was far superior to the God of Israel in this respect: his
task was more difficult and his accomplishments far greater. But
more important still, and far more valuable than his deeds, was his
character. He did not boast of his accomplishments. He wanted
no credit other than to know that he had freed human beings from
the shackles of slavery.
Nor did he demand adoration and worship.
His compensation was
the satisfaction of destroying the most vicious institution that ever
cursed human society, although it had Biblical sanction.
And Lincoln
did not pose before his liberated Negroes with this statement: “I am
THE
58
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Lincoln, your Emancipator,
who freed you from your masters and
liberated you from the shackles of bondage.”
Nor was Lincoln a Negro.
The slaves were not “his” people. He
was not bound to them by ties of blood. He did his work purely for
the love of humanity.
No member of the human race was a stepchild
to him. He did not flatter them by calling them his “chosen people.”
His passion was the principle of freedom for all mankind.
Lincoln said that this nation could not remain half slave and half
free, and so he set about to make all free. The Bible Deity’s performance dwindles into insignificance
when compared with that of the
Great Emancipator.
Certainly, if Lincoln could free the Negro slaves
in the United States of America, a God of the universe should have
been able to abolish slavery throughout
the earth.
If the Bible God had abolished slavery completely, the bloody sacrifice of the Civil War would not have been necessary. When Lincoln
freed the Negroes, he did not in turn permit them to enslave others;
whereas the Bible Deity sanctioned the barter and sale of human
beings.
These Bible laws, presumably
with divine approval, established
to God’s eternal infamy the property right in man, with all the heartrending misery that slavery has brought upon the earth.
Consider
the intellectual
and moral
progress
that
would
have
resulted
had
slavery never existed.
THE
PROLOGUE
TO THE
COMMANDMENTS
This Commandment,
“I am the Lord thy God, which have brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” did not
suddenly and without cause come into existence.
It has its proper
place as a prologue to the Decalogue, and is just as much a part of
it as the Commandments
which follow. Without this introduction, the
rest of the Decalogue becomes meaningless and devoid of its original
intent
and purpose.
Without
some such “miraculous”
act to commend
himself
to the
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
59
people whose God he was to become, the Bible Deity would have had
no basis to offer himself as God. Only by the performance
of some
magical deed could he assume the position as given in the Biblical
narrative.
Nearly all gods in primitive
societies have some such act
to commend them to their people.
For the story recorded in the Book of Exodus, I quote Chapter 2,
verses 1 to 10:
1 And there went a man of the house of
Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son:
and when she saw him that he was a goodly
child, she hid him three months.
3 And when she could not longer hide him,
she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and
daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put
the child therein; and she laid it in the flags
by the river’s brink.
4 And his sister stood afar off, to wit what
would be done to him.
5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down
to wash herself at the river; and her maidens
walked
along by the river’s side: and when
she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her
maid to fetch it.
6 And when she had opened it, she raw the
child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she
had compassion on him, and said, This is one
of the Hebrews’ children.
7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter,
Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the
Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child
for
thee?
8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go.
And the maid went and called the child’s
mother.
9 And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her,
Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and
I will give thee thy wages. And the woman
took the child, and nursed it.
10 And the child grew, and she brought him
unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her
son. And she called his name Moses: and sho
said, Because I drew him out of the water.
The circumstances surrounding the birth of Moses, although free
from the element of divinity, nevertheless reveal the “hand of fate.”
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
60
Why 7zeof all the Hebrew children should have been miraculously
saved has a definite purpose for the story that follows. A similar
bit of folklore
Like
Moses,
was widely
Romulus
was
ished had it not been
and a woodpecker! l
Another such tale
king who reigned over
era. As an infant he,
flags of the Nile.
The
current
regarding
exposed
in
the founder
infancy
for the providential
and
might
intervention
of Rome.
have
per-
of a she-wolf
deals with Sargon the Elder, the first Semitic
Babylonia about 2500 years before the present
too, was put in a basket of rushes among the
same fortuitous circumstances surrounding his
discovery and preservation appear in his story. In fact, there is preserved in the library of Nineveh a copy of the inscription
taken from
one of his statues on which were carved the details of his charmed life.2
“Sargnn,
the
mighty
king,
the
king
of Agadc,
am
T.
My
And
My
My
mother was lowly, my father I knew not,
the brother of my father dwells in the mountain.
city is Azuripanu, which lies on the banks of the Euphrates.
lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.
She
set me
The
Akki,
Akki,
Akki,
While
river
the
the
the
in
a basket
bore me
irrigator,
irrigator,
irrigator,
I was
of rushes,
with
bitumen
she
closed
my
door.
up, unto Akki, the irrigator, it carried me.
. . . lifted me out,
as his own son . . . reared me,
as his gardener appointed me,
a gardener,
the
goddess
Ishtar
loved
me,
And for . . . four years I ruled the kingdom.
The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed.”
Whether
this legend was the basis of the story of Moses in the bul-
rushes and his subsequent leadership of the Children of Israel, no one,
of course, can say.
To continue the narrative, without including minor details of
Moses’ life, I quote Chapter 2, zlerSeS23 to 2.5:
IFrazer,
2 Ibid.,
Folklore
in the Old Testament.
The Golden
Bough,
p. 266.
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
61
23 And it came to pass in process of time,
that the king of Egypt died: and the children
of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and
they cried, and their cry came up unto God
by reason of the bondage.
24 And God heard their groaning, and God
remembered his covenant
wltn
Abraham, With
Isaac, and with Jacob.
25 And God looked upon the children of
Israel, and God had respect unto them.
We now come to the part that Moses is to play in this drama of
rescuing the Children of Israel from the cruel clutches of the Egyptians.
I quote Chapter 3, verses 1 and 2:
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro, his
father in law, the priest of Midian: and he
led the flock to the back side of the desert,
and came to the mountain of God, even to
Horeb.
2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto
him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a
bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush
burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Magic
is an inseparable part of primitive
religion, and this accounts
here; “the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a flame of fire,” and when the bush ‘(burned” it “was not consumed.”
It is by these demonstrations
of presumed miraculous power that the
Lord will reveal to Moses how he will accomplish the task set before
for its appearance
him.
I quote Chapter
3, verses 3 to 5:
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and
see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when the Lord saw that he turned
aside
to
see,
God
called
unto
him
out
of
the
midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses.
And he said, Here am I.
5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: nut off
thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place
whereon thou standest is holy ground,
62
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Moses is ordered to appear before Pharaoh, and the scene for the
actual drama is set. I quote Chapter 3, verses 7 to 10:
7 And the Lord said, I have surely seen the
affliction of my people which are in Egypt,
and have
heard
their cry by reason of their
taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;
8 And I am come down to deliver them out
of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring
them up out of that land unto a good land
and a large, unto a land flowing with milk
and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites,
and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the
Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
9 Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have
also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.
10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee
unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth
my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.
that. Moses is to perform is to free the Children of Israel from the yoke of Egyptian bondage. The Lord has
The miraculous task
heard their cry, and he is to send Mows to Pharaoh ‘(that thou mayest
bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt,”
It is the performance
of this deed that is the basis of this Com-
mandment. By what miraculous power is it accomplished?
MOSES,
THE
BIBLE
DEITY
AND
ISRAEL
THE
CHILDREN
OF
In Exodus, Chapter 3, verses 11 and 12, we read:
\
11 And Moses said unto God, Who elm I,
that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I
should bring forth the children of Israel out
of Egypt?
12 And he said, Certainly I will be with
thee; and this shall 6e a token unto thee, that
I have sent thee: When thou hast brought
forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve
God upon this mountain.
To ‘Lbring forth the Children of Israel out of Qypt”
was assuredly
no ordinary task, and it certainly was legitimate for Moses to question
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
63
this god who had appeared to him in a “consuming fire.” And this
god of consuming fire answered, “Certainly I will be with thee.”
When the performance is over, the Children of Israel, in appreciation
of their deliverance, “shall serve God upon this mountain.”
I quote Chapter 3, verse 13:
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when
I come unto the children of Israel, and shall
say unto them, The God of your fathers hath
sent me unto you; and they shall say to me,
What is his name? what shall I say unto
them?
Moses, however, still manifests some skepticism as to why he was
selected for so important an undertaking. He is deeply concerned
to learn upon what authority he is to act, and rightly asks: “Behold,
when I come unto the Children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The
God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me,
What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” It is quite evident
from this that the Children of Israel would want some certification
from Moses that he bore the proper credentials for his mission.
Does this God reveal his name to Moses? 9 I quote Chapter 3,
verse 14:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT
I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you.
The great I AM speaks. Is that a name? Or is it a designation?
Or is it a concealment of the name of the Bible Deity? Will the Childrw ul Israel accept I AM THAT I AM as suhicient proof that Muses
represents a real god whom they should follow implicitly? Let us see.
I quote Chapter 3, vwses 15 to 17:
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
The Lord God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my
8 The natnes of the deities of primitive religions were secretly guarded;
very important reason for this secrecy.
there was a
64
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
name for ever, and this ts my memorialunto
all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of
your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I
have surely visited you, and seenthat which
is done to you in Egypt:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out
of the afRiction of Egypt unto the land of the
Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites,
and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and
honey.
Even if this God’s acquaintance with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
should fail to convince the Children of Israel of his authenticity, perhaps the promise to relieve them of “the affliction of Egypt” and take
them “unto a land flowing with milk and honey” wo’uld be sufficient to
warrant their acceptance of him. But just how will all this be accomplished?
I quote Chapter 3, verse 18:
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and
thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel,
unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say
unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath
met with us: and now let us go, we beseech
thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness,
that
we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.
All gods of primitive peoples demand sacrifices from their subjects,
and this is likewise true of the Bible Deity. The Children of Israel
were continually admonished to sacrifice unto their Lord. Dire results
would follow if they failed to offer the best of everything that was
produced. It might mean his withholding favor and depriving them
of fruitful crops, good weather, successin their undertakings, and good
fortune as a nation.
The whole custom
was born of fear, and the greater the fear, the
more numerous the sacrifices and the more elaborate the ceremonies
of propitiation.
Everything
in nature
has some meaning
which
was
interpreted to indicate God’s pleasure or displeasure. For example,
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
65
the Indian, we are told, lived in constant fear. The turning of a leaf,
the crawling of an insect, the cry of a bird, the creaking of a bough,
might mean to him the mystic signal of weal or woe.4
For the Bible Deity and Moses to impress upon the Children of
Israel their supernatural powers, they had to perform some extraordinary deeds. These are in the narrative dealing with Moses’ contact
with Pharaoh and the Hebrews’ escape from “bondage.” The story
would have no value without these events, and Moses could not be
looked upon as a deliverer and lawgiver.
I quote Chapter 3, verse 19:
19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt
will not let you go, no, not by a mighty
hand.
How did the new god of the Children of Israel know that ‘(the
king of Egypt will nat let you go”? If he had let them go merely on
their petition, then how could “I AM” demonstrate his magic powers
to rescue them from the cursed Egyptian rule? Judging from what
follows, it was not the deliverance of the Children of Israel from
Egypt with which the narrative was concerned, but the demonstration
of magical
powers that this new god had conferred upon Moses.
I quote Chapter 3, verses 20 to 22:
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and
smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will
do in the midst thereof: and after that he will
let you 60.
21 And I wiI1 give this people favour in the
sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to
pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
22 But every woman shall borrow of her
neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her
house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
rniment : and ye shall put them upon your
sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall
spoil the Egyptians.
If the Children of Israel should still doubt Moses’ word as to his
intimacy with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then what should
4Edward Westermarck, Origin and Development
Hereinafter referred to as Westermarck, MoraL.
of Moral
Ideas,
Vol. 2, p. 613.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
66
be done to convince them? Moses anticipates this doubt on the part
of the Hebrews, as we see from Chapter 4, verse 1:
1 And Moses
they will not
my
voice;
for
not appeared
answered
and said, But, behold,
believe
me, nor hearken
unto
they
unto
will
cay,
The
Lord
h&h
thee.
The Bible God replies as recorded in Chapter 4, verses 2 to 7:
2 And the Lord said unto him, What is that
in thine hand?
And he said, A rod.
3 And he said, Cast it on the ground.
And
he cast it on the ground,
and it became
a
serpent;
and Moses fled from before it.
4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth
thine hand, and take it by the tail.
And he
put forth
his hand,
and caught
it, and it
became a rod in his hand:
5 ‘That
they may believe that the Lord
God
of their fathers,
the God of Abraham,
the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,
hath
appeared
unto thee.
6 And the Lord said furthermore
unto him,
Put now thine hand into thy bosom.
And he
put his hand into his bosom;
and when he
took it out, behold,
his hand zeres leprous
as
snow.
7 And
he said, Put thine
hand
into
thy
bosom again.
And he put his hand into his
bosom again; and plucked
it out of his bosom,
and, behold, it was turned
again as his other
flesh.
Changing a rod into a serpent and the serpent back into a rod may
be clever magic, but how does such a demonstration prove that Moses
spoke to God? If the only thing necessary to prove the truth of an
extraordinary claim were to demonstrate an ability to bewilder, there
would be no more mysteries to solve.
If a person claims that he can bring the dead back to life, and
in proof of that power pulls a rabbit out of a hat, that is hardly a demonstration
of the truth
of his claim;
it is merely
an example
of his
ability in the art of deception. If he claims that he can fly without
wings
and without
the use of mechanical
help
of any kind,
and in
proof of his ability pulls another rabbit out of another hat, that is
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
67
not proof of his ability to fly, but of his ability to lie, and he will
without much hesitation be condemned as a faker.
The demonstration of one thing has absolutely no bearing in proving the truth of
the other, when there is no relationship
between them.
Rut suppose all these demonstrations
of magic prove of iW %Va!l,
if the Children of Israel still persist in their doubt and insist upon a
more convincing demonstration
in proof of Moses’ claim that he was
selected by the Bible God to impart this all-important
message, then
what is he to do? I quote Exodus, Chapter 4, verses 8 and 9:
8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not
believe
thee, neither
hearken
to the voice of
the first sign, that they will believe the voice
of the latter sign.
9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not
believe
also these two signs, neither
hearken
unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the
water
of the river, and pour it upon the dry
Imad:
and
the river
land.
the
shall
water
whic!l
become
thou
blood
takest
upon
out
the
of
dry
There is one great difference between this god and Moses, and
present-day magicians.
If the people of Israel did not believe what
Moses told them, and they were still skeptical after his demonstration
of the rod and the leprous hand, then “thou shalt take the water of
the river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which thou
takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.”
There
can be no comparison
between the effectiveness of reasoning and
changing water into blood.
Such a demonstration
would indeed be
too effective to be argued about; in other words, the Egyptians would
have had to believe what the Bible God, through Moses, told them,
regardless of how farfetched and incredible the thing might appear,
or suffer the pollution of their land.
The magician of today differs from Moses in another respect. If
you suspect trickery in his performance, he does not punish you with
a curse; on the contrary, he smiles at. ynur power of detection and
merely asks you to applaud his efforts to entertain you.
68
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Compared to the magicians of today, however, Moses was an amateur. On many occasions I have seen professional
hypnotists and
magicians take a person from the audience, place his hand in a certain
position, mumble some magic word, and behold the hand becomes “leprous as snow”!
With the same ease, and mumbling
the same magic
word, the hand is “turned again as his other flesh.” I have seen magicians “saw a woman in half” before my very eyes, and with the same
I have seen
ease restore her as she was, without the slightest injury!
them pull a bird out of a woman’s hair, with the same ease with which
they make an elephant disappear !
I have seen magicians do all manner of wonders, and yet not one
claimed that he was on intimate terms with God, or even conversed
with him, or that God told him his (God’s) name; nor did he perform these tricks in proof of something else. But aside from all that,
the significant fact is this: You cannot prove one thing by doing
something entirely different which has no relationship
to what you set
out to prove.
MOSES
AND
THE
MAGIC
ROD
Despite his familiarity
with the Bible Deity,
Biblical narrative, Moses is still unsure of himself.
of Exodus, Chapter 4, vases 10 to 16:
according to the
I quote the Booli
10 And Moses said unto the Lord, 0 my
Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore,
nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant;
but I am slow of speech, and of a slow
tongue.
11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath
made man’s mouth? or who maketh the
dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind?
have not I the Lord?
1.2 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy
mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
13
And he said, 0 my Lord, send, I pray
thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt
send.
14
And the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the
Levite thy brother?
I know that he can
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
69
speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth
to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will
be glad in his heart.
15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put
words in his mouth: and I will be with thy
mouth.
and with his mouth, and will teach
you
what
ye shall
16 And he
people: and
thee instead
him instead
do.
shall be thy spokesman unto the
he shall be, even he shall be to
of a mouth, and thou shalt be to
of God.
Well equipped now by training and instruction, Moses is prepared
for his task before Pharaoh. In addition to being well versed in magic,
he has acquired the power of ventriloquism. “And thou shalt speak
unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth,
and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.” But why
should a little defect such as being “slow of speech, and of a slow
tongue,” be a handicap to one who performs so skillfully and who can
remedy all such shortcomings with the magical powers of ventriloquism? So Aaron, Moses’ brother, will provide him with another
tongue to confound Pharaoh the more.
One thing, however, without which no magician can perform is
still lacking. It is the most important part of his equipment. I quote
Chapter
4, verse 17:
17 And thou shalt take this rod in thine
hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.
It is “this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.” What
can a magician do without his magic wand? 5
Now that Moses is ready, fully equipped, let us follow his sleightof-hand performance before Pharaoh, in his efforts, in the Biblical
drama,
to free the Children
of Israel.
I quote Chapter 4, verses 18 to 21:
18 And Moses went and returned to Jethro
his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me
go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren
5 There is a secret about this magic rod which will
chapter.
be revealed in a subsequent
70
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
which are in Egypt, and see whether they be
yet alive, And Jethro said to Moses, Go in
peace.
19 And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian,
Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are
dead
which
sought
thy
life.
20 And Moses took his wife and his sons,
and set them upon an ass, and he returned to
the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of
God in his hand.
21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When
thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou
do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which
I have put in thine hand: but I will harden
his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
The secret reason why Pharaoh would not let the Children of Israel
go, as stated in Uzaptev 3, verse 19, is revealed here. He will not let
them go because “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the
people go.” It is easy to know the answers when you possess the
power to create the events, contrul the characters, and provide for the
conclusion.
I quote CIzapter 4, verses 22 to 24:
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus
saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my
firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that
he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let
him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy
firstborn.
24 And it came to pass by the way in the
inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to
kill him,
The above verses seem slightly complicated,
but what are a few
complications
either in the life of Moses or in a Biblical narrative?
Let me repeat it, however: “And it came to pass by the way in the
inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.”
What was the
reason why the Lord “sought to kill him”?
I quote Chapter 4, verses 27 to 31:
27 And the Lord said to Aaron, Go Into the
wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and
met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
71
28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of
the Lord who had sent him, and all the signs
which he had commanded him.
29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered
together all the elders of the children of
Israel :
30 And Aaron spake all the words which the
Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the
signs in the sight of the people.
31 And the people believed: and when they
heard that the Lord had visited the children
of Israel, and that he had looked upon their
affliction, then they bowed their heads and
worshiped.
Moses and Aaron gave a demonstration of their art “and did the
signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed.” The magic
formula worked! That was all that was necessary. It was as simple
as all that. Now for the main performance.
MOSES AND AARON BEFORE PHARAOH
In the Book of Exodus, Chapter 5, verses 1 and 2, we read:
1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in,
and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God
of Israel, Let my people go, that they may
hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that
I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I
know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel
go.
The above is more significant than a first reading would indicate.
Although this scene is part of the drama, it nevertheless shows how
utterly insignificant I AM was to all but Moses and his brother Aaron.
Pharaoh contemptuously asks Moses, “Who is the Lord, that I should
obey his voice to let Israel go?” And Moses and Aaron replied, Chapter 5, verses 3 to 5:
3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews
hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee,
three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God; lest he fall upon
us with pestilence, or with the sword.
4 And the king of Egypt said unto them,
72
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Wherefore do ye, Moses and
people from their works? get
burdens.
J And Pharaoh said, Behold,
the land now are many, and
rest
from
thdr
Aaron, let the
you unto your
the people of
ye make them
Irurdrns.
Moses becomes bolder. He tries to frighten Pharaoh with a threat.
He tells him that unless he lets the Children of Israel go, the Lord
will visit them with “pestilence or with the sword.” The king takes
very little stock in Moses’ threat, chides him for annoying him, and
orders the Israelites to heavier tasks. He takes the whole matter as
an attempt on the part of the laborers to shirk their work, and orders
a stricter supervision over them.
I quote Chapter 5, verses 6 to 8:
6 And Pharaoh commanded the same day the
taskmasters of the people, and their officers,
saying
7 Ye shall no more give the people straw to
make brick, as heretofore: let them go and
gather
straw
for
themselves.
8 And the tale of the bricks, which they did
make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye
shall not diminish au& thereof: for they be
idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go und
sacrifice to our God.
In this impasse, Moses returns to the Lord for further instructions; I quote Chapter 5, verses 22 and 23:
22 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and
said, Lord, wherefore bast thou so evil entreated this people? why is it that thou hast
sent me?
23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in
thy name, he hath done evil to this people;
neither hast thou delivcrcd thy people at all.
The scene opens with Moses berating I AM for sending him on a
fool’s errand. “Wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people?
Why is it that thou hast sent me?” Moses relates the utter failure
of his mission, and Pharaoh’s contempt. He cries, “For since I came to
Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people. . . .”
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
73
But arousing the anger of Pharaoh was part of the plot, and the ineffectual use of the name I AM is about to be remedied, as we shall see in
Chapter
6, verses 1 to 3:
2
Then
the Lwd
J&J
UPW MYXJ,
Now
ahalt
thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with
a strong hand shall he let them go, and with
a strong hand shall he drive them out of his
land.
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto
him, I am the Lord:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,
and unto Jacob, by the lzame of God Almighty; but by my name JEHOVAH was I
not known to them.
Verse 3, quoted above, brings us to one of the most important
phases of our study. In it is mentioned the name of the God who is
to perform wonders for the Children of Israel. The mystery which
enshrouds the name of “I AM THAT I AM” is now revealed as “Jehovah.” It is by this magic name that Moses will prevail over the hardhearted Pharaoh.
Priest-magicians have ever used a sacred and fearful name as a
means of accomplishing their greatest wonders. Now that the Lord
has revealed himself as “Jehovah” to Moses, the miracles and the
mighty performances promised are to be done in his nnmel
I quote Chapter 6, verses 4 to 8:
4
And
I have
also
established
my
covenant
with them, to give them the land of Canaan,
the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they
were strangers.
5 And I have also heard the groaning of the
children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep
in bondage; and I have remembered my cove11a111.
6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel,
I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from
under the hm-dens of the Egyptians,
and I
will rid you out of their bondage, and I will
redeem you with a stretched out arm, and
with great judgments:
7 And I will take you to me for a people,
and I will be to you a God: and ye shall
know that I am the Lord your God, which
74
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
bringetb you out from under the burdens of
the Egyptians.
8 And I will bring you in unto the land,
concerning the which I did swear to give it to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will
give
it you
for
a heritage:
I am the
Lord.
Up to now it looks very much as if “Jehovah” would fail in his
attempt to get the people of Israel to accept him as their God. He
keeps repeating that he will free them from their burdens under the
king of Egypt, and “bring them into a land” which he had promised
to their forefathers.
I quote Chapter 6, verse 9:
9 And Moses spake so unto the children of
Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses
for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.
Moses, in his appeal to the Children of Israel, cannot arouse their
enthusiasm. They have just cause to resent his appeal, for it was
they who suffered when the appeals and threats were unavailing.
What must be done next?
As his people have rcjcctcd Moses as their
leader because of the failure of the Bible God to fulfill his promises,
the Lord again speaks to Moses.
I quote Chapters 6, verses 10 to 13:
10
11
And
the
Lord
spake
unto
Moses,
saying,
Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt,
that he let the children of Israel go out of his
land.
12 And Moses spake before the Lord, saying,
Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear
me, who am of uncircumcised lips?
13 And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto
Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel,
and
unto
Pharaoh
king
of
Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt.
But the experience that Moses has already had makes him doubtful of success,and he answers: “Behold, the Children of Israel have
not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of
uncircumcised lips?”
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
PHARAOH’S
HEART
We continue the narrative
verse 1:
75
IS HARDENED
in the Book
of Exodus,
Chapter
7,
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have
made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy
brother shall be thy prophet.
What the Lord did to Moses to make him a god to Pharaoh is not
revealed. Can it be inferred that Moses was “God” and that it is he,
and he alone, who is to deliver the Children of Israel from bondage in
Egypt? The Lord speaks again, and I quote Chapter 7, verses 2 to 5:
2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee;
and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out
of his land.
3 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and
multioly my signs and my wonders in the
land of Egypt.
4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you,
that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and
bring forth mine armies, and my people the
children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt
by great judgments.
5
And
the
Egyptians
shall
know
that
I
am
the Lord, when I stretch forth mine hand
upon Egypt, and bring out the children of
Israel from among them.
It is not improbable that Pharaoh would have listened to a petition
of redress, and if the grievances were valid and the people really
breaking under the yoke of too great a burden, then he, like other
kings in ancient times, might have granted their appeal. But the narrative does not mention such burdens. In fact, after the first appeal
by Moses, it was discovered that the laborers had too much leisure,
and as a punishment for their idleness they were ordered to gather
the straw with which to make the bricks.
All of which appears to be a rather justified reaction to an unjustified demand. But in order that there might be no possibility of
granting their petition, the Lord deliberately “hardens Pharaoh’s
heart,” so “Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.” This is as vicious
76
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
an act as could possibly be conceived. Here is a situation where one
who is trying to free a people from slavery makes the task harder by
provoking the king to refuse the appeal. For the Children of Israel
to accept as their God one guilty of such an act is beyond all sense
and reason.
The more one reads the story, the more one is convinced that
Pharaoh should be the hero rather than Moses or the Bible God.
While Pharaoh is ready and willing to let the Children of Israel go,
it is this Bible God who continues to harden his heart so he may deliberately prolong their stay and impose upon them greater burdens
and heavier tasks.
The Lord had a purpose behind this delay, as the narrative reveals.
He had to show his power by his ability to perform magic.
I quote Chapter 7, verses 6 to 9:
6 And Moses
and Aaron
did as the Lord
commanded
them, so did they.
7 And Moses was fourscore
years old, and
Aaron
fourscore
and three yeas
old, when
they spake unto Pharaoh.
8 And the Lord spake
Aaron, saying,
9 When Pharaoh shall
ing, Shew a miracle for
say unto Aaron, Take
before
Pharaoh,
unto Moses and unto
speak unto you, sayyou: then thou shalt
thy rod, and cast it
and it shall
become
a serpent.
Were Aaron and Moses told by t.his self-appointed God to recite
the grievances of their people and appeal to the sympathies of Pharaoh? Were they armed with arguments to seek redress in the name of
justice? Were they to enunciate the principles of freedom and condemn slavery as a vicious and inhuman institution? Nothing so laudatory was in their minds. Magic was the argument they were to use.
How could an argument compare with a miracle? The truth or falsity
of a statement was to be decided by resorting to trickery. “When
Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then
thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh,
and it shall become a serpent.”
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I quote Chapter
77
7, verses 10 to 12:
10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before
Pharaoh,
and
before
his servants.
and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men
and the sorcerers: now the magicians of
Egypt, they also did in like manner with their
enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod,
and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod
swallowed up their rods.
Note in the above verses how sharp was the controversy concerning the grievances of the Children of Israel and the burdens from
which they sought their liberty. The “eloquent appeal” which Aaron
made for them is described in the following words: “Aaron cast down
his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a
serpent.”
In answer to this moving appeal, Pharaoh justified his treatment
of the Children of Israel with the following facts: “Then Pharaoh also
called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt,
they also did in like manner
with their enchantments.
For they cast
down every man his rod and they became serpents.”
Until
now the argument
was even.
Pharaoh’s
magicians
were as
good as Aaron and Moses, with this one exception: “Aaron’s rod
swallowed up their rods,” which produced a very critical situation.
However, magicians have a way of restoring things as they originally
were after they have made them disappear.
I quote Chapter 7, verses 13 and 14:
13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he
hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had
said.
14 And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s
heart is hardened, he refuseth
Lo let the
people
go.
Well, that was to be
expected.
Did not Pharaoh
match
the tricks
of Aaron? Did not. that show his power was equal to theirs? But for
78
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
great depth of reasoning and greater prognostication, the Lord is unequaled. He tells Moses that Pharaoh’s heart is hardened. But was it
not he who hardened it? Was it not done purposely? Then why the
disappointment at his refusal of their request?
But, to continue this great humanitarian undertaking, I quote
Chapter 7, verses 15 to 18:
15
Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning;
lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou
shalt stand by the river’s brink against he
come ; and the rod which was turned to a
serpent shalt thou take in thine hand.
16 And thou shalt say unto him, The Lord
God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee,
saying, Let my people go, that ,they may serve
me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto
thou wouldest not hear.
17 Thus saith the Lord, In this thou shalt
know that 1 am the Lord: behold, I will
smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon
the waters whrch are in the river, and they
shall be turned to blood.
18 And the fish that is in the river shall die,
and
the
river
shall
stink;
and
the
Egyptians
shall loathe to drink of the water of the river.
Why should Pharaoh or anyone else liberate a great mass of people
to go into the wilderness to “serve” one who suddenly claimed lordship
over them, but whose pitiable performances make their safety precarious indeed? Pharaoh must be impressed with more dire threats.
I quote Chapter 7, verses 19 to 21:
19 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say
unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out
thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon
their streams, upon their rivers, and upon
their ponds, and upon all their pools of water,
that they may become blood; and that there
may be blood throughout all the land of
Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels
of stone.
20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord
commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and
smote the waters that were in the river, in
the
sight
of
Pharaoh,
and
in
the
sight
of
his
servants; and all the waters that were in the
river were turned to blood.
THE FIRST
21
and
not
was
COMMANDMENT
79
And the fish that was in the river died;
the river stank, and the Egyptians could
drink of the water of the river; and there
blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
After all, that was a pretty strong argument. Turning the waters
of the river into blood, killing all the fish, and causing the country to
stink with the smell of dead fish should have been an argument convincing enough to soften Pharaoh’s hardened heart. Did he accede to
Moses’ request to let the Children of Israel go?
I quote Chapter 7, verses 22 to the end:
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with
their enchantments: and Pharaoh’s heart was
hardened, neither did he hearken unto them;
as the Lord had said.
23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his
house, neither did he set his heart to this also.
24 And all the Egyptians digged round about
the river for water to drink; for they could
not drink of the water of the river.
25 And seven days were fulfilled, after that
the Lord had smitten the river.
Pharaoh turned his back on the performances of Aaron and Moses.
He called his magicians together and duplicated the trick, fantastic as
this may seem. Do you wonder why he treated them with such contempt? After his magicians “did so with their enchantments,” “Pharaoh turned and went into his house.” What else was he to do? Had
he not matched trick for trick, and wasn’t this supposed to win the
debate? Apparently the Egyptians suffered no ill effects from the
water of the river being turned into blood, nor from the stench of the
dead fish. Now what will Moses and Aaron do?
FROGS, LICE
AND
FLIES
The Lord is persistent and again urges Moses to see Pharaoh. If
Pharaoh should refuse, more ominous tricks will be performed.
I
quote the Book of Exodus, Chapter 8, verses 1 to 4:
80
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Go unto
Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the
Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve
me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold,
I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine
house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon
thy bed, and into the house of thy servants,
and upon thy people, and into thine ovens,
and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 And the frogs shall come up both on thee,
and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants.
Why was no time given Pharaoh to grant Moses’ request so that
this plague of frogs might be averted? Simple justice would have
demanded that, or was he afraid that Pharaoh’s magicians would be
able to equal this performance and thereby negate this particularly
nauseating argument? I quote Chpter 8, verses 5, 6 und 7:
5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto
Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod
over the streams, over the rivers, and over
the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon
the land of Egypt.
6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over
the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up,
and covered the land of Egypt,
7
And
the
magiciaus
did
chantments, and brought
land of Egypt.
so with
their
en-
up frogs upon the
As expected, the magicians of Egypt did duplicate the tricks of
Moses “with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land
of Egypt.” However, Pharaoh felt that there were too many frogs to
contend with, and he sought Moses for a consultation.
I quote Chapter 8, verses 8 to 11:
8 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron,
and said, Entreat the Lord, that he may take
away the frogs from me, and from my people;
and I will let the people go, that they ma;
du sacrifice
unto
the Lord.
9 And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over
me: when shall I entreat for thee, and for thy
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
81
servants, and for thy people, to destroy the
frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may
remain in the river only ?
10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be
it according to thy word; that thou mayest
know
that
there
is
n.ane
like
unto
the
Lord
our God.
11 And the frogs shall depart from thee, and
from thy houses, and from thy servants, and
from thy people; they shall remain in the
river only.
Apparently the argument of the frogs was to prevail. Pharaoh’s
heart was “touched with pity” for the Children of Israel. I quote
Chapter 8, verses 12 to 14:
12 And Moses and Aaron went out from
Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the Lord
because of the frogs which he had brought
against Pharaoh.
13
And the Lord did according to the word
of Moses; and the frogs died out of the
houses, out of the villages, and out of the
fields.
14
And they gathered them togcthcr upon
heaps; and the land stank.
But Ict US see how Pharaoh considered the bargain.
I quote Chap-
ter 8, verse 15:
15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was
respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened
not unto them; as the Lord had said.
Moses was confronted with a rather difficult task. He did not take
into consideration
the severity
of the hardening of the heart with which
the Lord had plagued Pharaoh. What could Moses do if Pharaoh was
made stubborn by a prearranged plan, despite the great annoyance and
discomfort of the plague of frogs, and the stink of their decaying
bodies? A hardened heart does not listen to reason or to “miracles.”
I quote Chapter 8, verse 16:
16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Say unto
Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the
dust of the land, that it may become lice
throughout all the land of Egypt.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
82
What comment can one make on these events? Imagine turning
the dust of the land into lice! Only a mentality of the most vicious
type could conceive of such an “argument.” And this is supposed to
be done
upon
the
direct
insistence
of
an
infinite
God1
I quote Chapter 8, verses 17 to 19:
17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out
his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of
the earth, and it became lice in man, and in
beast; all the dust of the land became lice
throughout all the land of Egypt.
18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could
not: so there were lice upon man, and upon
beast.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh,
This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart
was hardened, and he hearkened not unto
them; as the Lord had said.
“There were lice upon man, and upon beast.” Pharaoh’s magicians
were unequal to such a task. “The magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not.” Perhaps for the
reason that there were no more lice. The trick was to get rid of them.
SureIy this looked like the end of the argument, but in a great contrnversy of this kind one can never be sure of the final results until a
complete agreement has been reached by both sides.
Pharaoh refused to take the advice of his own magicians. He had
seen them duplicate the tricks of Moses and Aaron too often to be
satisfied that this failure was a real sign that the magic of Aaron and
Moses was “the finger of God.” Pharaoh’s refusal brought further
manifestations against him. I quote Chapter 8, verses 20 to 23:
20 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up
early in the morning, and stand brlu~e Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the water; and
say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Let my
people
go, that
they
may
serve
me.
21 Else, if thou wilt not let my people go,
behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee,
and upon thy servants, and upon thy people,
and into thy houses: and the houses of the
Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and
also the ground whereon they ore.
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
83
22 And I will sever in that day the land of
Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no
swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou
mayest know that I am the Lord in the midst
of the earth.
23
And I will put a division between my
people and thy people: to morrow shall this
sign be.
Threatening Pharaoh with a swarm of flies is, I suppose, as good
an argument for releasing the Children of Israel from slavery as any
other, though mild in comparison to what has already been done. But
in a bitterly fought contest, it is difficult sometimes to know which is
the winning argument.
I quote Chapter 8, verses 24 and 25:
24 And there came a grievous swarm of flies
into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt:
the land was corrupted by reason of the
swarm of flies.
2.5 And Pharaoh called for Moses and for
Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God
in the land.
Pharaoh surrenders; the flies win! He sends for Moses and Aaron
and says, “Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.” But this did not
satisfy Moses, and he gives his reason for the rejection of the proposal.
Verses 26 to 28:
26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do;
for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we
sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
27 We will go three days’ journey into the
wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God,
as he shall command us.
28 And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that
ye may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the
wilderness ; only ye shall not go very far
away: entreat for me.
Moses and Pharaoh have another point of argument. Moses wants
to take the Children of Israel, like so many sheep, “into the wilderness,
and sacrifice to the Lord our God, as he shall command us.” But Pha-
84
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
raoh insists that “ye shall not go very far away.”
reason for this?
I quote Chapter 8, verses 29 to 32:
29
And
Moses
said,
Behold,
I
go
out
What was the
from
thee, and I will entreat the Lord that the
swarms of flies may depart from Pharaoh,
from his servants, and from his people, to
morrow: but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully
any more in not letting the people go to
sacrifice to the Lord.
30 And Moses went out from Pharaoh, and
entreated the Lord.
31 And the Lord did according to the word
of Moses; and he removed the swarms of flies
from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from
his people ; there remained not one.
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this
time also, neither would he let the people go.
This is a rather peculiar story, and so we must be prepared for
peculiar consequences. If the Lord had the power he professed, and
Pharaoh insisted upon deceitfully enticing Moses, there was only one
thing left to be done, and that was to touch Pharaoh with the hand of
death. Surely, if one can turn water into blood and plague the country
with frogs, lice and flies, it should be a small task to properly chastise
Pharaoh for his deceit. But we must remember that fact and fancy
do not go together, and that logic and reason are not clcmcnts of this
story. The incongruity of the statement contained in verse 29 is
apparent to any intelligent mind. It reads: “I,et not Pharaoh deal
deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice to the
Lord.” If the Lord continually hardened Pharaoh’s heart, how could
Pharaoh let them go?
THE THREE
PLAGUES
Moses and Aaron are still striving mightily with their magic; Pharaoh’s heart is still hardened; the Children of Israel are still held in
bondage, as the narrative continues in ~%ottus, Chupter 9, verses 1
to 5:
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
85
1 Then the Lord said unto Moses, Go in
unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the
Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go,
that they may serve me.
2 For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt
hold
tbsm
&ill,
3 Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy
cattle which is in the field, upon the horses,
upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the
oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a
very grievous murrain.
4 And the Lord shall sever between the cattle
of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there
shall nothing die of all that is the children’s
of Israel. 5 And the Lord appointed a set time, saying,
To morrow the Lord shall do this thing in the
land.
As the threats of the Lord become more ominous, the heart of
But this is a real threat, and strikes
Pharaoh becomes Inore hardened.
at the very sources of the supply of life. Here we are told that unless
Pharaoh shall “let my people go, that they may serve me,” “there
shall be a very grievous murrain.” According to the New Standard
Dictionary, mm-rain is “a malignant epizoijtic contagious fever sffecting domestic animals.” Pharaoh is given but twenty-four hours to meet
the demands of Moses, and if he refuses, his “cattle which is in the
field, upon the horses, upon the asses,upon the camels, upon the oxen,
and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.” But
Yhere shall nothing die of all that is the children’s of Israel.” This is
a very serious threat and, if it comes to pass, will be a tragedy of
momentous proportions.
I quote Chapter 9, verses 6 and 7:
6 And the Lord did that thing on the morrow,
and all the rattle
of Egypt died:
but of
the cattle of the children of Israel died not
one.
7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was
not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead.
And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and
he did not let the people go.
THE
86
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Here was really a test, and a severe one, too. All of Pharaoh’s
cattle died, while those belonging to the Israelites “died not one.”
Pharaoh verified this for himself. But as he was apparently not satisfied
that
the
manifestation
was
genuine,
“the
heart
of
Pharaoh
was
hardened, and he did not let the people go.” As the story continues,
the wrath of the Lord increases, Moses’ plagues become more menacing, and Pharaoh’s heart becomes more hardened, and the story more
difficult to understand.
I quote Chapter 9, verses 8 to 12:
8 And the Lord said unto Moses and unto
Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the
furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the
heaven in the sight of Pharaoh.
9 And it shall become small dust in all the
land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking
forth with blains upon man, and upon beast,
throughout all the iand of Egypt.
10 And they took ashes of the furnace, and
stood before-Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it
up toward heaven; and it became a boil
breaking
forth
with
blains
upon
man,
and
upon beast.
11 And the magicians could not stand before
Moses because of the boils; for the boil was
upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.
12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the
Lord had spoken unto Moses.
Again Moses and Aaron bewildered the magicians of Egypt. This
time Moses turned ashes into dust, “sprinkled it up toward heaven;
and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon
beast,” and as a result “the magicians could not stand before Moses
because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon
all the Egyptians.” And still Pharaoh refused to yield.
I quote Chapter 9, verses 13 and 14:
13 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up
early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord
God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that
they may serve me.
’
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
87
14 For I will at this time send all my
plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest
know that there is none like me in all the
earth.
For a God to blight with plagues in order to reveal his greatness
to a people is the height of moral perversion.
Is it only in this way
that an almighty and all-powerful God can impress upon a people “that
thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth”?
Such
idiotic nonsense almost provokes one to exasperation,
especially in
view of the fact that God himself, according to the Biblical narrative,
purposely hardened Pharaoh’s heart so he would not let the Children
of Israel go. Let us see what he intends to do next. I quote Chapter
9, verses 15 and 16:
15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that
I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the
earth.
lh
And in very deed for this co,,se have 1
raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power;
and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
Hardening
Pharaoh’s heart was done for the express purpose of
demonstrating
the sadistic power of the Bible God. One plague follows
upon another.
I quote Chapter 9, vcrscs 17 to 26:
17 As yet exaltest thou thyself against my
people. that thou wilt not let them .io?
18 Behold. to morrow about this time I will
cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as
hath not been in Egypt since the foundation
thereof even until now.
19 Send therefore now, and gather thy cattle,
and all that thou hast in the field; fov @on
every
n-an
and
beast
which
shall
be
the field, and shall not be brought
hail shall come down upon them,
shall die.
20 He that feared the word of
among the servants of Pharaoh
servants and his cattle flee into the
found
in
home, the
and they
the Lord
made his
houses:.
THE
88
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
21 And he that regarded not the word of
the Lord left his servants and his cattle in the
field.
22 And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch
forth thine hand toward heaven, that there
may
be hail
in all
the land
of Egypt,
upon
man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of
the field, throughout the land of Egypt.
23 And Moses stretched forth his rod toward
heaven: and the Lord sent thunder and hail,
and the fire ran along upon the ground; and
the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt.
24 So there was hail, and fire mingled with
the hail, very grievous, such as there was none
like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation.
25 And the hail smote throughout all the
land of Egypt all that wus in the field, both
man and beast; and the hail smote every herb
of the field, and brake every tree of the field.
26 Only in the land of Goshen, where the
children of Israel were, was there no hail.
This demonstration on the part of Moses is far from convincing.
“Rain and a very grievous hail, and tire mingled with the hail, smote
throughout the land all that was in the field, both man and beast.” If
all was destroyed,
how did life continue?
The miraculous
exemption
of the Children of Israel from this destruction is, of course, necessary
to the story.
I quote CIkzpter 9, verses 27 to 30:
27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses
and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned
this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my
people are wicked.
28 Entreat the Lord (for it is enough) that
there be no mole
mighty thunderings and
hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay
no longer.
29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I
am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad
my hands unto the Lord; and the thunder
shall cease, neither shall there be any more
hail; that thou mayest know how that the
earth is the Lord’s.
30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know
that ye will not yet fear the Lord God.
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
Despite the fact that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart purposely
and designedly so he would not let the Children of Israel go, such
brutal chastisements as Pharaoh has already suffered make him almost
QYC~CQ~~ this hardness
of heart
and surrcndcr beforc the Lord is ready
for him.
I quote Chapter 9, zlelSeS31 to the end:
31 And the flax and the barley was smitten:
for the barley was in the ear, and the flax
was bolled.
32 But the wheat and the rye were not
smitten: for they were not grown up.
33 And Moses went out of the city from
Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto
the Lord: and the thunders and hail ceased,
and the rain was not poured upon the earth.
34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and
the hail and the thunders were ceased, he
sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he
and
bib
5el vautb.
35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened,
neither would he let the children of Israel go;
as the Lord had spoken by Moses.
Moses must have felt himself in a maze of confusion as he followed
the instructions of the Lord only to find that each time the Lord had
further hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not hearken unto
his pleadings.
But in the next chapter the Lord tells Moses why he hardened
Pharaoh’s heart, and as he does, we begin to come to the climax of the
story.
THE
PT,AGtTES
OF LOCUSTS
AND
The narrative in the Book of ‘Exodus, Chapter
proceeds:
DARKNESS
IO, verses 1 and 2,
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto
Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and
the heart of his servants, that I might shcw
these my signs before him:
2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of
thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I
have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which
I have done among them; that ye may know
how that I am the Lord.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
90
Pharaoh is still obdurate; and the Children of Israel are still in
bondage. The plea for the liberation of the Children of Israel from
bondage seems to have been forgotten completely during these demonstrations.
Was
freeing
the Israelites
the real
purpose
of these
demon-
or was it merely the purpose of the Bible God to convince
them and Pharaoh of his superior magical powers?
I quote Chapter 10, verses 3 to 6:
strations,
3 And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord
God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou
refuse to humble thyself before me? let my
people go, that they may serve me.
4 Else, if thou refuse to let my people go,
behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into
thy coast:
5 And they shall cover the face of the earth,
that one cannot be able to see the earth: and
they shall eat the residue of that which is
escaped, which remaineth unto you from the
hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth
for you out of the field:
6 And they shall fill thy houses,
and
the
houses of all thy servants, and the houses of
all the Egyptians; which neither thy fathers,
nor thy fathers’ fathers have seen, since the
day that they were upon the earth unto this
day. And he turned himself, and went out
from Pharaoh.
And now a plague of locusts. I quote Chapter 10, verses 7 to 15:
7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him,
How long shall this man be a snare unto
us? let the men go, that they may serve the
Lord their God: knowest thou not yet that
Egypt is destroyed?
8 And Moses and Aaron were brought again
unto Pharaoh: and he said uutu them, Gu,
serve the Lord your God: but who are they
that shall go?
9 And Moses said, We will go with onr
young and with our old, with our sons and
with our daughters, with our flocks and with
our herds will we go ; for we must hold a
feast unto the Lord.
10 And he said unto them, Let the Lord be
so with you, as I will let you go, and your
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
91
little ones: look to it; for evil is before you.
11 Not so: go now ye that are men, and
serve the Lord; for that ye did desire. And
they were driven out from Pharaoh’s presence.
12
And
the
Lord
said
U~CP
Moses,
Stretch
out thine hand over the land of Egypt for
the locusts, that they may come up upon the
land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the
land, evc1z all that the hail hath left.
13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over
the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an
east wind upon the land all that day, and all
that night; and when it was morning, the
east wind brought the locusts.
14 And the locusts went up over all the
land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts
of Egypt: very grievous were they; before
them there were no such locusts as they,
neither after them shall be such.
15 For they covered the face of the whole
earth, so that the land was darkened; and
they
did
eat
every
herh
nf
the
land,
and
all
the fruit of the trees which the hail had left:
and there remained not any green thing in the
trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all
the land of Egypt.
This certainly was no ordinary plague of locusts. Pharaoh seems
to have realized this too, for he hurriedly sends for Moses and Aaron.
I quote Chapter 10, verses 16 to 19:
16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron
in haste; and he said, I have sinned against
the
Lord
your
God,
and
against
you.
17 Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my
sin only this once, and entreat the Lord your
God, that he may take away from me this
death only.
18 And he went out from Pharaoh, and entreated the Lord.
19
And
11x
Lord
turnrd
a
mighty
slrong
west wind, which took away the locusts, and
cast them into the Red sea; there remained
not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.
At last it seems that the plague of locusts has prevailed over PhaThe character of the Lord surely “passeth under-
raoh. But no.
standing.”
92
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
I quote Chapter 10, verses 20 to 24:
20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,
so that he would not let the children of Israel
go.
21
And
the
Lord
said
unto
Moses,
Stretch
out thine hand toward heaven, that there
may be darkness over the land of Egypt,
even darkness which may be felt.
22 And Moses stretched forth his hand
toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:
23 They saw not one another, neither rose
any from his place for three days: but all the
children of Israel had light in their dwellings.
24 And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said,
Go ye, serve the Lord; only let your flocks
and your herds be stayed: let your little ones
also go with you.
In verses 22 and 23, there is recorded an event of an extraordinary
manifestation. “Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and
there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days; they
saw not one another.” For this was the kind of “darkness which may
be felt.” In verse 24, quoted above, it appears that at last the forces
of Israel have prevailed, “Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye,
serve the Lord.” But are Moses and the Lord satisfied?
I quote Chapter IO, verses 25 to the end:
25 And Moses said, Thou must give us also
sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may
sacrifice unto the Lord our God.
26
Our
cattle
also
shall
go
with
us;
there
shall not a hoof be left behind; for thereof
must we take to serve the Lord our God;
and we know not with what we must serve
the Lord, until we come thither.
27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,
and he would not let them go.
2s
And
Pharaoh
said
unto
him,
Get
thee
from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no
more; for in that day thou seest my face thou
shalt
die.
29 And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well,
I will see thy face again no more.
Moses wants cattle: “there shall not a hoof be left behind.” Perhaps this whole undertaking was a scheme to rob Pharaoh. In the
93
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
original petition to Pharaoh, not a word was said about taking cattle
belonging to the Children of Israel. How could there be? We were
given to understand that the Children of Israel were held in slavery
by the
kings
of Egypt.
If
they
were
slaves,
how
could
they
own
cattle? But without this demand and this refusal, the story would
end; this would prevent a further manifestation of the magical powers
of Moses and Aaron, and bring this revolting story to a close, and
prevent the conditions and the events that are a prologue to the
Commandments.
THE MURDER
OF THE FIRST-BORN AND THE FEAST
OF THE PASSOVER
Up to this time we have dealt rather facetiously with the performances
Lord.
I
of Moses
and
Aaron
in
carrying
out
the
instructions
of
In the verses to follow, they take on a more serious aspect.
quote the Book of EXO~ILS, Chapter 11, verses 1 to 10:
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Yet will 1
bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and
upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go
hence: when he shall let you go, he shall
surely thrust you out hence altogether.
2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and
let every man borrow of his neighbdur, and
every woman of her neighbour, jewels of
silver, and jewels of gold.
3 And the Lord gave the people favour in
the sight of the Egyptians.
Moreover, the
man Moses was very great in the land of
Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and
in the sight of the people.
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord,
About midnight will I go out into the midst
of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt
shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that
sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the
mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
6 And there shall be a great cry throughout
all the land of Egypt, such as there was
none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
the
94
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
7 But against any of the children of Israel
shall not a dog move his tongue, against man
or beast: that ye may know how that the
Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
8 And all these thy servants
shall come
down unto me, and bow down themselves
unto me, saying, Get thee out, and all the
people that follow thee: and after that I will
go out. And he went out from Pharaoh in
a great anger.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh
shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders
may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.
10 And Moses and Aaron did all these
wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not
let the children of Israel go out of his land.
When it comes to killing innocent children, I think it time our
attitude change and that proper condemnation be expressed. Mind
you, not only will the first-born of the house of Pharaoh, but even “the
firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill,” be killed for no
other reason than to demonstrate the power of the Lord, who keeps
htardening Pharaoh’s heart so he won’t let the Children of Israel go.
Who can picture the barbarity and savagery of this act? But even
the threat of the death of all the first-born through the machinations
of the Bible God fails to soften the heart of Pharaoh. How else could
it be?--for again in verse 10, just quoted, we are reminded that “the
Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children
of Tsratel go out of his land.” Before his slaughter of the innocent
beings, however, the Bible God shows the Children of Israel how to
avoid the frightful curse he is about to visit upon the Egyptians.
I quote C&Zer 12, Verses5 to 7:
5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a
male of the first year: ye shall take it out
from the sheep, or from the goats:
6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth
day
of the ~mne month:
md
the whole
assembly of the congregation of Israel shall
kill it in the evening.
7 And they shall take of the blood, and
strike it on the two side posts and on the
upper door post of the houses, wherein they
shall eat it.
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
95
It is by this blood sign that the Lord will keep from smiting any of
the Children of Israel.
Why this sign was necessary to mark the
Children of Israel from the Egyptians is not stated; for in the previous
plagues
their
God
distinguished
them
without
any
sign.
He
exempted
them himself from the plagues which he visited upon others.
Their
cattle were not afflicted with murrain;
they did not suffer from the
curse of darkness, nor from the plague of frogs, lice or flies.
There can be no question that the blood of the lamb was a sacrifice
to the Lord to avoid his taking any of the Children of Israel, and that
it was a substitute for a human sacrifice.
This custom was prevalent
among many primitive
peoples. It was a sign to their god that blood
had been “sacrificed” to him so as to avoid death from visiting their
households.
It is the basis of the most savage religions known to
man, part of the ritual of abjectly superstitious peoples living in the
darkest
ignorance.
It is the lowest rung on the ladder of human
intelligence.
I now quote Chapter 12, verses 12 to 14:
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt
this night, and will smite all the firstborn
in the land of Egypt,
both man and beast;
and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
13 And the blood shall be to you for a
token upon the houses where ye are: and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you,
and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when 1 smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a
memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to
the Lord throughout your generations:
ye
shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
What an event to celebrate as the national holiday of a people: the
murdering of the first-born of an entire country as an act of their God
deliberately
perpetrated to show his power!
This brutal “God” tells
them that it must be a feast forever, so that the memory of the anguish
from the loss of the most precious thing in the world-the
first-bornmay never be forgotten!
It is not easy to express in mere words the
detestation such a God deserves.
96
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
I quote Chapter 12, verses 21 to 30:
21 Then Moses called for all the elders of
Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and
take you a lamb according to your families,
and
kill
the
passovcr.
22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and
dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and
strike the lintel and the two side posts with
the blood that is in the basin; and none of
you shall go out at the door of his house until
the morning.
23 For the Lord will pass through to smite
the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood
upon the lintel, and on the two side posts,
the Lord will pass over the door, and will not
suffer the destroyer to come in unto your
houses to smite you.
24 And ye shall observe this thing for an
ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be
come to the land which the Lord will give
you, according as he hath promised, that ye
shall keep this service.
26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by
this
service ?
27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of
the Lord’s Passover, who passed over the
houses
of
the
children
of
Israel
in
Egypt,
when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered
our houses. And the people bowed the head
and worshipped.
28 And the children of Israel went away,
and did as the Lord had commanded Moses
and Aaron, so did they.
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight
the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land
of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that
sat nn his
throne
unto
the
firstborn
of
the
captive that was in the dungeon; and all the
firstborn of cattle.
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he,
and all his servants, and all the Egyptians;
and there was a great cry in Egypt: for there
was not a house where there was not one
dead.
It is difficult to comment on this deed. Just think of it--“the Lord
smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of
Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
97
was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.” No wonder
“there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where
there was not one dead”! What a monstrous and revolting deed! No
wonder
Pharaoh
surrendered.
To show his power to convince Pharaoh, why was it necessary for
the Bible God to kill the first-born of the captives in the dungeon?
Surely they had nothing to do with hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Would
not Pharaoh’s child alone have been sufficient to satisfy this murderous
God? If there were any justice, Pharaoh should have prevailed against
this Bible Deity. Did not Pharaoh want to let the Children of Israel
go, and did not the Lord continually harden the heart of Pharaoh
against it? 6
I quote Chapter 12, verses 31 to 33:
31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by
night, and said, Rise up. and get you forth
from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye
have said.
32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as
ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.
33 And the Egyptians were urgent upon the
people, that they might send them out of
the land in haste; for they said, We be all
dead men.
Small wonder the Egyptians
“were urgent upon the people, that
they might send them out of the land in haste.” Who could stand
against such a retaliation? I quote Chapter 12, verses 34 to 42:
34 And the people took their dough before
it was
leavened,
their
kneadingtroughs
being
bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
35 And the children of Israel did according
to the word of Moses; and they borrowed
of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels
of gold, and raiment:
36
AmI
the Lord
gave
the
people
favour
in
the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent
unto them such things as they required: and
they spoilerl the Egyptians.
e The ritual meaning of this chapter is to be found in one of the Commandments
written upon the second table of stone. It is the sacrifice of the first fruits to the Lord,
THE
98
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
37 And the children of Israel journeyed
from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred
thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
38 And a mixed multitude went up also
with
them;
and
flocks,
and
herds,
even
very
much cattle.
39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the
dough which they brought forth out of Egypt,
for it was not leavened; because they were
thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry,
neither had they prepared for themselves any
victuals.
40 Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel, who dwelt in Egvpt, was four hundred
and thirty years.
41 And it came to pass at the end of the
four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts
of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
42 It is a night to be much observed unto
the Lord for bringing them out from the land
of Egypt: thiq is that night of the Lord to
be observed of all the children of Israel in
their generations.
It is highly important that we remember the events related in the
verses quoted above. Here we are told that at least a million peoplejudging from the six hundred thousand men alone, as mentioned in
verse 37-were leaving a land that had been lived in for four hundred
and thirty years! This exodus occurred after the land had been subjected to a series of devastating punishments the like of which cannot
be found in human history outside of the Biblical narrative. But the
exodus is not complete, all is not quite over.
For the conclusion of the story, I quote Ckaptcr 12, verse 52:
51 And it came to pass the selfsame day,
that.
the
Lord
did
bring
the
children
of
Israel
out of the land of Egypt by their armies,
This is why
the E’irst Commandment, the prologue of the Deca-
logue, reads:
“I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of bondage.”
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
99
Without
this performance
there would be no authority
for the
words that compose the remainder of the Commandments,
and without
this prologue there would be no God of Israel to issue edicts for his
“Chosen People” to follow.
THE
PARTING
OF THE RED SEA AND
OF THE EGYPTIANS
THE
DROWNING
Despite all this, after delivering
all the Children of Israel from
Egypt, the Bible God insists upon further hardening the heart of Pharaoh in order that he may pursue the Israelites and harass them in
their worship of the Lord.
To that end we must continue with the
exploits of Moses, and the “wonders” he performs as biblically
recorded. I quote the Book of Exodau, Chapter 14, verses 1 to 12:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children ot Israel, that
they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth,
between Migdol and the sea, over against
Baal-ecphon:
the sea.
bcforc
it
shall
ye
encamp
by
3 For Pharaoh will say of the children of
Israel, They are entangled in the land, the
wilderness hath shut them in.
4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that
he shall follow after them; and I will be
honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his
host; that the Egyptians may know that I
am the Lord. And they did so.
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that
the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh
and of his servants was turned against the
people, and they said, Why have we done
this, that we have let Israel go from serving
us?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took
his
people
with
him;
7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots,
and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains
over every one of them.
8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after
the children of Israel: and the children of
lsrael went out with a high hand.
9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all
the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his
100
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
horsemen, and his army, and overtook them
encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon.
10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold,
the Egyptians
marched
after
them:
and
they were sore afraid: and the children of
Israel cried out unto the Lord.
11 And they said unto Moses, Because tlzere
zerere no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us
away to die in the wilderness? wherefore
hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us
forth out of Egypt?
12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee
in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may
serve the Egyptians? For it had been better
for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we
should die in the wilderness.
Even the Israelites began to believe that the Lord had carried the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart too far. For despite the fearful blights
that he had visited upon the Egyptians in their behalf they began to
doubt both the successand value of their deliverance, particularly as
“the Egyptians marched against them” with every intention of inflicting total destruction upon them.
Is it any wonder then that in view of their impending disaster and
annihilation, that they cried to Moses, “Let us alone, that we may
serve the Egyptian? For it had been belter Tur us to serve the Egyptian, than that we should die in the wilderness.” However . . .
It is easy to have an answer to the situation when you yourself are
the creator of the plot. So Moses answers-I quote Chapter 14,
verses 13 to 16:
13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye
stand still, and SW the -salvation
of the
Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for
the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day,
ye shall see them again no more for ever.
14 The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall
hold your peace.
15 And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore cricst thou unto me? speak unto the
children of Israel, that they go forward:
16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out
not,
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
101
thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and
the children of Israel shall go on dry ground
through the midst of the sea.
Moses continues
of the earth,
to perform
the sea and the sky.
miracles
His
by controlling
magical
pnwera
the elements
have
not waned
in the slightest.
He lifts up his rod, stretches out his hand, and divides
the waters of the sea, that “the Children of Israel shall go on the dry
ground through the midst of the sea.” Will that solve their problems
and free them from the pursuing Egyptians?
I quote Chapter 14,
verses 17 to 23:
17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts
of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them:
and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and
upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon
his horsemen.
18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am
the Lord, when I have gotten me honour upon
Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his
horsemen,
19 And the Angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went
behind them; and the pillar ot the cloud went
from before their face, and stood behind
them:
20
And it came between the camp of the
Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it
was a cloud and darkness to tltem, but it gave
light by night to tlzese: so that the one
came not near the other all the night.
21 And Moses stretched out his hand over
the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go
buck by a strong east wind all LhaL night, and
made the sea dry land, and the waters were
divided.
27
And the rhilrlrrn
of Tsrael went into the
midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and
the waters were a wall unto them on their
right hand, and on their left.
23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in
after them to the midst of the sea, even all
Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemtn.
Where the Lord put the water and how he brought
in Chapter 14, verses 24 to 30:
it back is told
102
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
24 And it came to pass, that in the morning
watch the Lord looked unto the host of the
Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of
the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians.
2.5 And took off their chariot wheels, that
they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel;
for the Lord fighteth for them against the
Egyptians.
26 And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch
out thine hand over the sea, that the waters
may come again upon the Egyptians, upon
their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over
the sea, and the sea returned to his strength
when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the Lord overthrew
the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28 And the waters returned, and covered the
chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of
Pharaoh that came into the sea after them;
there remained not so much as one of them.
29 But the children of Israel walked upon
dry land in the midst of the sea; and the
waters zuere a wall unto them on their right
hand, and on their left.
30 Thus the Lord saved Israel that day Out
of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw
the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.
No one can deny the efficacy of the Bible God when he “took off
chariot
wheels, that they drave them heavily.”
Just imagine their
consternation when suddenly they find that the wheels of their chariots
have been miraculously removed, and their horses are struggling to
pull the chariots on their axles! But the real miracle in this episode
is that after the Children of Israel had safely crossed the sea heca.use
their God sent a strong east wind to divide the waters, he now causes
Moses to “stretch forth his hand over the sea . . . and the waters
returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host
of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so
much as one of them.”
Now that Moses had killed all the first-born of the land of Egypt,
and slaughtered all the army of Pharaoh, what is next in his portfolio
their
THE
FIRST
of crime to awe the Children of Israel and continue
of Pharaoh?
I quote Chapter 14, verse 31:
31 And Israel
Lord did upon
103
COMMANDMENT
saw that
great
work
which
to harden the heart
the
the Egyptians: and the people
feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and
his servant Moses.
There is a subtle plan behind all this. The Children of Israel were
to be duly impressed witk these performances, so they might “fear the
Lord” and believe “his servant Moses.”
It was the object of Moses in
this whole fanciful tale to inspire the Children of Israel with his powers
of magic so as to enervate them through fear. But the continuation
of this story leads us to the very base of Mount Sinai, where Moses is
to culminate his performances
with the message containing
the Ten
Commandments
directly from the hand of God.
In his journeying
from Egypt to the base of Mount Sinai, everything that the Israelites required was miraculously
furnished by Moses,
For instance, when they cried for bread, he furnished it in this manner
-Chapter
16, verse 4:
4 Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I
will rain bread from hcavcn for you; and the
people shall go out and gather a certain rate
every day, that I may prove them, whether
they will walk in my law, or no.
And still the Children of Israel murmured against the Lord. There
must be something peculiar about this story, for despite all these
miraculous
performances,
they were still dissatisfied and wanted to
return to the land of Pharaoh.
But lo!
I quote Chapter 16, verses
f3 and 14:
13 And it came to pass, that at even the
quails came up, and covered the camp: and
in the morning the dew lay round about the
host.
14 And when the dew that lay was gone
up,
behold,
upon
the
face
of the
wilderness
there lay a small round thing, as small as
the hoar frost on the ground,
THE
104
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Truly miraculous
food ! Manna from heaven1
What a fitting
climax to such an “extraordinary”
story!
Now for the truth of the narrative and the events described in the
Bible.
WERE
THE
CHILDREN
IN
OF ISRAEL
EGYPT?
EVER
IN BONDAGE
Despite the revulsion one experiences after reading the Biblical
narrative of the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt, there is
one consolation:
THE
STORY
IS
NOT
TRUE.
THE
EVENTS
RELATED
NEVER
TOOK
PLACE!
There were no miracles performed before Pharaoh; his heart was
not hardened; there was no plague of frogs; no dust turned into lice;
no river of blood; no grievous hail; no killing of the first-born;
no
drowning
of the Egyptians
in the Red Sea, and no manna
falling
from
heaven. The entire story is a monstrous fabrication imposed upon an
ignorant and superstitious
people, and deserves exposure and the
severest condemnation.
How could such extraordinary
events of such vital importance
to
the peoples of the earth, particularly
to the Egyptians,
have no
corroborating
evidence, while minor events of no particular significance
or value have abundant documentation?
Not a single item of historical
value exists to prove the events related or that the Children of Israel
were in Egypt, though they were supposed to have lived there over
400 years! Not a single authentic piece of evidence is in existence to
substantiate
any one of the events described
in the narrative,
or of the
emancipation
and deliverance of the Israelites.
The whole narrative
is a cruel hoax1
The entire story must be regarded as an imaginary tale without the
slightest semblance of truth;
“it is a
Tale told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
105
The best Biblical scholars and the most trustworthy historians maintain that not only were the Hebrews never enslaved in Egypt, but they
never were in Egypt during the period implied in the narrative!
This is significantly
substantiated
by the fact, as previously
stated,
that according to the oldest Hebrew manuscript, the words “out of the
As additional
house of bondage” do not appear in this Commandment.
evidence is the fact that in the Bibles of Hebrews living in Egypt today
there is no mention that their home was a former land of enslavement.?
I have unimpeachable
authorities
to testify to the truth of the
above statements:
Mr. Joseph B. Alexander, Secretary of the Jewish
Theological
Seminary in New York, authoritatively
states that “there
is no definite evidence outside of the Bible regarding the sojourn of
the Israelites in Egypt.”
Mr. William
C. Hayes, of the Department
of Egyptian Art, New
Ynrk Metrnpnlitan
Mlwllm
nf Art, states that %-I far as Egyptian
records are concerned, there is no historical evidence to show that the
Hebrews were ever in Egypt, in bondage or otherwise.”
Dr. Philip Khuri Hitti, Professor of Semitic Literature,
Princeton
University,
says: “Other than Biblical, there is no record of Jewish
enslavement in Egypt.”
Mr. John A. Wilson, Director of The Oriental Institute
of the
University of Chicago, states that not only did James Henry Breasted,
the noted Egyptologist,
during his forty years of research, fail to find
any ‘%pecific evidence on the oppression of the Children of Israel in
Egypt,” but neither “has any other scholar found any clear evidence
of that phase of history.”
Dr. Sidney Smith, Curator of the British Museum and one of the
world’s greatest authorities
on Egyptology,
states: “I do not think
there is any positive evidence that the tribes of the ‘Children of Israel’
were in Egypt prior to their invasion of Palestine, outside the Old
Testament.”
8
Abram Leon Sachar, formerly Associate in European History at
7 Charles, 09, tit., p. xxviii.
*Original letters, all in the author’s possession,
106
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the University of Illinois, was forced to admit in his book that there
is “no conclusive proof” of the existence of Moses, and that “the most
influential personality in Jewish history may be merely the product of
Jewish
imagination.”
He further
states
that
“actual
evidence
for a
Hebrew settlement in Egypt is . . . of the scantiest and most doubtful kind.” 0
Professor Sale W. Baron, in his book, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, not only admits that there is no authentic evidence
to prove the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, but that if such an event
did take place, it was such an insignificant matter that the Egyptians
did not even take the trouble to record it.l”
Additionally
significant
as disproving
the truth
of this
Biblical
narrative is the fact that even the Feast of the Passover, including its
ritual of eating unleavened bread and the slaughtering and sacrifice of
the lamb, did not nriginate
with
the Hebrews as the result of this sup-
posed event. They were customs that were practised long before the
supposed exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. It is commonly
believed that eating unleavened bread is commemorated among the
Hebrews because of the event related in Exodus, Chapter 12, verses
34 to 43, but this is without historical confirmation.
Among the Arabic Bedouins, a Semitic tribe, unleavened bread is
eaten even to the present day at religious and even secular festivals,
while slaughtering a lamb is an important ritual observance among the
people of the Near East.
The latter represents a symbolic sacrifice of
the blood of a human being as an appeasement to the angry God, practised by the primitive,
elements of nature.
savage tribes who lived in fear and awe of the
Both customs long antedated the time of the
supposed events in the Biblical narrative.ll
If the Children of Israel were never in bondage in Egypt; if Moses
never performed miracles before Pharaoh; if the Exodus to the Promised Land never took place, then the Feast of the Passover is a cruel
OAbram
Leon Sachar, A History
oj the Jews, p. 14.
10 Professor
Sale W. Baron, A Social and Religious
History
11 Abraham
Z. Idelsohn,
Ceremonies
of Judaism,
39.
p.
of
the Jews,
Vol.
1,
p. 16.
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
107
memorial,
imposing self-punishment
upon a suffering people for an
event that never happened and in memory of hardships never endured.
The Children of Israel have enough to mourn over without adding
fictitious
events
of suffering
to their
overloaded
tragic
memories.
The investigation
and analysis of this Commandment
one conclusion: IT IS NOT TRUE. The statement,
leaves but
“I am the Lord
thy
God,
which
have
brought
thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of
the house of bondage,”
is false. This Commandment
has absolutely no value in the field of
ethics or morals.
It deserves exposure as a despicable piece of
deception.
MOSES
Is it not
obvious,
in the fictional
AS GOD
story
the part
Moses masquerading
as the
just
related,
that
played by the God of Israel was merely
priest-magician
god?
In ancient times the magician was not only king, but God. The
people looked to him to perform miracles.
Through his magic powers
he protected them from evil. All good was attributed
to him.
He
brought rain in times of drought.
He made crops grow. He led the
army to victory.
If the people were defeated or overcome by misfortune, if plagued by insects and disease, he berated them for their
sins and chastised them for their disobedience.
He ordered them to
do penance and make sacrifices. He proclaimed days for fasting and
When full recompense was made for the evil ways which
prayer.
provoked the anger and displeasure of their god, he would proclaim
the happy event by the resumption of the natural order of things and
the rekindling
of the affection of God for his people.
Magic and religion are so closely related that it is sometimes difficult to separate one from the other. It is a definitely established fact
that religion and its ceremonies evolved from magic, sorcery and
incantation.
Not acquainted with the natural order of cause and effect of the
108
THE
COMMANDMENTS
TEN
universe, the primitive mind is stimulated to awe and adoration by
that which it believes is unusual and unnatural. It thrives on miracles.
Knowing the limitation of its own powers, it attributes that which it
cannot understand to the supernatural abilities of the performer.
‘<Not
conceiving the existence of natural law,” says Frazer, “primitive man
cannot conceive a breach of it.”
A miracle to him is merely the
demonstration
of the supernatural
ability of the performer.
In his studies of primitive
societies, and particularly
in the fields
of magic and religion, Frazer says:
“The notion of a man-god, or of a human being endowed with
divine or supernatural powers, belongs essentially to that earlier
period of religious history in which gods and men are still viewed
as beings of much the same order, and before they are divided by
the impassable gulf which, to later thought, opens out between
them. Strange, therefore, as may seem to us the i&a of a gnd
incarnate in human form, it has nothing very startling for early
man, who sees in a man-god or a god-man only a higher degree of
the same supernatural powers which he arrogates in perfect good
faith to himself. Nor does he draw any very sharp distinction
between a god and a powerful sorcerer. His gods are often merely
invisible magicians who behind the veil of nature work the same
sort of charms and incantations which the human magician works
in a visible and bodily furrn among his fellows.
And as the gods
are commonly believed to exhibit themselves in the likeness of men
to their worshippers, it is easy for the magician, with his supposed
miraculous powers, to acquire the reputation of being an incarnate
deity. Thus beginning as little more than a simple conjurer, the
medicine man or magician tends to blossom out into a full-bloom
god and king in one.” I2
Of the human deities of the ancient Egypiians, one such resided
at the village of Anabis; burnt sacrifices were offered to him on the
altars which he would eat just as if he were an ordinary mortal.
The chief of Urua, a large region to the west of Lake Tanganyika,
boasts of his divine powers, pretends that he can abstain from food
12Frazer,
The
Golden
Bough,
pp.
92, 93, 96.
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
109
indefinitely,
and that he eats, drinks and smokes only for the pleasure
it affords him. There is a significant parallel here with Moses abstaining from food for forty days while he was on top of Mount’ Sinai
getting the Ten Commandments
amid thunderous manifestations.
In the Washington
Islands lived a class of men who were deified
in their lifetime.
They were supposed to wield supernatural
power
over the elements; they could give harvests or smite the ground with
barrenness.
Human sacrifices were offered to them to avert their
wrath.
The early Babylonian
kings claimed to be gods in their lifetime.
Temples were built in their honor and sacrifices made to them.
The Parthian
monarchs of the Arsacid house styled themselves
brothers of the sun and moon and were worshiped as deities.
The
kings of Egypt were deified in their lifetime.
Montezuma,
people as a god.
that
they
would
the last
king
of the
The Mexican
make
Mexicans,
was
worshiped
by his
kings at their accession took an oath
the sun shine,
the
clouds
give
rain,
the
rivers
flow, and the earth bring forth fruits.13
In South America the magician or medicine man was generally
the chieftain or ruler of the tribe. Throughout
the Malay region the
rajah or king is commonly regarded with superstitious
veneration as
the possessor of supernatural powers. He developed from the simple
magician.
Even today the Malays believe that their king can influence the growth of the crops and the bearing of the fruit trees. In
Ussukuma,
a great district on the southern bank of the Victoria
Nyanza, the king is looked upon as the regulator of the weather and
the possessor of sufficient power to control the locust pest. If he
should fail, his existence would be at stake.
In many other parts of the world where the king, who is supposed
to possess magical powers, fails to protect the crops from drought
nr
other misfortunes, he is liable to suffer the wrath of the people because
of the belief that he is losing his magical powers.
The Banjars of West Africa ascribe to their king the power to
13 Frazer, The Golden Bough,
pp. 96, 98, 104.
110
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
cause rain or fine weather. A Hindu sect which has many representatives in Bombay and Central India holds that its spiritual chiefs
or maharajas, as they are called, are representatives, or even actual
incarnations
on earth, of the god Krishna.
A sect in Orissa is said to
have worshiped the late Queen Victoria of England as its chief divinity.
And even today in India a person of unusual strength or clever magical
powers is likely to be worshiped as a god.14
The King of Siam was venerated equally with a divinity. His
subjects were not permitted to look him in the face; they prostrated
themselves before him when he passed, and appeared before him on
their knees, their elbows resting on the ground.
The King of Iddah said to the English officers of the Niger Expedition: “God made me after his own image. I am all the same as God,
and he appointed me a king.”
Of the three chiefs among the Wambuhwe, a Bantu people of East
Africa living in 1894, two were much dreaded as magicians, and the
wealth of the cattle they possessed came to them almost wholly in the
shape of presents bestowed for their services in the capacity of making
rain.
Before the King of Benin was made subject to the English by
conquest, he was the chief object of worship in his dominions. WC was
considered their god. The King of Loango is known by the word
which means “god” in the language of his people. They rely upon
him to bring rain, protect the crops, and ward off evil spirits.
In almost every country still ruled by a lineal descendant of
ancient kings, the people attribute more than human powers
to him.
This is true of nearly all ancestors of the Aryan races from India to
Ireland. They believe that their kings possesssupernatural and magical powers. The dyaks of Sarawak believed that their English ruler,
Rajah Brooke, was endowed with certain magical virtues which, if
properly applied, would produce abundant crops.16
14Frazer, The Golden Bough, pp.
I6 Ibid., pp. 84, 89, 99-100.
87-88,
101.
THE FIRST
COMMANDMENT
111
In England, until quite recent times, many attributed magical
powers to the king. He was believed to be able to heal scrofula,
known as the “king’s evil,” by touch. It is said that Queen Elizabeth
often exercised
this miraculous
gift of healing.
In 1663, Charles I was
said to have cured one hundred patients in one swoop. In the course
of the reign of Charles II, it is said that he “touched” a hundred
thousand and that on one occasion the number was so great that
several were trampled to death in their eagerness to be touched. The
decline of the custom began with William III, who contemptuously
refused to lend himself to such a vile superstition. On the only occasion he is known to have touched a patient, he said, “God give you
better health and more sense.” I6
In Catholic countries like Italy and in some parts of France, the
peasants believe that the priest possesses a secret and irresistible
power
over
the elements.
They
bclicvc
the winds,
the rain,
the storms
and the hail are at his command and obey his will. They think he
and he alone knows and has the right to utter secret words that can
control the forces of nature.17 Even today we hear stories of how
priests have stopped floods, quenched fire, warded off pestilences, and
performed similar magical acts.I8 And does not the Catholic devotee
today firmly believe that the Pope possesses the mystic power to
ae Frazer, The Golden
Bough,
p.
17 Ibid., p. 65 ; also Exodus,
Chapter
90.
4, verse
25.
1s This recalls to mind a story told me by that master magician, Harry Houdini.
Houdini was visiting a friend who had a ten-year-old boy, After he had performed
some simple tricks for the amusement and amazement of the child, the boy was anxinm
for something more sensational and said to Houdini, “Make it rain,” Houdini walked
out on the porch and noticed from the dark, gathering clouds that a storm was approaching. He repeated a few sentences of hocus-pocus and, with some gestures, at
which he was so adept, demanded that the heavens send forth rain. Very shortly
thereafter the rain began to come down in torrents and the boy was flabbergasted.
Sensing that the storm was about over, Houdini asked the bov whether he would like
to see him cause the rain to stop. Receiving an affirmative answer, Houdini reversed
the order of the hocus-pocus, and the rain ceased! The boy, now believing that Houdini
actually possessed magical powers, asked him to make it rain aeain. But Houdini, in
a solemn voice, replied that the powers of the air must not be “tempted.”
Houdini
told me this story several years after it had occurred. He thought the lad still believed that he possessed magical powers which enabled him to produce rain,
112
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
forgive sins, issue infallible edicts, and secure magical intercessional
favors from God?
It is not difficult, then, to understand why the Bible story of the
Exodus was believed to be true by the ignorant and superstitious
people of Biblical times. But it is difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people today cannot see the interchangeable character
of Moses and the Hebrew Deity. Aside from the anthropological
aspects of the primitive mind in relation to the priest-magician god,
the unusual familiarity with which Moses and the Bible Deity interchanged, and the ease with which the thoughts of the one were conveyed to the other, admit of no other conclusion than that of the dual
nature of the same character.
THE CLERGY AND THE FIRST COMMANDMEMT
Although I have already shown by a comparison of the Decalogue
the conflict between the different religious systems which accept the
Commandments as a revelation from God, I also wish to mention that
there is a greater divergence of opinion concerning their meaning by
the ministers of these various sects. Only the Hebrews-and properly,
because it applies to them only-accept this First Commandment as it
appears in the code. Most of the Protestant accts rcjcdt the first half
completely, and start the Decalogue with the first line of the Second
Commandment.
The Catholics combine the first half of this Cnmmandment and the first line of the Second and use it as the First
Commandment. The refusal of both the Catholics and Protestants,
however, to accept this commandment in its original form is a deliberate
attempt to conceal its application to the Hebrews only, thereby pretending that the Decalogue is a divine revelation applicable to all
people.
In the opening paragraph of his book, The First Commandment,
William Jennings Bryan says:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” reads the first of
the commandmentsbrought down from Sinai, The fact that it
THE
FIRST
COMMANDMENT
113
stands first would indicate that it is the most important of the ten,
and the same conclusion is reached if we compare it with the
other nine.”
Need any comment be made after quoting these words? They
are in themselves sufficient to reveal either the deliberate evasion of the
actual words of the First Commandment, or the ignorance of the
writer. If “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the First
Commandment, why do they continue to print Bibles with the words
quoted at the beginning of this chapter?
Is this commandment the most important precept of the ten, even
though .it came first, in comparison with the other nine? It is pitiful
to think that this was the extent of the knowledge of the Ten Commandments of the “Great Commoner,” the man who three times aspired
to the presidency of the United States of America!
Dean Farrar, noted English divine, changes this commandment
to suit himself, and minces no words in emphatically insisting upon his
interpretation. After giving this commandment as “Thou shalt have
no other gods before me,” he asks “Who were the gods after whom the
backsliding Jews, again and again, went astray? Were they not devildeities:Ashtoreith the abomination of the Sidonians, and Chemosh the
abomination of Moab, and Moloch the abomination of the children of
Ammon? I9
One would think that the belief in the existence of these other gods
would be sufficient to convince any intelligent person that the Hebrew
God was one of the many tribal gods worshiped in that primitive and
nomadic time; and he was not superior to the others by any standard
by which WCmeasure values.
Dean Farrar further states: “Men seem to think that these Ten
Commandments are something Jewish; that God did not really mean
them to be kept. Why, this First Commandment, “I am the Lord
thy God, thou shalt have nnne other gods but me,” is nothing less than
10 The Voice
of
Sinai,
p. 99.
114
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
the key to man’s whole existence!
It is the eternal basis of all worship
and all moraIity.“0
What a ludicrous, contradictory,
and puerile statement!
In his
first comment, Dean Farrar specifically mentions the existence of other
gods, and explains that this commandment
was a warning to the
Hebrews not to abandon their God for the “devil-deities”
of other
tribes.
In the next statement he states that this commandment
is
the basis of all worship and morality.
Only a religiously
trained
individual
could make such a contradictory
statement without a blush
of shame.
How can a person who deliberately
mutilates texts he holds sacred,
to suit his purpose, speak about the moral attributes of devotion and
loyalty?
The Rev. Frederick
David Niedermeyer
reveals much needed
knowledge of the Decalogue and particularly
of this commandment.
He informs us that “The Ten Commandments
are theocentric.
As
the heavenly bodies in our solar system are centered around the sun,
so is the divine law centered in God, putting Him into the place of
first consideration.”
21
He continues with a more earthly interpretation,
saying: “The
Commandments
were delivered orally in the hearing of the awe-struck
Israelites, and later inscribed by the finger of God on two tables of
stone. The size of those tables is not revealed, but they may well
have been smaller than usually represented by artists.”
We are
grateful for this information.
Artists in the future should be more
accurate in their description of the sacred tables of stone upon which
God with his finger wrote the Ten Commandments.
What about the
set that God dictated to Moses? The Rev. Mr. Niedermeyer
has the
honesty, however, to say that, although “the Ten Commandments
have
a wide reputation,”
and “most people know something about them, far
fewer really know the actual commandments.”
He gives as an illustration of the general ignorance of the commandments
the reply of an
2oThe Voice of Sinai, p.
21 Frederick
Dsvid
100.
Niedermeyer,
The
Ten
Commandments
Today,
p. 15.
THE
FIRST
115
COMMANDMENT
adult who said one of the commandments
was “You should not take
your neighbour’s cow.” 22
He also states that “a commandment
like the First might be given,
indeed, by a small-minded,
jealous potentate, who was hoping thereby
to keep his political fences in repair and to safeguard his own authority. He might give such a law with an eye single to his own benefit,
and it would seem only human to take such steps.” 23
The Rev. J. C. Masse says, concerning this commandment:
“Here
is not a force setting in motion a train of sequence.
Here is not
original energy inherent in all matter.
Here is not simply a great
first cause of all substance.
Here is the personal, holy God, eternal,
immortal,
all glorious.
It is the incomparable,
glorious Person who
spake to Moses out of SW bush.”
The reverend gentleman has the integrity to include the words at
the beginning of this chapter as they appear in the First Commandment, although he adds the first line of the Second Commandment.
This is how he lists the First Commandment:
“I am the Lord thy God, who brought
thee
out of the land of Egypt
out of the house of
Thu
sl~alt
have
11” other
god3
bomlage.
before
me.”
He continues in his analysis of this commandment:
“As deep
answers unto deep, so normal mankind must respond to God. Otherwise man has missed the very purpose of his being. The challenge of
this first command,
‘I am Jehovah thy God,’ conveys all this to
thoughtful,
intelligent,
moral mankind.”
24
And as for the Deliverer, he makes this comment:
“But He who
is incomparably
glorious in His person, and is to be worshiped for what
He is, is none the less glorious in His works and is to be worshiped
also for what. he does. And so to the majesty of His name He adds a
reminder of the compassion of His character, ‘I am Jehovah thy God
‘““Nicdcrmcyer,
Tkc
23Ibid., p. 19.
2*Rev.
J. C. Masse,
Ton
Ccmmandments
The
Gospel
and
Today,
The
Ten
p.
17.
Commandmerzts,
p, 17.
116
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, that delivered thee from
bondage.’ ” 25
The following gems of expression I take from the learned Reverend
G. Campbell Morgan’s book, The Ten Commandments:
“The severity
of the law of God is the necessary sequence of His infinite love. The
fiery law is the most perfect expression of his love for the peoples.
Let men then with reverent sincerity stand in the light of His law, that
they may understand the perfection of His love.”
He does, however, make one statement which is incontrovertible:
“The ten words of Sinai were not ten separate commandments,
having
no reference to each other. They were the ten sides of the one law
of God.” 26
The Reverend John Alexander Hayes offers a rather new explanation of why there is a misconception
of the commandments.
He says
that “the average person thinks of the size of the stone tablets, on
which the commandments
were inscribed, as being much larger than
they really were.” “Artists,” he says, “have helped this mistaken conception by drawing them so.” 27 He believes that by this commandment “Atheism is forbidden.” 28
What a convenient interpretation
to stifle all opposition so as to
prevent an expose of this piece of religious dishonesty.
The
theologians
are wrong.
“I
am the Lord
thy
God who
brought
thee out of the house of bondage, out of the land of Egypt” are the
Any abbreviation
or change
is
words of the First Commandment.
It is a necessary introduction
to the
pure imposture on their part.
religion of the Israelites and a proper prologue to the Ten Commandments.
‘J5Mass~,
The
Gn+d
20 Rev. G. Campbell
27 Hayes,
The Ten
28Ibid., p. 35.
nnrl
the
TPN
Morgan,
The
Commandments,
Cnmmnndmcntv,
Ten Commandments,
p. 31.
p.
17.
p. 11.
The
Second Commandment
“Thou shalt have no other gods before
me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image or any likeness of any thitig
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 showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me, and
keep my commandments.”
THE
SADISM
OF
THE
BIBLE
DEITY
T
HIS COMMANDMENT
reveals the brutality
of the Bible
Deity and makes the Decalogue an instrument
of intolerance,
persecution, fanaticism and oppression.
How can anyone worship a God who shamelessly expresses his
malevolence in these words: “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth gelzeratiolz of them that hate me”?
What a monstrous God of the universe it must be who would make a special Commandment
to emphasize his jealous and vindictive
nature, and to
stipulate the curse he would inflict upon his poor, helpless creatures
who fail to worship him!
Since religion fashions its code of conduct upon the morality of its
gods, are we to assume that the ‘character of the Bible God is to be
emulated?
Are hatred, jealousy and a vindictiveness that punishes the innocent
for the wrongs of others the qualities of morality we want to inculcate
in our children?
Do we want our children to emulate this God, to
demand continually supplication and adulation?
And failing to receive
this worship,
are they to. live in a state of continual
hatred
and malevo-
lence, with the only purpose of their existence to vent their anger and
punish those who refuse to pay homage to their vanity?
Or do we
want them to grow up into men and women worthy of our efforts to
achieve a civilized society with high ethical standards of equality and
justice?
We are concerned here not only with the truth of the words of this
Commandment,
but also with their value in the field of ethics and
morals.
These Commandments
are supposed to be infallible
moral
119
-
120
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
guides, and since this one possessesno intrinsic value in the sphere of
ethics or in the realm of morals, why was it made part of the Decalogue? The answer is simple. It contains four vital features which
reveal
the character
of the Biblical
God and follow
in perfect
tinuity the egotistical declaration of the First Commandment.
four provisions are :
1.
2.
3.
4.
con-
These
The nature of the Bible Deity.
Strict rules regarding the making and worshiping of images.
The penalties provided for disobedience.
The rewards to be conferred for observance.
These statements are definite and unequivocal. If the Bible Deity
wrote them, did he mean them? And if he meant them, did he follow
his instructions and execute his own decisions? If he wrote them and
did not mean what he wrote, then he stands convicted of hypocrisy;
if he wrote
them and cannot
fulfill
the promises
of his obligations
and
execute the provisions of his own laws, then he stands exposed as a
false god!
The description that the God of the Decalogue gives of himself
could not be different. His character is typical of the other primitive
tribal gods that existed contemporaneously with him. If a god did not
possessthe ability to punish and reward, of what use was he? Primitive man wanted reward for his labor and punishment for his enemies.
The Hebrew God was created to be feared. If the wrath of a
jealous person is feared, how much more terrifying must be the fear
of a jealous god. Without this kind of god there could be no doctrine
of specia1 providence, and if prayers cannot be directed to a power
superior to man, then the whole structure of religion must crumble.
Without a god to pray to, and without prayers being “answered,”
religion would lose its commodity of trade.
A volume could be written quoting indisputable Biblical passages
to testify to the jealous and vindictive nature of the Bible God, but a
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
121
few quotations and his own words incorporated
in this Commandment
should be sufficient to silence all doubt as to his reprehensible
character. I quote Exodus, Chapter 34, verse 14:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for
the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous
God.
Deuteronomy,
Chapter
4, verses 23 and 24:
23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget
the covenant of the Lord your God, which he
made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any &ins, which the
Lord thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the Lord thy God is a consuming
fire, even a jealous God.
And what more conclusive
Chapter
than the following
from Deuferonomy,
6, verses 13 to 15?
13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy tied, and
serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the
gods of the people which are round about
YOUi
15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God
among you;) lest the anger of the Lord thy
God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee
from off the face of the earth.
Certainly
no further
testimony
is needed to prove the character
of
the Bible God. Even today, clergymen defend this jealnus and
vindictive
nature as part of the true character of the Bible Deity.
The Rev. G. Campbell Morgan says: “The severity of the law of God
is the necessary sequence of his infinite love.” l The Rev. Frederick
David Niedermeyer
asks:
“Is God still jealous?” (and proceedsto answer by quoting him:
“For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous Cod”! Hc continues:)
1 Rev, G. Campbell Morgan, The Ten Commandments,
p. 22,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
122
“Some Christians are ashamed of that declaration.
They think it
has an undesirable meaning and are sorry that it is included in
the Scriptures. Therein they differ from God, for He has freely
declared that He is jealous. . . . In the mind of the Creator there
is no hesitancy whatever in proclaiming His jealousy, and He has
no dislike for the word. Believers who are ashamed of it do not
realize what it means. . . .” 2
As a result of this Commandment,
man’s heart has been hardened
and his brain stultified.
It has made him vicious and brutal.
In his
attempt to imitate this Bible God, every conceivable injustice has been
perpetrated.
The horrors and misery that have followed can never be
adequately told.
Language is incapable of expressing the tortures
endured by the victims of the insanely pious followers of this primitive Bible Deity.
JEALOUSY:
THE
ATTRIBUTE
OF PRIMITIVE
GODS
If the Bible Deity had not been subject to jealous fits and passions
of rage as well as having periods of forgivcncss and blessings, hc could
never have qualified as a god for so primitive
a people as the nomadic
Israelites.
They needed a god suited to their mode of life, and the
jealous, arrogant deity of this Commandment
was eminently
acceptable. Since gods are a reflection of the mentality
of the people who
worship them, the Bible God was a magnified reflection of the grossly
superstitious Biblical Hebrew of that primitive
age.
“Jealousy” is the last attribute one would expect to find in a God,
and yet nearly all tribal gods in primitive societies boasted of their
jealous and vindictive natures. Jealousy implies acts of propitiation.
The gods of the Gold Coast, says Major Ellis, are jealous and
supersensitive, and nothing offends them so deeply as to be ignored, or
to have their power questioned, or to be laughed it. Among the
primitive
Hebrews,
SNiedermeyer, The
it was sacrilegious
Ten
Commandments
Today,
to point
to the heavens as the
pp. 36, 38.
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
123
abode where God dwelt.3 On the Slave Coast, insults to a god are
always severely punished.4
The belief in a jealous god is born of a religious fear, based on
ignorance of the forces of nature.
‘ViJhe god who could inspire the
greatest amount of fear had the greatest number of worshipers. An
understanding and benevolent god does not require propitiation.
The more awe-inspiring the god, the greater the fear. To force a
man to do your bidding, first frighten him. Under the spell of fear,
you can rob him not only of his soul, but also of his possessions.
Religions survive only through the ties of fear. Courage negates
religion, and the person who has been freed from the thralldom of fear
can never again become enslaved to the dogma of a creed. The more
superstitious and ignorant the people, the more elaborate the ceremonies of worship.
The ancient Egyptians flattered their gods.
The Mohammedans worship a primitive conception of god. In
their prayers to Allah they cry, “God is Great, God is merciful, God
is he who seeth and heareth.”
The IIindus
believe that by praise, a person may obtain special
favor from the gods. The first songs composed by primitive peoples
are hymns
of praise.5
The Maoris of New Zealand believed their deities were responsible
for pain, misery
and death, and one never thought of getting any aid
from them. Their religious duty consisted in appeasing the wrath of
their gods.
The Tahitians supposed their gods to be powerful, but they never
expected them to exercise the simplest benevolence toward their most
devoted followers. Their gods demanded homage and obedience, and
were always ready to punish all who hesitated or refused to comply.
The Fijians looked upon their gods as positively wicked.
3 Westermarck,
4 Ibid.
6 Ibid., Vol.
Mods,
II,
p. 654.
Vol.
1, pp. 639, 641.
.
124
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The people of New Hebrides believed that the air was filled with
malignant beings, selfish and vindictive.
The Santals of India expect no favors from their god; on the contrary, they seek by supplication
to avoid his displeasure and hate.
The Kamchasales do not expect anything good from their gods.
The gods of the Nenenots, or Indians of Hudson Bay, are of an evil
nature and must be propitiated
to secure their favor.
The only qualities which the Mulungu tribes attribute to their god
are vindictiveness and cruelty.
To the Matabele, the idea of a benevolent deity is utterly foreign.
All the gods of the North American Indians possessed jealous
natures, and the main object of the worship of these people was to
appease their wrath.
Believers in the Bible and worshipers of the Bible God today
cannot condemn the Hindus who still worship their god because of the
fear of his jealous nature, or the present-day barbarians who likewise
fear their god and who live in awe of his jealousy and wrath. Just as
the Bible God demanded sacrifices, so we find this same trait among
other primitive
deities.
Prayers were generally connected with offerings, as gods did not perform their deeds or bestow their favors
gratuitously.
A Tanna priest, when he offers the first fruits to his deity, says:
“Here is some food for you; eat it, and be kind to us on account of it.”
Mithra also demanded worship and sacrifices. He complains;
“If
men would worship me with a sacrifice in which I were invoked . . .
then I would come to the faithful at the appointed time.” 6
In South Africa, the Zulus speak of Heaven as a person, ascribing
to it the power of exercising a will, and they speak of a Lord of
Heaven whose wrath they experience during a thunderstorm.
Zeus controlled the heavens. If it rained, thundered, snowed; if
lightning flashed, if the winds howled, it was Zeus who was responsible.
The months, the days, the years were ordained by his orders.’
6 Westermarck, Morals,
Vol. II, p. 656.
7 Edward B. Tylor, Ptimitive Culture, Vol. II, p. 2.58.
.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
125
It is a well-known fact that where the forces of nature take on a
weird and unusual character, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes
and the like, the people are more superstitious
than in areas where
such disturbances are fewer. Widespread superstition
is particularly
prevalent among nomadic tribes where the slightest change from normal conditions inspires fear.
Even today among so-called civilized people, many become terrorstricken when hearing an unexpected noise. Any unusual sound in
the night causes fear. The superstitious person attributes to innocent
and normal manifestations
of nature a significance wholly foreign to
them.
For each one of these manifestations,
he has some magic
formula which he believes will prevent evil. This accounts for the
multitude of superstitious rites found in many religious ceremonies.
Believers in the Bible certainly cannot be unaware of the nature
of their God as revealed in this Commandment.
Yet were this description used in reference to another god, both Christians and Hebrews
would vigorously disavow it as a personification
of their Deity.
How
little do religious believers realize the untenability
of their beliefs
when presented in an altogether different light from the UIK to which
they are accustomed !
PUNISHING
THE
INNOCENT
Equally prevalent as the fear of a jealous god by primitive
man
was the superstitious belief in sympathetic magic. He thought that if
one member of the family was guilty of evil, the whole family was
contaminated
and that the punishment
suffered by the father would
also be inflicted upon the children.8
What would you think of a person who insisted upon punishing
the innocent children of a man who had supposedly committed
some
Q A simple explanation
association
and influence
rated later on.
of sympathetic
magic
is the superstitious
between similar ideas and things,
belief
in the
direct
This will be further elabo-
126
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
wrong? What would you think of a person who insisted upon punishing innocent children of the second generation of a man who had
supposedly committed some wrong? What would you think of a
person who insisted upon punishing the innocent children of the third
generation of a man who had supposedly committed some wrong?
What would you think of a man who insisted upon punishing the
innocent children of the fourth generation of a man who had supposedly committed some wrong? You would undoubtedly think that
such a man was a barbarian and a savage.
If a man with such a character is condemned as inhuman, what
should be thought of such a god? If you recoil from this kind of deity
today, remember that millions in the past not only accepted this sort
of god as the supreme being of the universe, but paid him unrestricted
homage.
One of the aspects of the belief in sympathetic
magic was the
resemblance of the son to the father. An inherited resemblance was
presumed to denote inherited character, and guilt if there had been
any.
Among the Ewe-speaking people of the Slave Coast, a man found
guilty of a vicious crime is not only put to death, but his family either
meets a like fate or is imprisoned. The same system of punishment
prevails among the Matabele.
The Shilluks of the White Nile vary the punishment. The culprit
is put to death for his misdeeds, but his wife and family are given to
the Sultan, who retains them in bondage.
The Kafirs have a similar code of punishment; members of the
whole household are punished for the misdeeds of one.
In some parts of the Malay Archipelago, a father and child are
considered so inseparable that when one is punished the other seldom
escapesa like fate.
The law in Bali is similar to the provisions of this Commandment.
11 prescl-ibes
that for certain
kinds
of sorcery
the offcndcr
shall be put:
to death, adding the following: “If the matter be very clearly made
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
127
out, let the punishment of death be extended to his father and mother,
to his children and grandchildren;
let none of them live; let none
connected with one so guilty remain on the face of the land, and let
their
goods
be in like
manner
confiscated.”
In ancient Mexico, traitors and their children and relatives were
made slaves to the fourth generation.Q
In Athenian law, a man who committed
a sacrilege was banished
with all his children.
Aristotle mentions a case where the body of one
who was guilty of sacrilege was disentombed,
his ashes cast beyond
the borders of the place, and the living members of his clan condemned
to perpetual exile as a measure of purification
for their sins.
Among the Anglo-Saxons, before the time of Cnut, the child, even
the infant in the cradle, was liable to be sold for payment of penalties
incurred by the father, being “held by the covetous to be equally guilty
as if it had discretion.”
This belief was carried
through
the Middle
Ages. A person condemned as a heretic lost not only his own property, but his family was subjected to a like penalty on the ground that
his impiety had contaminated
them.lO
The Sibuyaus, a tribe belonging to the Sea Dyaks, “are of the
opinion that an unmarried girl proving to be with child must be offensive to the superior powers, who, instead of always chastising the
individual,
punish the tribe by misfortunes
happening
to its members.” I1
In some parts of China, even today, the belief prevails that a child
suffering from sickness or disease is paying the penalty of spiritual
vcngcancc for its parents’ impiety.
When a maimed
or dcformcd
child
is born, the Japanese say that its parent or ancestor had committed
some
great
sin.
Many
superstitious
people
in
Western
perverted by the influence of this Commandment,
make
planations for such tragedies.
The primitive
Greeks had a theory of divine retribution
QWestermarck, Yoracs, Vol. 1, pp.
lOIbid.,
11 Ibid.,
p. 46.
p. 49.
45,
46.
countries,
similar
similar
exto
128
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
that incorporated into this Commandment. They believed that the
community had to suffer for the “sins” of some of its members, and
the children for the “sins” of their fathers. When Theseus was
informed
of the death of his wife,
he exclaimed:
“This
must
be a
heaven-sent calamity in consequence of the sins of an ancestor, which
from a remote source I am bringing on myself.”
In Scotland, until quite recent times, it was believed that the misconduct of a person descended as a curse to his children until the third
or fourth generation. In Christianity this belief is carried to its
ultimate in the doctrine that the sin of Adam and Eve caused the entire
human race to be cursed.12
Not having the divine inspiration of infallible knowledge, Confucius taught the very opposite to what the Bible God threatened. He
said that the vices of the father should not discredit a virtuous son,
and Plato laid down
the rule that the disgrace
and punishment
of the
father should not be visited upon the children. Seneca said that nothing is more unjust than that anyone should inherit the quarrels of his
father.13 And Socrates said that we ought not “to retahate or render
evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from
him.” I4
The infliction of suffering as a retribution for the misdeeds of
others has long since passed from the ethics of civilization. To punish
the innocent for the guilty is the height of injustice, the Bible Deity to
the contrary notwithstanding.
THE
FEAR
OF IMAGES
AND
THE
ORIGIN
OF
THEIR
PROHIBITION
The origm of the prohibition against making and worshiping images
is based upon the belief in sympathetic magic and belongs in the same
category as the primitive custom of punishing innocent children unto
the third and fourth generations in expiation of the “sins” of the father.
12 Westermarck, &fords, Vol. I, p, 50.
13 Ibid.,
14 Ibid.
p. 70.
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
129
In primitive societies it was believed that an image of a person
contained part of the soul of the one it represented, and that whoever
possessedthe image could bring evil to the person. It was therefore
feared as a malignant weapon in the hands of an enemy, and its prohibition became a matter of serious concern which culminated in a
fanatical taboo.
Based on the belief in this Commandment, the Biblical Hebrew
was forbidden to draw pictures representing any living creature, or
even of the sun, moon and stars. No figures of any kind were permitted to be kept in the house. He was forbidden to gaze at the
graven image of a person, and the pious Hebrew even avoided mentioning the word “image.” I5
Even as late as the sixteenth century, a chief rabbi would not allow
a member of his congregation to place before the Ark an embroidered
curtain with a bas-relief of a deer set in pearls-the coat of arms of
the donor. However, after much controversy and through the intervention of other rabbis, a compromise was reached whereby the
curtain was permitted to be placed in the synagogue, provided the deer
was embroidered on the curtain instead of forming a bas-relief! lo
Another rabbi, even as late as the eighteenth century, refused to
permit a stained-glass window above the Ark in the synagogue bearing
the figure of the sun with rays inscribed, “From the rising sun to the
going down of the same, the Lord’s name is to be praised,” on the
ground that people bowing to the Ark, or entering Ihe synagogue,
would be worshiping the sun.17
The Moslem who accepts this Commandment, like the Hebrew,
believes that if he makes an image in this world it will be set before
him on the day of judgment. He will then be called upon to give it
life, but will fail in the demand and thereupon be sent to expiate his
offense in hell.18
The Moslem
is just as fanatical
regarding
1s Hastings, lhcyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 7, p, 142.
16 Jewish Encyclokdia,
‘iArt,” Vol. 2, p. 143.
17 Ibid.,
p. 143.
1s Tylor, Researches into the Early History of Mankind, p, 120.
the pro-
130’
T’HE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
visions of this Commandment
as is the Hebrew;
both have been
inculcated with the fear of direful penalties for its violation.
So strong was the belief in animism and sympathetic magic among
the primitive
Hebrews that innumerable
instances are recorded to
show to what extent they believed that such magic could produce
results. This was the formula to kill an enemy: “Write his name upon
leaves and let them shrivel up over a fire,” or, “Boil them in milk and
say, ‘May the heart of boil in like manner,’ and your enemy’s
heart will boil and he will die.”
The early Hebrews were filled with
deadly terror of the evil results that would inevitably
follow their
making of images under their delusive belief in animism and sympathetic magic.
Another Hebrew prescription
for producing results through this
medium is the following:
“Tf yn11 wish tn kill a man, take mud from the two sides of the
river and form it into the shape of a figure, and write upon it the
name of the person, and take seven branches from seven strong
palm trees, and make a bow from a reed with the string of horsesinew, and place the image in a hollow, and stretch the bow and
shoot with it, and with each shot say, ‘May [the na.me or names nf
the person or persons] be destroyed.’ ” le
There was a well-known
method to be employed.
formula to induce love and this is the
“Take virgin wax and make a female figure, with the sex organs
clearly delineated, and with the features of the person you have in
mind. Write
on the breast,
daughter
of (father’s
name),
and ~daughter of (mothe;‘s name), and on the back
between the shoulders write the same, and say over it, ‘May it be
Thy will, 0 Lord, that N, daughter of N, burn with a mighty
passion for me.’ Then bury the figure and cover it carefully ‘so
that
its limbs are not broken, and leave it thus for twenty-four
hours. Then bury it under the eaves, being careful that no one
witness your act, and cover it with a stone so that it does not
break. When
you disinter it, dip it carefully in water
ID Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Mugic and Superstition, p. 124.
three times,
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
131
so that it is washed clean, once in the name of Michael, again in
the name of Raphael, and immerse it in some urine. Then dry it,
and when you wish to arouse passion in the maiden, pierce the heart
of her image with a new needle, in that spot where it will cause the
most
pain.
So she will
or if you wish to injure
daily
experience
this
pain.”
z”
a person or cause him or her pain the wax
image was exposed to the fire, the person whom it represented was
supposed to be stricken with fever; if the image was stabbed with
a knife, the victim would feel pain in the corresponding part of his
body.21 Throughout Jewish folkIore there are .innumerabIe references to “witches who prepare images of wax.” 22 A drop of blood,
strands of hair, nail parings, a piece of garment, would be used in
,.
making an image.
Under the influence of this superstitious belief in sympathetic
magic, the primitive Hebrews rarely destroyed cast-off parts of their
bodies. The nails of the fingers and toes, and the hair, were carefully
disposed of so that they could not be consumed by fire or otherwise
violently destroyed. They even avoided covering excrement with hot
coals for fear that they themselves would die by burning.23 That is
why some people today, in nearly all countries, still believe in the
superstition that if anyone walks over nail parings, some injury or illness will happen to the person to whom they belong.
To injure a person, a Singhalese sorcerer will procure a lock of his
intended
victim’s
hair, a paring
of his nails, or a thread
from a gar-
ment; then he fashions an image of him, thrusting nails made of different metals into his joints.24
Similar enchantments were wrought by
the Moslems of North Africa.
Images of gods were also taboo until comparatively recent times.
Varro affirms that for more than one hundred and seventy years after
the founding of Rome, there was no image of a god in human or animal
20 Trachtenberg,
Jewish
Magic
and Superstition,
p. 126.
21 Ibid.
221bid..
D. 124.
33 Ibid.,
p.
z4 Frazer,
128.
Golden
Bough,
Vol.
1, p. 65.
THE
132
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
form in the city; Numa is said to have forbidden such representations. The Persians had no temples or idols before Artaxerxes I. In
Greece also, temples and images of the gods were unknown in ancient
times.
The earliest temples of the Egyptians
were without idols.
Arab tradition, which is supported by philological
evidence, declares
that idols, like that of HobaJ at Mecca, were of foreign origin.26
The fear of images was present in all early stages of culture.
Among the Baganda, if a person was sick, the medicine man would
make an image of the patient out of clay, run the image over the
sufferer’s body, and either bury it in the road or hide it by the wayside.
The first person who stepped over it, or passed it by, would catch the
disease and thereby cure the patient.
So fearful were the people of
the efficacy of this method, that anyone caught in the act of making
images was put to death.“6
Frazer records that a certain superintendent
of the king’s cattle
was once prosecuted in an Egyptian
court of law for having made
figures of men and women in wax, thereby causing paralysis of their
limbs and other grievous harm.27
When the Ojibway Indian desires to work evil on anyone, he makes
a liltIt: wooden image of his enemy and runs a needle into its head or
ear, or shoots an arrow into it, believing that wherever the needle
pierces or the arrow strikes the image, his foe will at that instant be
seized with a sharp pain in the corresponding part of his body; but if
he intends t.o kill the persnn nutright, he burns or buries the image,
uttering magic words as he does ~0.~~
The North American Indians use images to injure an enemy. They
make an image and melt it away, shoot at it, or stick pins or thorns
into it in the belief that some like injury will befall the person it
represents.
In North America, when an Algonquin wishes to kill a particular
animal, he makes a grass or cloth image of it and hangs it up in his
35 Hastings, Encyclopaedia
of Religion
and Ethics, Vol. 7, p. 127.
26 Frawr,
27 Ibid.,
28 Ibid.,
Goldm
Rnupt,
Vol. 2, p. 66.
p. 55.
Vol.
9, p.
7.
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
133
wigwam. He then repeats several times the incantation, “See how I
shoot,” and lets fly an arrow at the image. If he drives it in, it is a
sign that the animal will be killed the next day.2e
The Peruvian sorcerers are said still to make rag dolls and stick
cactus thorns into them. They hide them in secret holes in the house,
or in the wood of beds, or in cushions, believing that they cripple
people or make them sick or mad.
In Borneo, the practice still exists of making a wax image of the
enemy to be bewitched. The belief is that his body will waste away
as the image is gradually melted, as in the story of Margery Jordan’s
waxen image of Henry VI.3o
When the Malay seeks to do injury, he makes a small wax figure
of the person who is the object of his hate. He turns it slowly over
a lighted lamp and utters these words:
“It
is not the wax I am scorching,
It is the liver, heart and spleen of So-and-so
that I scorch.”
After doing this for the seventh time, he burns the image, and shortly
after that the victim
is supposed
to die.‘l
The aborigines of Victoria use similar methods. When they seek
to destroy an enemy, they retire to a lonely spot and draw a likeness
of the victim on the ground. After certain cabalistic ceremonies have
been performed, evil is supposed to befall the victim. So strongly do
the natives believe in the efficacy of this method that victims who learn
that images have been made of them often die of sheer fright. Natives of the Bloomfield River in Queensland think they can doom a
man by making a wooden image of him and burying it in the ground.32
If a Matabele wishes to avenge himself on an enemy, he makes a
clay figure of the man and pierces it with a needle. The Ovambo of
Southwestern Africa believe that some people have the power of beZSTylor,
“C’Zbid.,
Researches
p.
into
the Early
History
119.
81 Frazer,
op. cit.,
82 Ibid., p. 58.
Vol.
1, pp.
56, 57.
of Mankind,
p. 118.
134
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
witching an absent person by gazing into a vessel of water till his
image appears to them; then they spit at the image and curse the man.
That is supposed to seal his fate.s3
The Negro of West Africa cuts figures out of leaves representing
crocodiles, tigers or serpents. He believes that by possessing images
of the animals he fears, he can cause them to keep away from him or
to destroy themselves altogether.
The Katish of Australia believes that the rainbow prevents rain
from falling.
He therefore draws a rainbow on his shield and hides
it away from the encampment,
thinking
that it will prevent the phenomena because its image is invisible.
To protect themselves from scorpions and centipedes which infest
the country, the natives of Malaysia make images of the pests on one
set of bamboo sticks, and place them next to another set of bamboo
sticks
that have images
of pheasants
which
devour
the pests.
They
believe this will cause them to be eaten.34
The ancient
by magic.
books
of the Hindus
When at war, Hindus
and chario,ts
the Mab-Margi,
of a hostile
a Hindu
kill an enemy, they make
army
contain
formulas
for destruction
made images of the soldiers, horses
and then pulled
them to pieces.
sect in the Northwest
Provinces,
When
want to
an image of flour and earth and stick sharp,
pointed instruments
into his heart, navel and throat.35
An Arabic treatise on magic gives the following “infallible”
formula: If you wish to deprive a man of his limbs, make a waxen image
of him, engrave his name and his mother’s name on it, then smite the
particular limb which you want to injure.3B
In ancient Babylon it was also a common practice to make an
image of clay or other soft material
in the likeness of the enemy.
Burying or burning it was supposed to kill or injure him.
Even gods
were not immune from peril.
33Frazer,
op. cit., Vol.
u Hastings,
Emyclopacdk
35 Frazer,
op. cit., Vol.
36 Ibid.,
p. 65.
1, p. 63.
of Rcl~giott
1, pp. 63, 65.
awd Ethics,
Vol.
7, p. 111.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
In a hymn to the fire-god Nusku,
135
we read:
“Those who have made images of me, reproducing
my features,
Who have taken away my breath, torn my hairs,
Who have rent my clothes, have hindered my feet from treading
the dust,
May the fire-god, the strong one, break their charm.” 3T
Babylonian literature contains long lists of instructions for banishing evil spirits.
This is the formula to destroy the enemy of the Sun:
“Every night when the Sun-god, Ra, sank down to his home in
the blowing west, he was assailed by hosts of demons under the
leadership of his arch-fiend Apepi. All night long he fought them,
and sometimes by day the powers of darkness sent up clouds even
into the blue Egyptian sky to obscure his light and weaken his
powers.
To aid the Sun-god in his daily struggle, a ceremony was
performed in his temple at Thebes. A figure of his foe, Apepi,
represented as a crocodile with a hideous face or a serpent with
many coils, was made of wax, and on it the demon’s name was
wrillen in green irlk. Wrapped in a papyrus case on which arlulher
likeness of Apepi had been drawn in green ink, the figure was then
tied up with black hair, spat upon, hacked with a stone knife, and
cast on the ground. There the priest trod on it with his left fOGt
again and again, and then burned it in a fire made of a certain
plant or grass. When Apepi himself bad thus been effectively disposed of, waxen effigies of each of his principal demons and their
fathers, mothers and children were made and burnt in the same
way.
The fiends of darkness, clouds and rain, felt the injuries
inflicted on their images as if they had been done to themselves;
they passed away, at lcast for a time, and the beneficent
Sun-god
shone out triumphant
once more.” 8*
In 1.574, a Florentine,
Cosmo Ruggieri, made a waxen image of
Charles IX with supposed hostile intent.
The king died a month
later of a mysterious illness.
Kuggieri was accused of causing his
death and arrested.
37Frazer, ofi.
3sWestermarck,
cit.,
Vol.
Morals,
3, p. 67.
Vol. 2, pp.
67, 68.
THE
136
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
In 1560, there was great consternation
at the English court when
a waxen image of Queen Elizabeth with a large pin stuck in the breast
was found in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
Until the reign of the late ruler of Siam, no Siamese coins were
ever stamped with the image of the king.
It was feared that this
would result in some form of evil to the ruler.3e
During the Middle Ages, when one wanted to cause injury to an
enemy, it was the custom to make an image of him, have it blessed by
the priest, and then stick it with needles, in the belief that the person
it represented would suffer sharp pains.40
So widespread is this superstition that it has persisted to this day
in “civilized”
nations.
In the Scottish Highlands the belief in the malignancy of images still prevails.
To kill a person whom a Highlander
hates, he will make a clay image of him, fill it full of nails, pins and
broken glass, and then place it in a running stream with its head to
the current.
As each sharp instrument
is put in the image, he utters
a form of curse and the person whom it is to injure is supposed to
feel pain in that part of his body.41
Images were taboo among the ignorant and superstitious because
of the fear that they possessed a sympathetic relationship
to the thing
they represented.
So intense was this delusion that death was the
penalty for those found guilty of resorting to this methud ul sorcery.
This belief was prevalent among the Biblical Hebrews, and that
is why the prohibition
against graven images was incorporated
in the
Ten Commandments.
SHADOWS,
REFLECTIONS
“Shadows” and “reflections”
under the belief in sympathetic
cised a tremendous superstitious
AND
IMAGES
are closely associated with images
magic and animism, and have exerinfluence upon primitive
mentality.42
as Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 98.
40 Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 7, p, 112.
‘I Frazer,
op.
cit.,
Vol.
1, p.
96.
4*Animism, simply stated, is the superstitious belief of attributing
objects and phenomena of nature.
life to inanimate
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
137
It was thought that the person whose shadow was trampled upon
WoulCrsuffer some injury. This superstition grew from the belief that
the shadow was a reflection of the soul.
In the Island Wetar, it is believed that a person can be made ill
by stabbing his shadow. Among the Tolindoos of Central Celebes, to
tread on a man’s shadow is an offense because it is supposed to make
the owner sick. The Ottawa Indians thought they could kill a man
by making certain figures on his shadow. The Baganda of Central
Africa regarded a man’s shadow as his ghost, and would attempt to
kill their enemies by stabbing or treading on their shadows. The
Caffres avoid having their shadows touched for fear of the evil consequences. Among certain primitive tribes, it is the custom to avoid
being seen in daylight for fear of injury through the medium of the
shadow. Others avoid having their shadows fall upon the foundation
of a building
they
are engaged in erecting for fear that it will bring
sickness to the owner or occupants. In Darfur, people think that
they can do an enemy to death by burying a certain root in the earth
on the spot where the shadow of his head happens to fall. It was believed among the people of Arabia that if a hyena trod on a man’s
shadow, he would lose the power of speech and motion.43
Among the Caffre tribe, it was believed that the shadow of a tree
felt the touch of a man’s foot; and in the Punjab it was believed that
if the shadow of a pregnant woman fell on a snake, it would blind the
creature instantly.
It was also believed that to overshadow the king
by standing in his presence was an offense meriting instant death.
In the central provinces of India,
a pregnant woman avoids the
shadow of a man, believing that if it falls on her, the child will resemble
him.
The
Bushman is most careful not to let his shadow fall on dead
game, as he thinks this would bring bad luck. An Australian native
is said nearly to have died of fright because the shadow of his motherin-law fell on his legs as he lay asleep under a tree.44 The savage
Besisis of the Malay Peninsula fear to bury their dead at noon, be43Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 3,
44 Ibid.,
Vol. 3, pp. 82-83.
pp. 78-82.
138
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
cause they fancy that the shortness of their shadows at that hour
would sympathetically
shorten their own lives.45
At funerals in China, before the coffin is shut, bystanders retire
from the room for fear that their shadows will be enclosed in the coffin
and they will suffer ill health as a result.
In savage tribes it is the
rule to avoid the shadow of those persons who are regarded as sources
of dangerous influence.
The Shuswap Indian thinks that the shadow
of a mourner falling on a person will make him sick.
In Bimo, a district in the East Indian island of Sambawa, it is
the custom to bury a man’s shadow when a new building is erected.
This is a survival of the custom of burying a live man in the belief
that it will add strength to the building.
The shadow, being considered his soul, is measured and preserved.48
In one instance, the
shadow was worshiped as a god.
When the Motumotu
of New Guinea first saw their likenesses in a
looking glass, they thought that the reflections were their souls. Among
the Galelareese, girls and boys must not look into a mirror for fear
that it will take away the bloom of youth.
The Zulus will not look
into a dark pool for fear that a beast will slea1 their likeness and they
will die. Even today many superstitious
mothers object strenuously
to having their children look into the mirror.
The Basatos believe that crocodiles have the power of killing a
man by dragging his reflection under water.
In Saddle Island, Melanesia, there is a pool supposedly inhabited
by a malignant
spirit.
Those who gaze into it are sure to die, runs the belief, hecause of the
disappearance of their reflection in the water.47
Clemens of Alexandrinus was of the opinion that ladies broke the
Second Commandment
by using looking glasses as they thereby made
images nf themselves.48
This sympathetic
relationship
with the re45 Frazer, ‘op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 8’7.
46Ibid.,
47 Ibid.,
p. 91.
pp. 91-94.
48 W. E. H. Lecky, History
of Rationalism
referred to as Lecky, RatlomSism.
in Ezwo~e, Vol. 1, p. 82. Hereinafter
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
139
flection is probably the origin of the belief that if you break a mirror
it will shatter your own fortune as it has shattered your likeness.
These superstitious
beliefs, in addition to explaining
the prohibitions of making graven images, also account for the custom of covering up mirrors or turning them to the wall after the death of a member
of the household.
It is feared that the soul, projected out of the person in the shape of his reflection in the mirror, may be carried off
by the ghost of the departed, commonly supposed to linger about the
house till the burial.
It is a common belief that if a person sees his
image in a mirror after a death, he will soon die himself.
Not only among the Hebrews today, but also among peasants
of Germany, Belgium, England and France, the custom prevails of
either turning mirrors to the wall or covering them with cloth after
a person has died. Nor is this superstitious
belief confined only to
mirrors;
it is extended to all shiny articles and particularly
clocks
and windows.
In the opinion of a sect known as the Raskolniks,
the mirror is
considered an accursed thing, invented by the devil.
Because of this very Commandment,
there are thousands of Christians who
~txl
today refuse
to have their pictures
taken,
standing
in
mortal fear of the consequences.
This is also true of many natives
within our own sphere of travel.
Recently,
on a visit to the island
of Haiti, I wanted to take the picture of a family group particularly
representative
of the island.
The mother clutched her children
in
terror lest evil befall them if photographed.
Nor is this prevalent
only among the Haitians.
Women of the Carpathus in the Greek
Islands refuse to have likenesses made of them, fearing that it will
cause them to pine away and die. The superstition
still prevails in
certain parts of Germany that if you have your portrait painted you
will surely die; 49 while in the west of Scotland there are many who
claim they have never had a day’s health after being photographed!
5o
The Tepehuances of Mexico believe that he who takes your pic4g Frazer,
8o Ibid.
op. cit.,
Vol.
3, pp. 94-100.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
140
ture and possessesyour image has the power of life and death over
your person. Villagers of Skihim believe that if their pictures are
taken they give away their souls. Ethiopian tribesmen of French
Somaliland believe that they will “lose their souls” if they are photographed. Recently a Paramount News cameraman was beaten and
his camera smashed because he tried to take pictures of some officials6’
A group of Mennonite families who sought to leave the country were
in a dilemma because of their refusal to take passport pictures.52
As with images, so with shadows and reflections. If a shadow was
the cause of so much concern, we can now understand with what trepidation an image was held in awe by the primitive mind.
What has been the effect of this Commandment on those who came
under its influence? What has been the result of its observance?
What of its violation?
ICONOCLASTIC
FANATICISM
AND IDOLATRY
When Christianity came into power, the era that was to be known
as the Dark Ages began. Not only were the cultures of Greece and
Rome destroyed, but with them went every vestige of that high civilization which is still the envy of the modern world.
Art was not exempt from the blind fury of this religious madness.
The rnaguilicent statues and paintings of Greece were irretrievably lost
when this Second Commandment became the guiding influence under
the new dispensation.
Every known piece of art was destroyed as a
“graven image,” and the few statues that we possess today as the
valuable heritage of that Golden Age were preserved not because of,
but in spite, of Christianity. These were buried deep in the earth to
avoid the destructive onslaught which was believed to be the most
solemn duty of every faithful believer.
The early Church Fathers condemned the making of images and
image worship
in accordance
with the provisions
of this Command-
ment. It was Celsus who said that the Christians “could not tolerate
61 New
521bid.,
York Times, Nov.
Jan. 31, 1942.
12, 1935.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
141
either temples, altars or images.” Origen stated that it was on the
basis of this very Commandment that Christians abhorred all worship
and use of images, and added that “it is not possible at the same time
to know God and to address prayers to images.”
In Canon XXXVI, of the Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300), we read:
“It is ordained that pictures are not to be placed in churches,
nor is that which is worshipped and adored to be painted on the
walls.”
St. Augustine, who denounced the heathen for justifying his worship of an image by claiming that he worshiped what the image represented and not the image itself, replied, “He who worships an image
turns the truth of God into a lie.” G3
So for the first five centuries of the Christian era the art of the
preceding civilizations was destroyed because making and worshiping
images was prohibited as provided by this Commandment. It was
considered obnoxious and repulsive to make representations of Jesus
nailed to an instrument
of punishment.
The cross as a religious symbol was unknown until the time of Constantine. In art, it was rarely
used except for decorative
purposes.54
The early Church Fathers regarded the cross as a sacred talisman
possessing remarkable efficacy in producing miraculous results. It
has since become a fetish in Catholic dogma. In addition to its use
as the crucifix, the sign of the cross was instituted as part of the Catholic ritual, not only as a reminder of holy recollections and as a mark
of reverence, but also as a means of supernatural protection.55 It
became an obsession to such an extent that the cross was seen in every
form of life: the shape of man, the mast on a ship, the plow, the hoe,
the spade and even the face.
The temptation
to picture Jesus on the cross became stronger as
the prohibitions
became weaker. For the first five centuries of Chris-
tianity, a lamb was the symbol of the Christian creed, proving that it
63 Chnrles,
64 Lecky,
e5 Ibid.
op.
cit.,
Rationalism,
pp.
38,
Vol.
39.
1, p. 10.
142
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
was a religion based upon a blood sacrifice.
The sadistic impulses
produced by a religion that was founded on the belief in a revengeful
god who demanded blood sacrifice were beginning to manifest themselves.
The realistic picture painted by the early Christian preacher of the
crucifixion of Jesus, with his hands and feet nailed to the cross, his
head mutilated
by a crown of thorns, and his agonized face stained
with blood, was becoming too vivid to remain only in the imagination.
In one breath the early Christian Fathers thundered forth their denunciation of the Hebrews for their alleged crime of killing
Jesus, and
in the next they went into unrestrained ecstasy in praise of their brutal
God who permitted the sacrifice of “his only-begotten
Son” as an expiation for the sins of mankind.
After destroying “the glory that was Rome and the grandeur that
was Greece,” the sadism of the Christian religion triumphed
over the
superstitious stupidity of the Hebrew ritual.
The doctrine of image worship, however, was not finally adopted
without a bitter struggle as there arose within the Church a powerful
group which opposed it as a heathenish rite. They were called the
iconoclasts,
or iwage breakers.
So violent was the dispute that Emperor Leo III issued an edict declaring images to be idols and forbidden by the Commandment
as recorded in Exodus, Chapter 20,
zlerSe3 4 and 5, and ordered all such images in churches to be destroyed.66
Those who reverted to idolatry won the battle.
The Church considers this victory of such great significance that a day was set aside
to perpetuate the memory of the event. It is called the “Feast of
Orthodoxy,”
and is celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent. Later, it
was broadened to include all victories of the Church over heresies.57
In the year A.D. 692, the crucifix was officially authorized by the
Council of Constantinople
to be the symbol of Christianity:
“hereafter
instead of the Lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be set up on the
68 Catholic Encyclopaedia,
67 Ibid.
“Iconoclasm,”
Vol. 7, p. 620.
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
143
images.” 58 Thus began the worship of images that was destined to
become inextricably woven and interwoven into the ritual and tenets
of the Catholic dogma of salvation.
Image
worship was settled as a Christian
doctrine
in the year 787.
The Council of Nicea was convened by the Empress Irene, who was
acclaimed by it as a model of Christian virtue and devotion. In addition to being an ardent image worshiper, she murdered her husband,
provoked her son to blind and mutilate his uncles, and finally plotted
the death of this very son in the bedchamber in which she gave him
birth.“”
What the Catholic Church condemned as idolatry in the heathen
who “in his blindness bows down to wood and stone” it now, with sanctimonious approval, claims as an act of piety. There is, however, one
important difference between the two. The “heathen” worshiped
images because of ignorance and fear, while image worship by the
Catholic Church is a piece of rank imposture. It made the worship
and adoration of images a commercially profitable proposition. To
disregard the provisions of this Commandment in the pursuit of artistic
endeavors and the development of art as a medium of expression, is
quite different from making gruesome and grotesque statues to awe
and terrify the credulous and the ignorant for a fraudulent purpose.
The Catholic Church violated the provisions of this Commandment
not for the sake of art, but for profit; while debasing art, it put a price
tag upon religion.
During the Middle Ages, this practice became so profitable that
despite outspnken
opposition
and condemnation,
a leading
abbot, when
confronted by a monk who had a dream in which he was lashed for his
worship of the image of Mary and Jesus, issued this peremptory reply:
“Better that you visit every brothel in Jerusalem than abandon this
worship.”
Go
While the Reformation destroyed the strangle hold of Catholicism
5aCharles,
59 Ibid.,
00 Ibid.,
op.
p. 56.
p. 54.
cit.,
p. 43.
144
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
on the world, it brought with it a destructive influence on art by its
very reversion to the strict interpretation
of this Commandment.
It
would be unfair to castigate Catholicism
for its detrimental
influence
on art because of its resort to image worship, and not condemn Protestant Christianity
for returning to the literal provisions of this Commandment.
Although the latter deserves credit for its efforts to destroy idolatrous worship in the Church, it deserves no praise for the
purpose which prompted those efforts.
After the Reformation,
there was a revival of the earlier sect of
Iconoclasts whose destruction of images in churches became part and
parcel of a holy crusade for emancipation
from all things connected
with Romanism.
Fanaticism born of religion, however, has no sense
of value. It is just as likely to destroy the good as the bad, to believe
the false as the true. Under the heading of “monuments
of superstition ” beautiful and perfectly innocent statues and pictures were ruthlessly destroyed at the same time that miserable images of idolatrous
worship were demalished.6i
The first objects of the fury of the Iconoclasts were the statues of
With obscene imprecations,
they dragged them
the Virgin Mary.
down, plunged daggers into their inanimate bodies, broke the figures
into a thousand pieces, and scattered the fragments along the floors
of the churches. Next in line were the statues of Christ, which were
wrenched from their places in the churches by ropes and pulleys and
shattered.
In the choir of one of the Dutch churches, rising three
hundred feet above the altar, was a figure representing the body of
Christ.
It was pulled down, broken with sledge hammers, and trampled into a pulverized mass.
The more statues the infuriated
Iconoclasts found, the stronger
became their lust for destruction.
Every image of the Virgin, every
crucifix, every sculptured saint met the fury of their wrath.
Hardly
a statue or picture escaped destruction.
It was a holy war with only
one object-the
destruction 01 graven images.
but despite their mad
61 Hastings, Encyclopaedia,
“Art,”
Vol. 1, p. 854.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
145
fury, not a single person was harmed nor a single article stolen.62 The
destroyers were the disciples and defenders of this Commandment,
and their acts were a proclamation
of its triumph!
Some
idea
of the
fanaticism
that
prevailed
in this
matter
may
be
gathered from the “Acts of the General Assembly,” July 29, 1640. At
a meeting in Aberdeen, there was passed an “Act anent the demolishing the Idolatrous manuments,”
and worded as follows:
“Forasmuch as the Assembly is informed that in divers places
of this kingdom, and specially in the North parts of the same,
many idolatrous manuments, erected and made for religious worship, are yet extant, such as crucifixes, images of Christ, Mary
and the saints departed, ordaines and said manuments to be taken
down, demolished and destroyed, and that with all convenient
diligence.” 63
In
Christianity
it was responsible for the fanatical destruction of art on
the one hand, and the prostitution
of art on the other.
Among the
Hebrews it completely destroyed all artistic expression, and is a direct
cause for their gloomy outlook on life. Not until the Hebrews began
to assimilate alien cultures, particularly
those of Greece and the Western nations, were they liberated from the slavery of their creed, which
permitted
the flowering of natural artistic gifts.
The progress and
development
of the Hebrew people during the past century and their
notable contribution
to the arts and the sciences are not due to their
observance of this Commandment,
but to their emancipation
from it.
What kind of God is it that would deprive man of the pleasure that
comes from artistic expression?
To worship a God, must man refrain
from picturing the majesty of the rising sun, lose forever the beauty
of the full-blown rose, never retain the tender smile of a mother, the
The
loving
influence
of this
eyes of a wife
Couunaullmeu~
and the dimpled
upuu
cheeks
ark was
of children?
t.hreefuld.
Must
these
precious things be as ephemeral as the winds because of a tyrant in
the sky? To deprive man of the pleasure that comes from the crea62 John Lothrop
Motley,
ssHastings,
Encyclopaedia,
The Rise
“Art,”
of the Dutch Republic,
Vol. 1, p. 854.
Vol.
1, pp. 479-481.
146
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
tion of the labor of hand and mind is to murder the joy of living, and
kill his ambition
to advance.
To possess the power to express his
aspirations in art, and then be forced to suppress this rare ability
on penalty of damnation,
is like murdering a child in embryo.
What
kind of God is it that would murder the nearest thing to what we
call the “soul” in man?
A THREAT
AND
A PROMISE
Before discussing the rewards and punishments
provided by this
Commandment,
I should like to quote some additional
Biblical passages, re-emphasizing
the importance
of the observance of these provisions of the Decalogue imposed on the Children of Israel by the
Bible Deity.
The reiteration
of these prohibitions
shows them to be
an integral part of the primitive
culture of the ancient Hebrew tribe,
and accounts for the inclusion of these superstitious
taboos in the
basic law governing their conduct.
I quote the Book of Leviticus,
Chapter 26, verse 1 (the caption at the beginning of the chapter reads:
“Israel’s obedience is to be rewarded” and “Israel’s iniquity
to be
punished”).
1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven
image, neither rear ynu UP R standing image,
neither shall ye set up any image of stone in
your land, to bow down unto it: for I am
the Lord your God.
The above verse repeats the warning contained in the Second Commandment and elaborates on the nature of images. IIere, as a further
explanation, the worshiper is admonished to make “no idols, nor graven
image, neither rear you up a stmding image, neither shall you set up
any image of stone in your land.”
Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 2 to 13:
2 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence
my sanctuary: I am the Lord.
3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my
commandments, and do them;
4 Then I will give you rain in due season,
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
147
and the land shall yield her increase, and the
trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
5 And your threshing shall reach unto the
vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the
sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to
the full, and dwell in your land safely.
6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye
shall lie down, and none shall make you
afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the
land, neither shall the sword go through your
land.
7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they
shall fall before you by the sword.
8 And five of you shall chase a hundred, and
a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to
flight: and your enemies shall fall before you
by the sword.
9 For I will have respect unto you, and
make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
10 And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth
the old because of the new.
11 And I will set my tabernacle among you:
and my soul shall not abhor you.
12 And I will walk among you, and will be
your God, and ye shall be my people.
13 1 am the Lord your tied, which brought
you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye
should not be their bondmen ; and I have
broken the bands of your yoke, and made you
go upright.
If the Children of Israel observe the provisions of this Commandment, keep the Sabbath, and “walk in my statutes and keep my Commandments,”
then this Bible God will give them peace and courage,
and drive out evil beasts from among them, and their enemies shall
fall by the sword, and five Israelites will be able to chase a hundred,
and a hundred will be able to put ten thousand to flight, and there
shall be perfect seasons for harvest, and they shall be fruitful and
multiply. That seems a fair bargain: the terms are plain and definite,
the conditions not impossible to observe. Before we see what results
follow, there is a warning against disobedience. I quote Leviticus,
Chapter
26, verses 14 to 17:
14 But if ye will not hearken unto me and
will not do all these commandments;
148
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if
your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye
will not do all my commandments, but that
ye break my covenant:
16 I also will do this unto you; I will “even
appoint
cwer you terror,
consumption,
and the
burning ague, that shall consume the eyes,
and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow
your seed in vain, for your enemies shall
eat it.
17 And I will set my face against you, and
ye shall be slain before your enemies: they
that hate you shall reign over you; and ye
shall flee when none pursueth you.
This Bible God negates all his fair promises to the Children of
Israel if they fail to observe the Commandments. Instead of chasing
their enemies, it will be the enemies who will chase the Hebrews if
their Deity sets his face against them. But that is not all.
I quote Leviticus, Chapter 26, verse 18:
18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken
unto me, then I will punish you seven times
more for your sins.
The figure seven, mentioned here for the first time, has superstitious
significance for the Bible Hebrew. It would appear that to punish the
Children of Israel only once would have been sufficient, but so determined was this God to wreak vengeance upon them for their disobedience that their punishment was to be multiplied Seven times!
Now what were these punishments
that were to be sevenfold?
I
quote Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 19 and 20:
19 And I will break the pride of your power;
and I will make your heaven as iron, and
your earth as brass:
20
And your strengLh
slrall be spent in vain:
for your land shall not yield her increase,
neither shall the trees of the land yield their
fruits.
To destroy the courage and energy of a people is indeed a severe
penalty,
but in addition thereto God will “make your heaven as iron
and your earth as brass.” That is, the earth shall prove barren and
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
149
fruitless, and all “your strength shall be spent in vain.” It is difficult
to conceive of a greater punishment. But there is more in Leviticus,
Chapter
26, verses 21 and 22:
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and
will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven
times more plagues upon you according to
your sins.
22 I will also send wild beasts among you,
which shall rob you of your children, and
destroy your cattle, and make you few in
number; and your Iti,-12 ways shall be desolate.
If the Children of Israel continue to “walk contrary unto me, and
will not hearken unto me, I will bring seven times more plagues upon
you according to your sins,” so says this God of the Bible, and proceeds to elaborate upon the details of the plagues he will send. Let me
repeat what he will do: wild beasts will rob then1 01 their children
and destroy their cattle, their highways shall be desolate, and they
shall be few in number!
But this is not all! I quote Leviticzls, Chupter 26, verses 23 to 26:
23
Aml if ye will not be reformedby me by
these things, but will walk contrary unto me;
24 Then will I also walk contrary unto you,
and will punish you yet seven times for your
sins.
25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that
shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and
when ye are gathered together within your
cities, I will send the pestilence among you;
and ye shall be delivered into the hand of
the enemy.
26 And when I have broken the staff of your
bread, ten women shall bake your bread in
one oven, and they shall deliver you your
bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and
not be satisfied.
And if the Children of Israel continue to “walk contrary” to him,
he will “walk contrary” to them. I do not know whether he means he
will walk on one side of the street while they walk on the other side
and go in opposite directions from each other like two small school
150
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
children who have had a recent quarrel.
It is just about as sensible.
But, in addition, the Israelites will be punished “seven times for your
sins.” And what are they?
I quote Leviticus,
Chapter 26, verses
27 to 29:
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken
unto me, but walk contrary
unto me;
28 Then I will walk contrary
unto you also
in fury;
and I, even I, will chastise you seven
times for your sins.
29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your
sons,
and the flesh of your daughters
shall ye eat.
If the Children of Israel continue to walk on the opposite side of
the street to this God, he will not only continue his contrary walking,
but-and
here is a significant statement-he
will “walk contrary to
you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your
sins.”
Here we have a damaging admission:
the acknowledged
fury
of this Bible God and his resort to chastisement to secure obedience
to his Commandment.
This is the monstrous part of the whole system
of religion based upon the belief in such a God. And what will that
chastisement be? ‘(Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of
your daughters shall ye eat.” Even a cannibal would hesitate to inflict such a punishment, and yet this God wants slavish obedience.
But
that is still not all.
Leviticus, Chapter 26, verse 30:
30
cut
L~SXS
my
And I will
down
your
upon
soul
shall
destroy
your high places,
images,
and cast your
the
cacases
abhor
of
your
idols,
and
carand
you.
This verse deserves an individual
comment because it specifically
deals with the making of images and the intensity of the hatred of the
Bible God for such a practice; nut only will he abhor you with all his
soul, but he will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols
which you so arrogantly presumed to make.
But that is still not all.
Leviticus, Chapter A%‘, verses 3i to 39:
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
151
31 And I will make your
cities waste, and
bring your sanctuaries
unto desolation,
and I
will
not smell
the savour
of your
sweet
odours.
32 And I will bring the land into desolation:
and your
enemies
which
dwell
therein
shall
be astonished
at it.
33 And I will scatter you among the heathen,
and will draw
out a sword
after
you:
and
your
land shall be desolate,
and your
cities
waste.
34 Then shall the land enjoy
her sabbaths,
as long as it lieth desolate,
and ye be in your
enemies’ land;
even then shall the land rest,
and enjoy her sabbaths.
35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest;
because it did not rest in your sabbaths,
when
ye dwelt upon it.
36 And upon them that are left alive of you
I will send a faintness
into their hearts
in
the lands of their enemies;
and the sound of
a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall
flee, as fleeing from a sword;
and they shall
fall when none pursueth.
37 And they shall fall one upon another,
as
it were before a sword, when none pursueth:
and ye shall have no power
to stand before
your enemies.
38 And ye shall perish among
the heathen,
and the land of your enemies shall eat you rll,~
39 And they that are left of you shall pine
away in their iniquity
in your enemies lands;
and also in the iniquities
of their fathers shall
they pine away with them.
In verse 32, quoted above, it is stated that the land of the Israelites
will be brought “into desolation” and that their “enemies which dwell
therein shall be astonished at it.”
The astonishment
is that people
today still believe in this monstrous Bible Deity and hold sacred the
book in which these frightful maledictions
are recorded as an inspired
work.
A God who will kill nearly all of a nation and cause the few that
are left alive to be so weakened with “a faintness into their hearts”
that the “sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them . . . as fleeing
from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth,” is the cherished Deity of the Children of Israel.
152
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
SureIy this is reversing the order of the blessing by seven times,
and with a vengeance.
Remember
that “five Israelites were to chase
a hundred, and a hundred ten thousand.”
Now their strength was to be
so sapped that a mere leaf was to frighten them as if defenseless before
an onrushing army; and “they shall fall upon one another, as it were
before a sword,” and “shall have no power to stand before your enemies.” But if, after all this, they are willing to perform the provisions
Chapter 26,
of the Commandments
. . . I quote again-Leviticus,
verses 40 to 46:
40
If they shall confess their iniquity, and
the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and
that also they have walked contrary unto me;
41 And that I also have walked contrary
unto them, and have brought them into the
land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept
of the punishment of their iniquity:
42
Then will I remember my covenant with
Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and
also
my
cuve~+nt
with
Abraham
will
I rc-
member; and I will remember the land.
43 The land also shall be left of them, and
shall
mjny
her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of
the punishment of their iniquity;
because,
even because they despised my judgments, and
because their soul abhorred my statutes.
44 And yet for all that, when they be in
the land of their enemies, I will not cast them
away,
neither
will
I abhor
them,
to destroy
them utterly, and to break my covenant with
them: for I am the Lord their God.
45 But I will for their sakes remember the
covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought
forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight
of the heathen, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord.
46 These are the statutes and judgments and
laws, which the Lord made between him and
the children
of Israel
in
mount
Sinai
hy
the
hand of Moses.
It cannot bc dcnicd that the Children of Israel faithfully performed
the tenets of their religion and scrupulously observed the provisions
THE
SECOND
15.3
COMMANDMENT
of these Commandments under the most adverse conditions and the
severest kind of persecution. Nor was this merely temporary devotion on their part. Through the ages they have shown their loyalty
and
devotion
to their
God
and
his Commandments
in the face of tor-
ture upon torture, sacrificing their all in the hope of fulfillment of his
promises.
What were the results? What have the Children of Israel gained
for scrupulously obeying their God and observing these Commandments?
GLORIFIED
PUNISHMENT
AND PERVERTED
JUSTICE
The Second Commandment as recorded in the Douay Version of
the Bible reads as follows:
Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven
thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in
heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of
those
things
that
arc
in
the
waters
under
the
earth.
Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them:
I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me:
And shewlng mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my commandments.s*
In the last two lines quoted above, there is a solemn promise by
the Bible God to those who faithfully keep his Commandments. The
value
of a promise
dcpcnds
upon
its fulf&nent.
Moral
integrity
is a
jewel of far greater value than precious stones. It is the very cornerstone
of an ethical philosophy.
Consistency
is of a “true-fix’d
and
resting quality” for which there is no greater “fellow in the firmament.” If a precept is formulated; if conditions of performance are
s4 I am using the text of the Second Commandment as it appears in the
Version of the Bible and which the Catholic Encyclopaedia says absolutely forbids
any kind of representation of men, arnmals and even plants (“Images,” Vol. 7,
because of its direct connection with the Catholic Church and its relationship
phase of the Commandment.
Douay
making
p. 664)
to this
THE
154
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
prescribed; if punishment
is provided for violation,
and reward for
observance; and then no effort made either to enforce its provisions,
punish its violators, or reward its observers, what moral or ethical
value can such a precept have?
A regulation which is not enforced is completely valueless, and if
its violation is regarded with indifference, insolent disregard is naturally encouraged.
To reward those who violate the law and punish
those who obey it is a prostitution
of justice.
A rule the value of
which lies in its breach rather than in its observance, does not possess
the slightest ethical value, and makes its repeal morally obligatory.
Let me repeat the words of this Commandment,
which distinctly
specifies and enumerates the things to be done and how they are to be
observed.
The Bible Deity demands:
“Thou
shalt not have strange
gods before
me. Thou
shalt
not make
to thyself
a graven
thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in
heaven above, or in the earth beneath,
nor of
those things that are in the waters under the
earth.
Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve
them. . . :’
Here are very definite and specific orders: their meaning is unequivocal and they do not admit of a different interpretation.
There
can be no exceptions or modifications.
They are absolute and peremptory, and leave only the alternative of observing or violating them,
to be rewarded
for the former
What
are the facts?
mandment
been rewarded,
or punished
Have
for the latter.
those who have observed
and have those who
are guilty
this Comof violating
it been punished?
Let us see.
The Roman Catholic Church has defied the command that “thou
shalt not have strange gods in my sight” by substituting
the worship
of Jesus Christ as God in place of the Bible Deity.
It has made
graven images of him, and not only have its devotees adored them and
served them by supplication
and prayer and adoration, but they still
do. It has made graven images of Mary-the
“mother of tied”-and
not only have its devotees adored them and served them by supplica-
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
155
tion and prayer and adoration, but they still do. It has made graven
images of the saints “in the heavens above” and “on the earth beneath,” and not only have its devotees adored them and served them
by supplication
and prayer, but they still do. It has made graven
images of things “in the waters under the earth,” and not only have
its devotees adored them and served them by supplication
and prayer,
but they still do.
The Catholic Church has done these things not only in defiance of
this Commandment,
but for the sole purpose of perpetuating
idolatry
as a means of exploiting the ignorant and the credulous.
From the point of view of this Commandment,
the Catholic Church
is twice guilty, for it uses the things prohibited
for a purpose directly
opposite to that for which they were forbidden.
Has it been punished
for this crime?
It is known that at one time the Catholic Church was the most
powerful organization
on earth. It enjoyed absolute domination
over
hundreds of millions of people.
It possessed wealth beyond calculation. Rulers of nations were subservient to its will. Slave and potentate bowed the knee in subjection to it. If an all-powerful God wanted
to confer his “kindness”
and “blessings,”
as a manifestation
of his
“love,” he could not have done it with a greater degree of generosity
than
to the
Catholic
Church.
Even
today,
dcspitc
its
power, it still possesses great wealth.
If this was “visiting
nf the fakhers
the third
upnn
the children
untn
and
fourth
diminishing
the iniquity
generation
of them that hate me” and “who did not keep my Commandments,”
then truly this is the quintessence of glorified punishment.
Our concern for the moment is not, however, so much the use of
idolatrous worship in the ritual of the Catholic Church in violation
of this Commandment,
but rather the truthfulness of the words of this
Commandment.
Since we have seen what has happened to those who
violated its provisions, let us see what fortune has been bestowed on
those who have accepted this Commandment
and sought to observe its
tenets to the very IeLLer.
The plight of the Children of Israel during the past nineteen cen-
156
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
turies has not been due to their desertion of their God. They did not
abandon him to worship another God, nor did they flout his Commandments.
With every cause to repudiate him, they have continued to
worship him even more blindly and more fervently than ever before;
in fact, too blindly and too fervently for their own welfare.
The reward “heaped” upon them for their loyalty might well be termed perverted justice, as we shall see.
THE
OBSERVANCE
OF THIS
COMMANDMENT
ORIGIN
OF ANTI-SEMITISM
AND
THE
It is admitted by the highest Hebrew authorities
that this Commandment was responsible for stifling the artistic instinct in the Hebrew people. They cannot boast of a single achievement in the realm
of art during the centuries they were under its influence.
Because of
their deluded belief in the prohibitions
of this Commandment,
Israelites considered it a deadly sin to make reproductions
in painting or
sculpture “of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is on the
earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth.”
A devout
IIebrew would not even look at an image; in fact, if he glanced at a
statue, he was commanded to make a special prayer in expiation for
having committed
a sin ! 65 The ancient Israelite was condemned to
live in a world without form, without shape and without color.
No wonder his existence took on a drab and mournful hue. His
sensibilities
were dulled to the beauty and symmetry of life.
The
observance of this Commandment
by the Children of Israel put blinders on their eyes and obscured their vision of life to such an extent
that they were unable to see the rainbow of existence.
For that is
what art is. Art is life and love and inspiration
and achievement.
Life without art is like living without freedom.
Art and progress
are inseparable twins, without which life holds no promise and no
happiness.
The Biblical Hebrews threw the precious pearls of happy
events to the winds of memory.
By observing this Commandment,
65 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 12, p. 569.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
157
they imposed imprisonment
upon themselves.
They preferred the
black crape of death to the multicolored
loveliness of life. They preferred the mask of sorrow to the smile of joy. They became the Children of Darkness for the love of their God.
Nor is that all. The influence of this Commandment
on their
actions when associating with other peoples has been the direct cause
of their tragic suffering, and made them the victims of the supremest
tragedy ever endured by members of the human race.
The people under whose jurisdiction
they lived could not understand their slavish devotion to a deity who imposed such outlandish
religious rites.
The Children of Israel were regarded with amazement and suspicion by their neighbors, who could not understand their
fantastic ideas about life, and their continual occupation with prayer
to appease the wrath and anger of their jealous deity. It also seemed
extremely ludicrous to others that a mere “image”
could cause so
much fear and consternation.
Any image in the presence of the Hebrews provoked a violent
reaction and the most fanatical demonstration.
After their defeat by
the Romans and the loss of Jerusalem, they refused not only to use,
but even to gaze on the figures engraved on the Roman coins!
They
refused to handle or even own such money!
They preferred to starve,
if necessary, rather than violate the provisions of this Commandment.
So determined
was their refusal that the Roman governors decided
to issue coins with their own cmblcm for the exclusive use of the Hebrews. The emblem was the horn of plenty, inscribed with the words
Tnmmnnwealth
nf Jurlexns,”
instead nf t.he images of the Roman
Emperors.B6
Why the cornucopia should not have been in violation
of this Commandment,
and an engraving of an Emperor’s head should
have been, is not clear, but there are more strange things in the
religion of Judaism than were ever dreamt of in my humble philosophy. (And so an innocent coin, whose validity and value were never
questioned, provoked the Hebrews to hysterical opposition to its handling and use.) If the Bible God was so insistent that the Hebrews
*8 &i&z,
HLstory of the Jews, Vol. 2, p. 12; also Josephus, History
of the Jews.
158
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
use no money with images engraved thereon, he should have provided
them with other coins to meet their needs, as he did manna from
heaven.e7
After the Roman conquest of Jerusalem,
the Emperor
Tiberius
One of his first acts was to
sent Pilate to govern the new province.
erect statues of Caesar throughout the new kingdom, symbolizing
control of the territory.
No sooner were these statues erected than the
Hebrews once more protested against the appearance of images among
them. Fortunately
for this study, we have a record of the actual event
written by Josephus, the Jewish scholar and historian, who was probably an eyewitness to the scene. His descriptions of this and similar
events are so vital in analyzing the influence of this Commandment
that
I shall quote his own words, lest it be doubted that such acts actually
occurred :
“Now
Tiberius,
Pilate,
who
was sent as a procurator
into Judea by
sent by night those images of Caesar that are called
ensigrts, into Jerusalem.
This excited a very great tumult among
the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were
astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were
trodden underfoot; for those laws do not permit any sort of images
to be brought into the city.
“Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves
at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the
country.
These came zealously to Pilate
to Caesarea, and be-
sought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve
them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their
request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued
immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.
“On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open
market-plare,
called
and
to him the multitude,
as desirous
to give
them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they
67 The
Hebrews
have
not
fared
badly
since
they
Jxvc
been
emancipated
superstitious belief. Their use of coins in the modern world has brought
only more liberty and wealth, but they have discovered that the punishment
threatened
never materialized.
leaders on our coins.
These
Bill of Rights, the greatest
Th cy may well honor
men were responsible
for
from
the imagcss of our Fkvolutionary
writing
into our Constitution
charter of civil liberties the Hebrews ever enjoyed.
this
them not
their God
the
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
159
should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their
weapons; so the band of soldiers stood around about the Jews in
three ranks.
The Jews were under the utmost consternation at
that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should
be cut in pieces unless they would
admit of Caesar’s images, and
gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords.
Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers
together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they
were sooner ready to be slain than that their law should be transgressed.
Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition,
and gave order that the ensigns should be
presently carried out of Jerusalem.” O*
The statues of Caesar were removed from Jerusalem,
and when
the Hebrews
objected to the use of the Roman flag, it, too, was removed from their midst.B9
Annther
event.
nf equal import
followed
quickly
upon the heels
of the preceding
one, and again we go directly
to Josephus for the
amazing details in proof of the paralyzing influence of this Commandment on the lives of the Hebrew people.
During
the reign of Herod
the Great,
his public
works
were
the
envy of the world. He built magnificent palaces and beautiful marble
baths, erected coliseums and stadiums for the Olympic games, developed the country’s harbors, and encouraged commerce and peaceful
foreign intercourse. He even went beyond his own province, and invited
the people of other
communities
to enjoy
the fruits
of his gen-
erosity.
Josephus describes Herod’s ambitious undertakings in the
following
passage :
“He appointed solemn games to be celebrated every fifth year,
in honor
of Caesar,
and
built
a theatre
at
Jcrusalcm,
as
also
a.
great amphitheatre in the plain. Both of them were indeed
costly works, 6ut opposite to the Jeti_en’sh
customs [italics mine] ;
very
aa Josephus, Wars of the Jews (hereafter referred to as Josephus, Waus),
pp.
569, 570.
ED Jcwhh
En~y~lu~du,
Vol.
12,
p.
569.
It
is
very
intcrcsting
to
note
that
Vol.
8,
from
about the third century A.D. the sign of the hexagram was used as the symbol of
Judaism. Later on, in about the twelfth century, the Magen-David was adopted.
THE
160
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
for we have no such shows delivered down to us as fit to be used
or exhibited by us; yet did he celebrate these games every five
years, in the most solemn and splendid manner. He also made
proclamation to the neighboring countries, and called men together
out of every nation.”
Such laudable endeavors should have been highly praised and not
stupidly objected to because “we have no such shows delivered down
But back to Josephus’s description of
to us” from past generations.
Herod’s great efforts to bring all peoples together under the banner
of Sport in a spirit of co-operation:
“The wrestlers also, and the rest of those who strove for the
prizes in such games, were invited out of every land, both in the
hope of the rewards there to be bestowed, and the glory of the
victory to be gained. So the principal persons that were most
eminent in these sorts of exercises were gotten together, for there
were very great rewards for victory proposed, not only to those
that performed their exercises naked, but those that played the
musicians
also, and were called
Thymelici;
but he spared
no pains
to induce all persons, the most famous for such exercises, to come
to this contest for victory.” 7o
And now Josephus tells us that of all the games, of all the amusements, of all the activities, even the fighting of the lions, it was
((. . . the trophies [which] gave most distaste to the Jews, for
as t.hey imagined
t.hem tn he imnp;ps inrlurled
within
the armour
that hung round about them, they were sorely displeased at them,
because it was not the custom of their country to pay honours to
such images.
“Nor was Herod unacquainted with the disturbance they were
under; and as he thought it unseasonable to use violence with
them, so he spoke to some of them by way of consolation, and in
order to free them from that superstitious fear they were under;
yet could
not he satisfy
them, but they cried
out with
one accord,
out of their great uneasiness at the offenses they thought he had
been guilty of, that although they should think of bearing all the
70 Josephus, Antiquities
vol. 5, pp.
53.5, 536.
of the Jews
(hereafter referred to as Josephus, Antiquities),
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
161
rest, yet would they never bear images of men in their city, meaning the trophies, because this was disagreeable to the laws of their
country.” 71
In an effort to prove the harmlessness of these trophies, and in an
honest attempt to emancipate them from their superstition, Herod had
the Hebrews examine the trophies, at the same time removing the
shield to show that nothing but bare wood was attached to them.
Josephus records the scene, and I quote:
“Now when Herod saw them in such disorder and that they
would not easily change their resolution unless they received satisfaction in this point, he called to him the most eminent men among
them, and brought them upon the theatre, and showed them the
trophies, and asked them what sort of things they took these trophies to be. And when they cried out that they were images of men,
he gave order that they should be stripped of these outward ornaments which were about them, and showed them the naked pieces
of wood; which pieces of wood, now without any ornament, became
matter
of
great
sport
and
laughter
to
them,
heca.use
t.ht?y
had
before always held the ornaments of images themselves in derision.”
Although Josephus tells us that many of the Jews accepted Herod’s
explanation
of the harmlessness of the trophies, and were not “displeased at him any lunger, still some of them continued in their displeasure” for using these images in his festivities.
A conspiracy was
formed to kill Herod, and as the plot was progressing, “one of those
spies of Herod’s that was appointed for such purposes, to fish out and
inform him of any conspiracies that should be made against him, . . .
“found out the whole affair and told the king of it, as he was about
to go to the theatre.”
The inevitable result was that the conspirators
were apprehended, and confessed that “the conspiracy they had sworn
to was a holy and pious [italics mine] action; that what they intended
to do was not for gain, or out of any indulgence to their passions, but
principally
for those common customs of their country which all Jews
were obliged to observe, or to die for them.”
T1Josephus, Antiquities, pp. 5~5-537.
THE
162
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Nor do I think it inappropriate
at this time to mention a significant
incident in the life of Herod, as recorded by Josephus, to indicate his
sympathetic attachment to the Children of Israel:
“He
also
fell
in love again, and married another wife, not,
suffering his reason to hinder him from living as he pleased. The
occasion of this marriage was as follows: There was one S&on, a
citizen of Jerusalem, the son of one Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria,
and a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter, who was
esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; and when the
people of Jerusalem began to speak much in commendation, it
happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her;
and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty, yet
he did entirely reject the thought of using his authority to abuse
her, as believing, what was the truth, that by so doing he should
be stigmatized for violence and tyranny, so he thought it best to
take the damsel to wife. And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior
to be allied
to him,
but
still
too
considerable
tu be
despised,
he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner, by
augmenting the dignity of his family, and making them more
honorable; so he immediately deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet,
of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, and so
joined
in affinity
with
him
[by
marrying
his
daughter]
.” 72
The rebuilding
of the great Temple of Solomon (which had
destroyed in conflict) was part of the public service that Herod
rendered to the city of Jerusalem.
It stood at the entrance of the
“The expenses he laid out upon it were vastly large,” Josephus
“and the riches about it were also unspeakable.”
73 At another
been
had
city.
says,
time
7s Josephus,
Antiquities, pp. 539-547.
73 Josephus,
Wars, Vol. 7, p. 465.
There is another
indication
of Herod’s
concern
that the religious
customs
of the Jews be not violated.
As it was unlawful
for any
but priests
to enter certain
parts
of the temple,
Herod
employed
one thousand
of
them as masons and carpenters.
In his desire to maintain
it as a religious
sanctuary
around
the whole
at the level of
of the Hebrews,
he made “a breastwork
of stone”
the steps.
On it were placed at frequent
intervals
inscriptions
in Greek
and Latin
forbidding
a non-Jew
to enter farther
on pain of death.
One of these stones wilh
the inscription
has been recovered
and is now in the museum
at Ankara
(formerly
Constantinople).
Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 12, pp. 85-88.
(It must also be undcrstood that the name Jesus was common
among the Hebrews
of that time.-AUTHOR.)
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
163
he describes it as being more beautiful than the legendary Temple of
Solomon, for “when the morning sun burst upon the white marble,
Mount Moriah glittered like a hill of snow; and when its rays struck
the golden roof of the sacred edifice, the whole mount gleamed and
sparkled as if it were in flames.”
On top, above the gates of the temple, he erected a great eagle of black and gold as a symbol of the
power and strength and greatness of the Roman legions, but the
Hebrews objected to the eagle above the gates of the temple, as being
contrary to the laws of their religion, which prohibited
images within
their midst, and which, if it remained, would bring down upon them
the vengeance of their God.
It should be mentioned that while under Herod and other Roman
Emperors, and until their dispersion, the Jews enjoyed, despite their
subjugation,
special privileges to practise the rites of their religion
with the same freedom that they had possessed in their own land.
This privilege naturally
did not give them the right to interfere with
the religious exercises of other people, or to impose their beliefs
upon others, or restrict others from practising their own mode of religious worship.74
As Herod lay on his deathbed, an event took place of such portentous consequences that I must again quote the words of Josephus
for their significant relationship
to this Commandment
and its dirt
influence upon the Children of Israel:
“There also now happened to him, among his other calamities, a
certain popular sedition. There were two men of learning in the
city [Jerusalem] who were thought the most skillful in the laws of
their country, and were on that account held in very great esteem
all over the nation; they were, the one Judas, the son of Sephoris,
and the other Matthias,
the son of Margalus.
There went a great
concourse of the young men to these men, when they expounded
the laws, and there got together every day a kind of an army of
such as were growing
informed
with
up to be men.
Now when these men were
that the king was wearing away with melancholy,
distemper,
they drupped
74Josephus, Wars, Vol. 5, pp. 432,
433
wurds
to Lheir acquaiutance,
and
huw
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
164
it was now
down what
for it was
as images,
a very proper time to defend the cause of God, and pull
had been erected contrary to the laws of their country;
unlawful there should be any such thing in the temple
or faces, or the like representation of any animal whatsoever. Now the king had put up a golden eagle over the great gate
of the temple, which these learned men exhorted them to cut down,
and told them that if there should any danger arise, it was a glorious
thing to die for the laws of their country; because that the soul
was immortal, and that an eternal enjoyment of happinessdid await
such as died on that account; while the mean-spirited, and those
that were not wise enough to show a love of their souls, preferred
death by a disease,before that which is the result of a virtuous
behavior.” r6
And so the great golden eagle was pulled down from the temple
and smashed to pieces. The learned Hebrews of the Law were correct
about dying “to defend the cause of God and his Commandments,”
because this utterly outlandish demonstration provoked the Romans
to retaliate, and in the conflict nearly forty of those guilty of this
fanatical and destructive conduct were killed.
But another event, of far more importance and significance, was
shortly to occur, the effects of which were to produce a drama of such
appalling consequences that not only had it not been known to mankind up to that time, but it is doubtful
whether it could have been
conceived as a probability. This unbelievably tragic drama was to
be written with human blood and indelibly st.ained upon the years of
the centuries.
These ‘Lprotests” began to irritate the populace, and each demonstration provoked more violent reactions. Here and there among the
Roman people were loud cries to suppress this “peculiar” people who
so fanatically objected to what they termed “images,” which were regarded by the Romans as great works of art representing their government. Despite pleas by enlightened Jews to their hotheaded brethren
to stop these superstitious manifestations, many Greeks and Romans
began to feel that these demonstrations
73 Josephus, Wars,
Vol. ‘I, pp. 528, 529.
cloaked more than a mere
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
165
violation of a religious precept, and that they actually had a seditious
purpose.
Drastic action against the demonstrators
was threatened
again and again, but each time the Emperor restrained the populace
from giving vent to the growing antagonism.
An opportunity
for action finally presented itself when the Jews
persisted in their opposition to the erection of statues in other parts
of the Roman Empire.
A statue of Caesar made by a noted sculptor was placed at the
entrance to the harbor of a small seaport in Galilee.
It was supposed
to demonstrate the loyalty of Judea to Rome, and was greatly admired
as a work of art. The Hebrews, however, objected strenuously to
having it there. They did not consider it a work of art or a symbol
of loyalty to Rome.
They regarded it as an affront to their God because of his prohibition
against graven images.
Let us turn again to Josephus:
“When all Herod’s designs had succeeded according to his hopes,
he had not the least suspicion that any troubles could arise in his
kingdom, because he kept his people obedient, as well by the fear
they stood in of him . . . as for the provident care he showed
towards
them, after the most magnanimous
manner,
when
whey were
under their distresses. , , ,
“But then this magnificent temper of his, and that submissive
behavior and liberality which he exercised towards Caesar and the
most powerful men of Rome, obliged him to transgress the customs
of his nation,
and to set aside many
of their
laws, and by building
cities after an extravagant manner, and erecting temples;
not in
Judea &deed, for that would not have been borne, it being forbidden for us to pay any honor to im,ages,or representations of
animals, after the manner of the Greeks, but still he did thus in
the coarnfry [properly] out of our bonds, and in the cities thereof.”
[Italics
mine.]
I have quoted Josephus at length
full consideration to the objection of
images amung them. Neither Herod
held the spectacular Olympic Games
to show that the Romans gave
the Hebrews to the presence of
nor any other Roman governor
in Jerusalem proper or erected
166
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
statues of their Emperors in Judea, despite the fact that the Hebrews
were a conquered people.
Up to this time the Israelites had enjoyed
the same civil rights and privileges as the Greeks, whose country they
They could practise their religion to the fullest expartly occupied.
tent, provided they did not interfere with the laws of the country.
This was a remarkably
liberal and tolerant attitude for the time, despite the fact that both the Greeks and Romans regarded these superstitious beliefs and practices of the Israelites as beyond all reason.
The bigoted, intolerant
and fanatical opposition
to the use of
images even in the Greek and Roman provinces cost the Hebrews their
national existence.
I quote Josephus again:
“ . * . Now upon observation of a place near the sea, which was
very proper for containing a city, and was before called Strato’s
Tower, he set about getting a plan’ for a magnificent city there,
and erected many edifices with great diligence all over it, and this
of white stone. He also adorned it with most sumptuous palaces,
and large edifices for containing the people; and what was the
greatest and most laborious work of all, he adorned it with a
haven that was always free frnm the waves of the sea. . _ _ This
city is situated in Phoenicia, in the passage by the sea to Egypt
between Joppa and Dora.” 7e
“ . . . Now there were edifices all along the circular haven,
made of the polished stone, with a certain elevation, whereon was
erected a temple that was seen a great way off by those that were
sailing for the haven, and had in it two statues, the one of Rome,
the other of Caesar.” 77
78Josephus, Antiquities,
77 Ibid., p. 550.
One
can
judge
the
Vol. 5, pp. 547, 548, 549-550.
broad
liberality
of
the
Greek
mentality
from
the
following
dc-
scription: “Freedom also kept the Greeks from taboos and asceticism, for their religion allowed them a sane use of nature’s gifts.
of
their
lives,
wae
governed
by
‘moderation.’
Their
Greek
morality,
ethics
was
like other features
a
social
and
not
a
religious phenomenon, and the two, ethics and religion, were kept separate and not
joined as in other faiths. There was no divine sanction to their rules of conduct, for
such
rules
were
the
work
of
human
teachers,
such
as
Socrates.
Their
simple
ethics
freed them from any deep sense of sin or fanaticism for unattainable perfection. The
Greek accepted life, lived here and now, and was little concerned with doctrines of
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
167
These two statues were demolished
by the Jews. Caligula, the
Roman Emperor, was informed of the deed.78 Because of these fanatical demonstrations
against images, they were charged “with neglecting
the honours that belonged to Caesar; for while all who were subject
to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Caius (Caligula),
and
in other regards universally received him as they received the gods,
these Jews alone thought it a dishonourable thing for them to erect
statues, in honour of him.” 79
In retaliation for this unprovoked
and unjustified conduct, the
Emperor ordered that statues of himself be put in the Temple of the
Hebrews at Jerusalem
as a warning that such civil disobediences
would not be tolerated again.
“ . . . Accordingly, he (Caligula) sent Petronius with an army
to Jerusalem, to place his statues in the temple, and commanded
him
that
in
case
the
Jews
would
not
admit
of them,
hc
should
slay
those that opposed it, and carry all the rest of the nation into captivity; . , . Petronius marched out of Antioch into Judea with
three legions and many Syrian auxiliaries.” 8o
“ . . . But now the Jews got together in great number with
their
wives
and
children
into
that
plain
that
was
by
Ptolemais,
and
made supplication to Petronius, first for their laws, and in the next
place for themselves. So he was prevailed upon by the multitude
of supplicants, and by their supplications, and left his army and the
statues in Ptolemais, and then went forward into Galilee, and called
together the multitwk,
and all the men
of note
to Tiberias,
and
showed them the power of Romans, and the threatenings of Caesar;
and besides this, proved that their petition was unreasonable
[italics mine] because while all the nations in subjection to them
placed the images of Caesar in their several cities, among the rest
of their gods, for them alone to oppose it was almnst like the behavior of revolters, and was injurious to Caesar.” 81
immurlalily.
He hated death .
in Scientific
Monthly,
Washington,
78 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol.
‘D Josephus,
Antiquities,
Vol.
*O Josephus,
Wars, Vol. 8, p.
e* Ibid., Vol. 8, pp. 573, 574.
. . but did not fear
D.C., June, 1939
3, p. 515.
6, p.
572.
135.
it.”
Dr. Walter
Woodburn
(“The
Origin
of Liberty”).
Hyde,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
168
“And when they insisted on their law and the custom of their
country, and how it was not only not permitted them to make either
an image of God or indeed of a man, and to put it in a despicable
part of their country, much less in the temple itself, Petronius replied, ‘And am not I also,’ said he, ‘bound to keep the law of my
Lord? For if I transgress it and spare you, it is but just that I
perish; while he that sent me, and not I, will commence a war
against you; for I am under command as well as you.’
“Hereupon the whole multitude cried out that ‘they are ready
to suffer for their law.’ Petronius then quieted them, and said to
them, ‘Will you then make war against Caesar?’ The Jews said,
‘We will offer sacrifices twice every day for Caesar, and for the
Roman people’; but that if he would place the images among them,
he must first sacrifice the whole Jewish nation; and that they were
ready to expose themselves, together with their children and wives,
to be slain.” 82
This last statement is of the utmost significance, as it reveals
beyond all doubt that it was only because of the images that the Jews
made these violent
objections,
and not because of any mistreatment
by the Romans. On the contrary, they specifically state that because
of their
fair treatment
by the Romans
they would
make
sacrifices
tzke a day for Caesar. It was, then, the blind and slavish obedience
to this Commandment
that was responsible
for their
intnlerant
and
fanatical acts.
Petronius sought the individual leaders of the Jews and tried to
convince them of the propriety of carrying out Caligula’s orders, but
to no avail. We continue with Josephus’s narrative:
t‘. . . so they threw themselves down upon their faces, and
stretched out their throats, and said they were ready to be slain;
and this they did for forty days together, and in the meantime left
off the tilling of their ground, and that while the season of the year
required them to sod it. Thus they continued firm in their resolution, and proposed to themselves to die willingly rather than see the
dedication of the statue.” 83
82 Josephus,
88 Josephus,
Wars, Vol.
8, p. 574.
6, p. 138.
Antiquities,Vol.
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
169
Though Petronius tried to intercede in their behalf, the Jews paid
dearly for their opposition to the statues of the Emperors. Their demonstrations had been so frequent, and their conduct so fanatical, that
despite the restraining order of the Emperor himself, it was too late
to prevent the frightful consequences of their acts. As a result, they
suffered the savage brutality of the first pogrom in the history of this
“God-intoxicated” people.
Their failure to make images was one of the serious charges
brought against them by Apion, who led the first anti-Semitic demontration that resulted in making the Children of Israel outcasts in the
family of nations. Their refusal to relax, in the slightest degree, from
fanatically observing this Commandment brought down on their heads
the most devastating punishment ever suffered by a race of people.
They were deprived of their civil rights, beaten by infuriated mobs,
and driven
out of the city into prescribed
quarters;
thus began the
establishment of the Ghetto and the beginning of that anti-Semitic
hatred that was to swell into the spectacle of horror that it has since
become.s4
The complete dispersion of t-he Hebrews tnnk place after Titus
Caesar captured Jerusalem. Though Claudius Caesar later restored
their former civil rights, the poison and virus of religious prejudice
induced by their fanatical demonstrations had already taken root. In
the nineteen hundred years that followed and to this day, the Bible
God’s Chosen People have suffered every known torture, persecution,
massacre and martyrdom as well as every conceivable infamy and
humiliation known to man.
The rewards ‘Lenjoyed’7 by the Hebrews for their faithful observance of this Commandment are the beatings and massacres of pogroms,
the misery of Ghetto life, and the humiliation and oppression which
follow the epidemics of anti-Semitism that have spread like a plague
84 See Kirsten,
Uistnvy
alrd Dest;n.y
of tke JPUJS,’ pp. 140, 141. Also Jewish
Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 515; Josephus, Wars. For a more realistic description of their
sufferings, see Lecky, Rationalism, Vol. 2, p. 100; Sachar, History
of the Jews,
p. 115.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
over the face of the earth. What a price to pay for such blind obedience to a superstitious taboo productive of such barren results!85
8s Difficult as it may be to believe the story just related, we have a similar example
in our own times. I refer to the sect called “Jehovah’s Witnesses,”
which
still implicitly adheres to the literal interpretation of this Commandment,
Its devotees refuse
to permit their children who attend our public schools to give the pledge of allegiance
to the American flag on the ground that the flag is an “image”; to salute it would in
effect, therefore, be to “adore,” which they consider a direct violation of the provisions of this Commandment.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have already begun to pay the penalty for their fanaticism.
In a number of places they have been brutally beaten and driven out of the communities
in which they lived, have been denied employment, and suffered other forms of violence
and discrimination.
They are denied civil protection in many cities in this country.
Maury Maverick, former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and former liberal advocate in
Congress, recently condemned them for refusing to salute the flag and thereby “inciting
disorder,” saying: “At one time I would have said that was saying [doing] something
childish. In times like these, this is an overt act.”
(New
York
World-Telegram,
September 21, loiio.)
It is not impossible to imagine that if this sect continues its
present attitude toward the flag of this Republic, it may in time be deprived of the
protection of that flag and be forced into complete segregation. This would be even
more likely if the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were as distinct a racial group, and
could be as easily identified, as were the Israelites.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have been outlawed in the Dominion of Canada, and even in
Australia they are regarded with suspicion and denied the religious privileges accorded
other religious groups. Yet their acts are not so serious or disturbing as were those
committed by the Hebrews in destroying the “images in their midst.”
Even the Supreme Court of the United States, which has time and again upheld
the principle of freedom of thought and expression in religious matters, ruled (June 3,
1~40) that because
of the fanaticism of this sect, it could not invoke the Constitution
as a protection in the practice of its fanatical doctrines; this despite the fact that for
more than a century and a half freedom of expression has been a basic principle in
our society, and we are accustomed to demonstrations of peculiar religious manifestations. If a sitaation of this kind could occur in a coqntry
like ours today,
one cart
well understand
the temper
of the people twenty-three
centuries
ago when de&lag with
the Israelites in their destruction
of the Roman
statues.
With a change in personnel of the Court, a rehearing was granted on the petition
of interested parties-publishers,
civil organizations, etc.-who
regarded this decision
as a precedent which might eventually result in the abridgment of the Constitutional
guarantees of free speech, free press and freedom of religious worship. On this basis,
the Court reversed its previous decision. In reviewing this case, the New York Times
commented editorially on the sect: “. . . Their beliefs are their own concern, but their
methods of urging them upon other people are annoying. Almost everywhere they
have gone they have stirred up antagonism. . . . Yet if we permit extremists of an
unpleasant sort to be deprived of their rights, it is hard to tell where the line can be
drawn and who is to be deemed secure. We think the rights of all Americans are
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
171
There is a popular misconception that the prejudice against the
Jews started after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. This is not true.
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus antedates the expulsion of the
Jews from Jerusalem. The crucifixion story is the result of their fanatical demonstration against the Roman ensigns and statues, and was
not the cause of what is now called anti-Semitism.
The New Testament narrative of the nailing of Jesus to the cross
has no more basis in fact than the exodus of the Children of Israel
from Egypt, and contains about the same amount of truth. There is
serious doubt as to whether Jesus ever lived, as there is not a single
authentic piece of historical evidence to substantiate his existence.86
It is most probably one of the many monstrous tales that were fabricated about the Hebrews after the fanatical demonstration in the oba little safer because Jehovah’s Witnesses have had their second day in court” (May 4,
1943).
Following the above decision, another case was brought to the Supreme Court for
a rehearing involving the question of the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ children to
salute the flag in the public schools. Again the Court reversed the stand it had taken
that saluting the flag was compulsory. However, Justice Felix Frankfurter, who wrote
the majority opinion in one of the previous cases, and the minority opinion in this
one, said that on five separate occasions where the flag salute question came before
the Supreme Court “every Justice -thirteen
in all-who
participated ‘found no Constitutional infirmity in what is now condemned.“’
Noting that there are over two
hundred and fifty religious denominations in the United States, he further declared:
“Certainly this court cannot be called upon to determine what claims of conscience
should be recognized and what should be rejected as satisfying the ‘religion’ which
the Constitution protects. I cannot bring my mind to believe that the ‘liberty’ secured
by the Due Process Clause gives this court authority to deny to the State . . . the
attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate legislative end-namely,
the
promotion of good citizenship, by employment of the means here chosen.” (See United
States Supreme Court Decisions, May 3 and June 14, 1943.)
Although Arthur Krock of the New York Tines commended the Court for its
reversal in this case, he condemned the sect which provoked the court action, stating:
“These parents and children belong to the militant and thoroughly unpatriotic, even
subversive, sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who assert that in their creed a flag is
an idol, an image, and therefore impious in their sight.” (New York Times, June 15,
1943.)
For a detailed article on this group, see Saturday
Evening
Post, Sept. 14, 1940,
of Jehovah’s
Witnesses,
AmerStanley High, “Armageddon, Inc.,” and The Persecution
ican Civil Liberties Union pamphlet, 1941.
*e As to the claim that there are passages in the Old Testament prophesying the
coming of Jesus Christ, see Thomas Paine’s Examination
of the Prophecies.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
172
servance of their superstitious religion.s7 The wildest and most fantastic tales concerning their religious observances were circulated solely
for the purpose of further arousing the antagonism already manifested
against them.
If the position of wealth and power once possessed by the Catholic Church is a sample of the punishment the Bible Deity inflicted
upon it for its violation of this Commandment, then how are we to
describe the “reward” that the Children of Israel “received” for their
observance? If their plight is a sample of their God’s blessings “to
them that love me, and keep my Commandments,” then indeed their
dispersion and wanderings over the face of the earth, the persecution,
torture and massacres they suffered, might well be called justice with
a vengeance.
If the “punishment” inflicted upon the Catholic Church for its
deliberate violation of the provisions of this Commandment were to
be compared with the “rewards” enjoyed by the Children of Israel for
their strict observance of them, I think that the Jew, rather than Jesus,
should be pictured with his hands and feet nailed to a cross, wreaths
of thorns on his torn and mutilated head, and his bleeding heart exposed to the world. The crucifixion is a truer picture of the Hebrews’
plight on this earth for having been sacrificed for the sins of their
God than it is a symbol for the supposed sacrifice for the sins of
mankind.
If the rules of conduct as stated in this Commandment
are without practical value, and are not productive of the results warranted
fnr them; and if the penalties stipulated for the violation of the provisions are not imposed, and the rewards provided for the observance
are not bestowed, then this Commandment is twice false: it is false
in its premises, and false in its promises.
THE
BIBLE
GOD
AND
THE
IDEA
OF MONOTHEISM
The first sentence of this Commandment, “Thou shalt have no
otker gods before me,” destroys beyond doubt the contention of those
87 Frazer, Golden Bough:
The Scapegoat, L‘Crucifixion of Christ,”
p. 412.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
173
who attribute to the religion of Judaism a monotheistic
conception of
That the Hebrew Deity reflects a conception of a Creathe universe.
tor of the universe is another of the innumerable
false opinions
which,
for centuries,
people
have held concerning the Bible.
There
is not a single intelligent
argument, statement or fact in the Bible
for such a conception of the universe-and
for a good reason.
The mentality
of the Biblical Hebrew was incapable of originating
an idea of this nature. Like all the other ignorant people of his time,
he was beset with myriad superstitions
and held in bondage by the
delusive belief in primitive
magic. He did not have sufficient knowledge to be able to comprehend that natural laws govern the universe.
The monotheistic
conception could only evolve with the expanding
mentality
of the human mind.
The mind capable of conceiving a universe created according to
natural laws and subject to no human intervention
did not evolve until
nearly two thousand years after the recordings of Hebrew tribal
thought.
This conception culminated in the great Alexander von Humboldt’s declaration that “the universe is governed by law,” which is the
The Rible
result of the accumulated
wisdom of scientific progress.
did not contribute
a single item to the discoveries that led to this
sublime conclusion.
The God of the Biblical
Hebrew was a personal concept, while
monotheism
is universal.
The Hebrew concept of God was egocentric; the monotheistic
conception is geocentric.
The conception of a
Supreme Ruler of the universe has as its counterpart the immutable
laws that govern life and all things in nature.
The Hebrew God is
the very antithesis of this universal conception.
The mentality
of the Biblical Hebrew was unable to conceive of
a universe under the control of immutable
laws entirely immune to
A
conception
of
this
kind
was not only impospersonal persuasion.
sible for his limited understanding,
but was utterly unsatisfactory.
He
wanted a God possessing human emotions;
one who would come to
his aid in times of necessity.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
174
The Bible Deity had a thousand vagaries and could be influenced
by prayers, appeals, sacrifices and oblations. He possessed the basest
of human attributes, and was subject to the seductions of the flesh, as
innumerable
Biblical
accounts
testify.
He
demanded
and got the
‘<animals without blemish” and the “first fruits” of the season. No
god was ever created superior to the intelligence of the people who
worshiped him, and most gods represented the lowest, rather than the
highest, cultural level of the age in which they existed,
The belief in a personal relationship between the individual and
his imaginary Creator is held by most primitive peoples. They have
not sufficient knowledge even to comprehend that the world could not
continue if each individual were able to control the affairs of the world
for his personal convenience and benefit. The good fortune of one
would be the undoing of another, while the inherent selfishness of all
would
destroy
completely
any semblance
of hope for equality.
The more helpless man finds himself before the forces of nature,
the more does he believe and rely upon a God. The stronger he feels,
the more able to cope with the conditions of life, the less his need
for supernatural help. The less need of a God, the more co-operation
with his feIIow men; the fewer the religions, the higher the morality.
The standard of ethics rises in inverse proportion to man’s religious
beliefs and observances.
W. Robertson Smith summed up the claim that Judaism contributed the idea of monotheism to religious thought by saying that
“what is often described as a natural tendency in Semitic religion
toward ethical monotheism is in the main nothing more than a consequence of the alliance of religion with monarchy.” 88 The Jez~~ish
Encyclopedia
states
that the religion
of the early Hebrew
“monolatrous rather than monotheistic.”
brew
God was “the
one God and their
people was
They believed that the HeGod but nut the one and only
God.” He was the national God of the Hebrews just as “Chemosh was
the god of Moab and Milkom
the god of Ammon”;
88 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 659.
there could be (‘no
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
175
other God in Israel . . . it did not affect the reality of the gods of
other nations.” So
“The ethical monotheism
of the Prophets of Israel was not the
product
of any philosophical
thinking,”
o” states
another
high author-
ity. After a lifetime of research, Professor James H. Breasted substantiates this statement in emphatic and unequivocal terms: “In the
Second Commandment
that [the Bible Deity] laid upon the Israelites,
he himself recognized the existence of other gods when he said, ‘Thou
shalt not have other gods before me.’ ” O1
The Bible Deity is an anthropomorphic
God who is supposed to
answer prayers and confer favors and rewards, who demands sacrifices, metes out punishment
for disobedience to his commands and
wishes, and penalizes the children of men for their “sins.”
He could
free a people from bondage, cause locusts to devour a land, and just
as easily drive them away; he could cause pestilences and floods,
harden hearts, and do all manner of evil; he could send manna from
heaven; he could divide the waters of the sea; he could stop the sun
and the moon. He was jealous and vindictive;
his anger caused the
earth to tremble and brought consternation
to the hearts of men.
All primitive
peoples contemporaneous
with the Hebrews, especially at the time the Decalogue was probably written, believed in a
plurality
of gods.
The sky was full of the gods of the Babylonians,
the Chaldeans and the Egyptians.
The Biblical Deity was but another
of these provincial
The conception
Encyclopedia,
gods of primitive
man.
of the God of the Bible is explained
and is applicable
to all forms
of belief
by the Catlzolic
in a personal
God:
“The notion of the Supreme God, needed for religion, is not the
highly metaphysical conception demanded by right philosophy.
If
it were, but few could hope for salvation.
The God of religion is
the unspeakably great Lord on whom man depends, in whom he
80Jewish
En~ydo+xZiu,
Vol.
9, p. 660.
QQHastings,
Encyctopaedia,
Vol. 8, p. 819.
91 James H. Breasted,
Dawn
of Conscience,
p.
352.
176
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
recognizes the source of his happiness and perfection; He is the
righteous Judge, rewarding good and punishing evil; the loving
and the merciful Father, whose ear is ever open to the prayers of
His needy and penitent children. Such a conception of God can
readily be grasped by simple, unphilosophic minds, by children,
by the unlettered peasant, by the converted savage.” s2
What an open confession of the infantile conception of the Bible
Deity and the religions based upon the belief in such a God!
This substantiates
my contention
that a monotheistic
conception
of
God could not be comprehended by the authors of the Bible, and the
Catholic Encyclopedia
adds additional and still more damaging testimony when it states further the modern rationalist’s and evolutionist’s
point of view that “the mind of man was in the beginning but little
above that of his apelike ancestors, and hence incapable of grasping
so intellectual
a conception as that of Monotheism.”
v3
It is just as erroneous to attribute
to Judaism the idea of a Su-
preme Creator of the world as it is to regard the Hebrew language as
the original tongue of mankind.
Just as we know that the primitive
language of a Biblical Hebrew was utterly inadequate as a foundation
for all other languages,
so with the idea of the Hebrew
God.
It was
not because of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel that
other languages
came into existence,
nor was it at Mount
Sinai that
the idea of a Supreme Being entered the mind of man.
Numerous passages in the Bible clearly describe the nature of the
Bible God, and his repeated and constant warnings against the worship
of other gods is proof that there was a belief in the existence of other
gods. Surely, if the Hebrew God himself admitted the existence of
other gods, there is little else for the believer in the Bible to do but
accept this admission.
For Biblical evidence of the belief in other gods, I quote:
Joshua,
Chapter
24, verse 14:
14 Now therefore
fear the Lord,
and serve
him in sincerity
and in truth;
and put away
g2 Catholic
S3 Ibid.
Encyclopedia,
Vol.
10,
p. 500.
THE
SECOND
COMMANDMENT
177
the gods which your fathers served on the
other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and
serve ye the Lord.
Chapter 22, verse 20:
20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save
unto tile Lord only, he shall be utterly clestroyed.
Exodus,
Judges,
Chapter
11, verse
24:
24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So
whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive
out from before us, them will we possess.
Kings
1, Ckapter
11, verse
33:
33 Because that they have forsaken me, and
have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the
Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites,
and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do
that wlzich is right in mine eyes, and to keep
my statutes and my judgments, as did David
his father.
In primitive
societies such occurrences were not unusual.
A new
god was like a new leader. All allegiance to the old had to be abandoned; the new leader demanded undivided support.
Unless the old
Lies were completely
was undertaken.
severed, there wuuld be uo success in whatever
This Commandment
explicitly
states that the Israelthem. They also
worshiped images, and continued to do so for several centuries after
this Commandment
was “handed down.” They were no different from
the other ignorant and barbarous peoples of their time.
This primitive
anthropomorphic
concept of God has been fundamentally responsible for paralyzing man’s brain.
The unquestioning
faith in the supernatural
ability of the God to interfere in the affairs
of the world has been the great stumbling block to intellectual
progress.
A false, distorted conception produces a false, distorted viewpoint.
No wonder this perverted view of a God has distorted man’s viewpoint
of life. A wrong conception of the universe and its motivating
force
ites not only believed in other gods, but worshiped
will inevitably
produce acts contrary
mony with life itself.
to basic facts and out of har-
If man is taught that disease is sent as a punish-
178
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
ment for sin, he will certainly not be stimulated
to find the cause and
cure of any particular disease. On the contrary, innocent acts will be
suspected of having caused misfortune,
and vicious acts often committed in expiation of supposed wrongs. This is exactly the attitude
It has
which has resulted from the influence of the Commandments.
built temples for gods and dungeons for men; it has caused man to
waste his affection upon ghosts and destroy his fellow man.
Not a single department
of human activity has escaped the blight
of the virus of religious superstition.
Pleasure was regarded as sinful,
and suffering became the purpose of life. If man’s lot was to be an
expiation for his sins, how could there be any smiles or laughter?
How
can joy exist in a world created for human misery?
If the God we
worship as the only true one bids us punish those who worship another
because of his jealousy, is it surprising that members of different
religious beliefs’hate one another so bitterly and intensely?
How can
we expect to abolish religious hatred and racial prejudice while we
continue to worship a jealous and vindictive God?
Instead of regarding social institutions
in a utilitarian
light to
promote the happiness of mankind, they were restricted to those matters which had the “approval”
of this God in an effort to avoid his
wrath. There is hardly a social relation that has not been hampered
and restricted, hardly a triumph of the intellect over the tyrannical
forces of nature that has not been condemned, by the believers in the
anthropomorphic
Bible Deity.
When anesthesia was first introduced,
it was objected to on the
ground that the alleviation of pain was an affront to the Lord because
he had ordained that man should suffer for his sins. When “twilight
sleep” was introduced to mitigate the agony of childbirth,
it was bitterly opposed because of the Biblical injunction,
“In sorrow thou shalt
To relieve pain was condemned as a monstrous
bring forth children.”
heresy; it would deprive God of his most effective weapon, for how
else could he punish the children of the earth for their sins?
The bitterest opponents of the dissemination
of birth control in-
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT
179
formation are the religionists who take literally the Biblical statement
that man should be “fruitful and multiply.” O4
Even the use of knives and forks was condemned as impious because God had given us fingers to eat with.
Not very long ago, when some humanitarian people sought to
establish a child welfare organization, a minister protested on the
ground that if God had wanted better care to be taken of the children,
he would have so provided. And when an effort was made to raise
the school age of children in the State of New York, it was bitterly
opposed by the Catholic Church.06
Benjamin Franklin was condemned as a mocking atheist for his
invention of the lightning rod, It was characterized as the “heretical
rod” designed to rob God of his power to inflict just punishment on
those who provoked his wrath.
Thomas A. Edison’s invention of the electric light, which has been
of such immeasurable benefit to humanity, was condemned “as interfering with the divine plan of the world which God had ordained that
it should be dark at night.” 80
When the Wright brothers announced the invention of the flying
machine,
religionists
denounced
it as an impious
and blasphemous
invention because it would be used to trespass on God’s domain. It
was fanaticaIIy
condemned
as “a flying
insult
in the face of God.”
O7
Slowly but surely, as must all erroneous beliefs, this idea of an
anthropomorphic God will vanish from the mind of man. Just as
brave and courageous thinkers of the past were responsible for the
emancipation of the human mind from the deceiving and illusory concepts of the world in which we live, so today we find our leaders of
C,enesis, Chapter 1. verse 28.
York American,
Apr. 6, 1933.
9sVirginia S. Eifert, “The Story of Fire, ” Natural History
Magasine, Feb., 1939.
97 For a detailed cornDilation of the detrimental influence of religion on human
progress, see the following publications: William J. Fielding, The Shackles of the Super,natural; J. W. Draper, History
of the Conflict
between Religion
and Science and History
of the Intellectual
DeveloPment
of Europe;
A. D. White, Warfare
between
Science and
Tkeology;
H. B. Bonner, Humanity’s
Gain from
Unbelief;
C. T. Gorham, Christianity
g4
05 New
and
Civilization.
180
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
thought urging the abandonment
of false conceptions of God and the
universe. Albert Einstein, “the famous unifier of time and space,” has
proclaimed that man must abandon the idea of a personal God if we
are to achieve “the Good, the True and the Beautiful
in humanity
itself.”
Yrofessor Einstein said:
“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution,
human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who by operations
of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition
of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer.” 88
No more conclusive observation on this subject can be made than
that by Professor Leuba, who said: “The higher the state of intellectual progress, the less is there a belief in a god.” 99
The following newspaper item, though intended humorously,
is not
without truth :
“Among
County,
the last wills and testaments recorded in Cherokee
North
Carolina,
is that
In
properly, the usual suit, naming
And in the summons, the sheriff
part of her estate to God.
and diligent
ul an eccentric woman who
an endeavor to settle the
God a party thereto, was
made this response: ‘After
left
case
filed.
due
search, God cannot be found in Cherokee County.’ ”
The sheriff’s report that “after due and diligent search God cannot be
found in Cherokee County,” might well have hem the report had he
made a universal instead of a local search for the beneficiary of the
“eccentric woman who left part of her estate to God.” loo
98 New York
Times, Sept. 11, 1940.
09 James H. Leuba, God or Man, p. 272,
100 Nmt
Vork
World-Telegram,
Apr. 19, 1940,
The Third
Commandment
“Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will
not hold /zim guiltless that taketh his name
in vain.”
T-EXE
ANTMTSTIC
STGNTJXCANCE
OJZ
NAMK!:s
T
HIS Commandment
follows in perfect continuity
the previous
one as regards the magical origin of religion and the taboos
that are the inevitable outgrowth of a belief in animism.
The
taboo against mentioning
names has the same genesis as the prohibition against making graven images.
This Commandment
emphasizes
the vindictiveness
of the priest-magician-god
as exemplified
by the
Hebrew deity.
Just as we discovered in the analysis of the Second
Commandment
that image making was prohibited
because of the fear
that a person could be sympathetically
injured through his image, so
we find that mentioning
names was prohibited
for the identical reason.
It was once firmly believed that a person’s name was a substantial
part of himself, and that serious injury could be inflicted on him just
as effectively through the medium of his name as on his physical body.
Primitive
man considered his name a vital part of his soul, and his
regard and care for it were a matter of serious concern.
To the primitive mind, that which had no name did not exist. Only
after a name was given was a person supposed to have a “soul.”
In
some languages the words for “name,” “breath”
and “soul” are synonymous.
This is accounted for by the fact that a particular person
responds to a particular
name which he has received at birth.
His
name is his mark of identification,
and he would be a %obody” without
it. He would feel as chagrined or hurt if he were denounced by name
as though physically attacked; on the other hand, a pleasurable reaction would follow if favorable things were said about him when his
name was used.l
1 There is a vestigial survival of this superstition even today. We applaud the
name of a person as a mark of approval or praise, and hiss his name to express our
opposition and hatred, unconsciously believing that these manifestations will have
their desired homeopathic effect.
183
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
184
This belief, which is based on sympathetic
magic, was widespread
in primitive
societies of the same tribal pattern as that of the early
Hebrews. In order to understand the real significance and meaning of
this
Commandment
and
the
teaeon
for
ita
inclusinn
in
thn Decalogue.
it is pertinent to show its prevalence and influence upon the thoughts
and actions of some primitive peoples.
The natives of the Duke of York Island believe that by persistently
calling the name of a man whom they wish to appear, he will be drawn
to them even from a great distance. 2 The Zulus believe that to “name
a being is to invoke him, to render him present.” 3
The Indians of North America are afraid to utter their own names.
Significant, as well as interesting, is the fact that the real name of the
young Indian girl. who saved the life of Captain John Smith was not
Pocahontas.
It was Matokes.
She was given the name of Pocahontas
to conceal
her real name
from
the British
because
of the superstitious
fear that if her real name were known some injury would be inflicted
on her. This superstition prevails throughout
all Indian tribes, and
personal names are mentioned with great reluctance.
It is reported
that on many occasions, while in court, Indians have refused to state
the names of the persons involved in disputes.
Often, when forced to
make an identification,
the Indian will move his lips, without speaking,
in the direction of the person he wishes to identify.*
The North American Indian regards his name not as a mere label, but as distinct a part
of his personality
as his eyes or teeth. He believes that injury will
result as surely from the malicious handling of his name as from a
wound
inflicted
on any part
of his physical
organism.6
One of the most serious charges that
Hindu
woman
is tn accuse
her
A Bobo wife would rather be unfaithful
CRobert
Briffault,
Mothers,
Vol.
1, p.
can be brought
nf mentioning
her
husband’s
than commit
against
a
name.6
the monstrous
11.
s “Talk of the devil and he is sure to appear” had a far more serious meaning in
the early history of mankind than its facetious use has today.
“Tylur,
E&y
History
uf Mamkkind,
p. 140.
6Frazer,
Golden
Bough,
Vol. 3, p. 318.
6Tylor,
op. cit., p. 141.
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
185
sin of allowing her husband’s name to pass her lips. In antiquity,
Ionian women would not call their husbands by their names. After
marriage, an Aino wife may not mention her husband’s name; to do SO
would be deemed equivalent to killing him.7
The Tolampoos of Cen-
tral Celebes believe that by writing a man’s name his soul could be
carried off.
Among the Taculius, the priest ‘%eizes” the name of a dead man
from his mouth, and “places” it on the forehead of one of those
present. They believe that it becomes incorporated in him and will
pass, by the sexual act, into the embryo of the first child born to this
man’s wife; the child will bear the name of the dead.*
To the Egyptian no being is complete without a name, and he
believes that by the use of magic a man’s life can be taken from him
through the medium of his name. Cursing a person when mentioning
his name will bring upon him those misfortunes incorporated in the
curse.
The medieval Germans believed that if a smock-frock was laid on
the doorsill, and over it was pronounced the name of a person whom
one wanted to injure, he would feel every blow as though he were
inside it in the flesh.9
The secrecy with which the Australian aborigine guards his name
arises from the belief that if any enemy knows his name he can through
some form of magic bring him injury.lO The Australians believe that
“the life of an cncmy may bc taken by the USCof his name in incanta-
tion.”
To that end the name given to a child at birth is held in the
utmost
secrecy
and
nnly
imparted
to
him
by
his
father
on
initiation.
At the threshold of manhood (or womanhood) a new name is conferred
upon him (or her), and the name he (or she) bore during infancy and
childhood is forgotten. These people are also convinced that a curse
will strike a foe dead at a distance of a hundred miles.
Among the Yuin of New South Wales, the totem name is said to
TFrazer, op. cit., p. 337.
8Hasti~qg,
En~y~Zupuediu,
Vol.
3, p.
gTylor, op. cit., p. 124.
lo Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 320.
134.
186
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
have been something magical rather than a mere name in our sense,
and it was kept secret lest an enemy should injure its bearer by
sorcery.ll
The
nhnr;s$nec
nf
T-alre
Tylers,
in
Victoria,
mention
the
nxrne
of
zx
Their usual method of
member of their tribe with great reluctance.
addressing each other is by the words “cousin,”
“friend”
and
‘(brother.” I3
Among some primitive tribes, it is believed that even to utter one’s
own name is tantamount to parting with one’s soul. The Ojibwa warn
their children never to give their own names lest they cease to grow.
In Java the natives believe that all that is needed to kill a person is to
write his name on a piece of bone and bury it in a damp place; as the
name gradually fades away, so will the person to whom it belongs.
The ancient Greeks used to write the names of their foes on tablets
and drive
nails through
them in the belief
that they were inflicting
injury on the actual person.13
In Abyssinia,
at the present
day, it is customary
to give a child
a
secret name at baptism and call him by a nickname which the mother
gives him after the church
the Egyptians.
which
were
ceremony.
A similar
belief prevailed
among
Every Egyptian child received two names at birth,
described
as great and little
names.
The little
name was
made public and the great name was carefully concealed.14
The Indians of British Columbia have a strange fear of uttering
their own names, but have no hesitation in giving each other’s names.16
The Abipone of South America thinks it a sin to utter his own name
and, if asked what his name is, will nudge his neighbor to answer for
him.
The Wolofs of Senegambia, even today, are very much annoyed if
anyone calls them in a loud voice; for they say that their name will be
11Frazer, ofi. tit., Vol.
IzIbid.,
13
Briffault,
14 Ibid.,
16 Ibid.,
p. 321.
Mothers,
p. 14.
p. 322.
3,
Vol.
p. 320.
1, pp.
0, 14.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
187
remembered by an evil spirit and made use of by him to do them mischief at night.
Among the hill tribes of Assam, each individual
has a private name
which
may
not he revealed.
Should
anyone
vkJnte
thk
rr~le~ the whole
village is tabooed for two days, during which a ceremonial
feast is
provided at the expense of the guilty one. Among the Kru Negroes of
West Africa, a man’s real name is always concealed from all but his
nearest relations; to other people he is known only under an assumed
name.
The Ewe-speaking people of the Slave Coast believe they can harm
a person by “injuring”
his name. This is usually done by beating the
stump of a tree while pronouncing
the name.
This will bring the
person to the stump, where he will meet his death.16
While a member of the Bangala of the Upper Congo is away fishing
or hunting, his name must not be mentioned by lhose of his household
for fear that the spirits of the woods will bring ill luck to his eff0rts.l’
Among savage tribes the name is associated with the person and his
accomplishments.
The following is an admirable illustration
recorded
by Cadwallader Colden:
“The first time I was among the Mohawks, I had this compliment
from
one of their
own Sachems,
which
be hill
by giving
me
his own name, Cayenderngue. He had been a notable Warrior;
and he told me that now I had a right to assume to myself all the
Acts of Valour he had performed, and that now my name would
echo from Hill to Hill over all the Five Nations.” 18
Ancient Chinese physicians used to write the name of their patients
on a piece of paper, burn it to ashes, and then mix it with the medicine
for the patient to swallow. This was to insure the identification
of the
medicine with the patient.19
I6 Frazer, og. cit., Vol. 3, p. 323.
1’1 Ibid.,
p. 330.
l* Tylor,
op. cit., p. 125.
p. 126.
lo Ibid.,
188
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
In Borneo it is the superstitious custom to change the name of a
sickly child to deceive the evil spirits that torment it. In South
America, among the Abipones and Lenguas, when a man died, his
survivirxg
f sm3y
would
change
the;
names
to
cheat
death
when
he
should come to look for them. The Tonquin give their children ugly
names to frighten the demons away from them. The Abyssinians
conceal the names of their children for fear of bewitchment by evil
spirits.20 This accounts for the prevalence of the belief that children
of different families possessing the same names should not marry,
because they would be unlucky; also that families of the same name
should not live in the same community.
The Hebrews believed that if a man experienced ill fortune for a
considerable length of time, he could change his luck by changing his
name.21 Also, when several children in a Hebrew family have died, no
name is given to the next one born.
It is referred
to as “Alter,”
in the
belief that if the Angel of Death does not know the name of the child,
he will
be unable
to seize it.
Another
widespread
practice
among
orthodox Hebrews even today is to give a new name to a person who
is very ill, so that the Angel of Death will not be able to recognize the
one he is seeking. If the person recovers, he discards his old name
and is known only by his new one.22 Many orthodox Hebrews consider it unlucky to call an only child by its right name.
Even the names of savage animals are never mentioned for fear
lest they should suddenly appear. The natives of Madagascar never
mention lightning for fear that it will suddenly strike. The Boziba
never mention earthquakes for fear that one will occur. In Samoa
rain is not mentioned because of the constant menace of storms. In
China fire is not mentioned for fear of a conflagration. The ancient
Scandinavians, while making beer, would not use the word denoting
water
for fear that the brew
would
ZOTylor,
op. cit., p. 12.5.
2’ Ibid.
22 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 9, p. 159.
23 Briffault,
Mothers,
Vol. 1, p. 11.
turn out flat.23
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
189
The Greeks avoided using the right names of the Furies (imaginary
evil spirits).
They believed that referring to them in a conciliatory
manner would moderate them to a more desired attitude and dis~ositionn24
The superstitious people in parts
late as the eighteenth century, would
when reading the Bible for fear that
this “calamity”
by corrupting
the
“divil.” 25
of London and Scotland,
not mention the name of
he would appear. They
pronunciation
of the
even as
the devil
avoided
word to
Another instance of the relationship
between this Commandment
and animism and sympathetic
magic is furnished by the taboo against
mentioning the names of the dead. Just as the orthodox Hebrew never
fails to use the magic word “ava sholem” 2o as a means of protection
when mentioning
the name of the dead, so do the superstitious people
of Albania
abstain
from
mentioning
the names
of disturbing
the ghosts of the departed.“’
inadvertently
mentioned,
they
spit
three
of their
dead
for
fear
If, however, the name is
times
in prnpitiatinn
for vio-
lating the taboo. This is done for fear that the spirit of the dead man,
which is supposed to hover over the place where he died, will return
and do evilz8
If primitive
peoples were convinced that a man’s name was an
integral part of himself and that revealing it would put his life in
jeopardy, one can well understand how seriously they regarded mentioning the sacred and secret name of their deity.
If a mere mortal
could be injured through the use of his name by an enemy, it was
certainly that much more vital to protect the name of one’s god. If a
person of lesser degree conceals his identity from evil forces by the use
of a substitute name, how much more necessary to protect the name
of one’s god.
24 Briffault, &foEhers, Vol. 1, p. 12.
25 Wilson D. Wallis, Religion in Primitive
26 “May his soul rest in peace.”
27 Frazer, op. cit., p. 349.
28Ibid.,
p. 351.
Society,
p. 41.
THE
190
TEN
NAMES
Just as it was believed
person’s
name,
so it was
COMMI\NDMENTS
OF
GODS
TABOO
that evil results would follow mentioning
believed
that
if the
name
of
a god
were
a
known
and used contrary to his wishes, the consequences would be nothing
In fact, there is abundant evidence availshort of a world catastrophe.
able that primitive
man, ignorant of the natural causes of events,
attributed earthly disasters to those guilty of violating this taboo.2s
It was also the superstitious belief among primitive peoples that the
Creator of the universe brought the world into existence by uttering
his own name. “There was a time,” says an ancient Egyptian papyrus,
‘(when no one and nothing existed except himself.
A desire came over
him to create the world, and he carried it into effect by making his
mouth utter his own name as a word of power; and straightway the
world
and all therein
maintains
a similar
by the magical
came into
being.”
belief with its doctrine
power
of words:
“In
3o Even
today
of the creation
the beginning
Christianity
of the world
was the Word,
and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 31
There is a whole literature on the subject of what the Persians call
the “science of names.”
Long after Joshua was supposed to have
stopped the sun and the moon through the medium of magic, Australian medicine men were believed to be able, by the magic use of the
name of their deity, to stop the sun, cause thunder, raise mountains,
and create lakes and other wonders of nature, which the ignorant
thought could be accomplished
only by the omnipotent
power of a
Goda3’
29 Encyclopaedia
Biblica,
D. 3320: ‘(The special importance attaching to the names
of gods in the Old Testament, and the emphasis often laid on their significance, finds
a partial explanation in the peculiar emphasis with which the word name itself is
there employed. The name of a person or thing was for the Hebrew not simply distinctive; it was a revelation of the nature of the person or thing named, nay, often
almost an equivalent for the thing itself. This is especially true of the names of God.”
3o Briffault, op. cit., p. 5.
31 John,
Chapter
ss Briffault,
1, verse
1.
op. cit., pp. 16, 17.
THE
THIRD
191
COMMANDMENT
Religious leaders were supposed to have been able to talk to God
solely because they could call him by his name.33
This taboo of mentioning
the name of a deity did not prevail only
among the Hebrews: it was present in the relkions of nearly all primitive peoples.34 The name of Brahma is as sacred in India as is the
supposed name of the Bible Deity to the Hebrews.
It is rarely mentioned, and only on the most solemn occasions.35
The ancient Vedic god Rcdra (“the Howler”)
was the maleficent
and destructive power of nature, in some respects like the jealous and
vindictive
Hebrew God.
He could cause storms, conflagrations,
pestilences, disease and all manner of evil. He was never referred to
by his real name, but was always called “Siva” (“the Gracious One”),
in an effort to flatter him and thereby escape his wrath.3s Perhaps
this same reason prompted the Children of Israel to refer to their
tyrant in the sky by such endearing expressions as “The Lord is my
Shepherd, I shall not want, ” “The Lord is gracious, almighty,”
etc.
The following Hebrew hymn, which sings the praises of the Bible
Deity, undoubtedly
has a motivation
of flattery to placate his vindictive nature as revealed in these Commandments:
“Lord eternal, merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and
abounding in kindness and truth, preserving loving-kindness unto
thousands, forgiving iniquity,
Thou us our iniquities
transgression and sin . . . forgive
and also our sins, and take us for thine
inheritances” 37
33
Matthew,
Chapter
8, verses
26-34.
34A survival of the fear of mentioning
God’s name is in the superstition of saying
“for goodness’ sake” instead of “for God’s sake,” as well as “thank goodness” when
in reality the person wants to say “thank God.” The avoidance of the use of the
word “God” is prompted by the fear of the taboo of mentioning the name of the Deity
which forms the basis of this Commandment.
a5Tylor, op. cit., p. 143.
aa Briffault, op. cit., p. 12.
87 Jcwi>h
Enc,ydupediu,
Vol. 1, p. 202. This byrnr~ reminds
me of the sernmn
at the
funeral of Mrs. Murphy’s husband. During the funeral oration the priest was quite
fulsome in his praise of his dead parishioner. He said that he had been a good and
kind
husband,
a loving
father,
a man
of
high
moral
conduct,
honest
in
his
dealings,
and
upright in his undertakings, etc. As the priest continued to praise the virtues of the
dear departed, Mrs. Murphy, who had been abused all her life, and whose children had
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
192
Some tribes of Indians consider it a profanation to mention the
name of their highest divinity. Australian natives, when initiating
their youth in the ritual of their religion, very often, through fear, omit
~ronouncinn
the
IIRITW
nf
their
The Marutse
deity.
and allied tribes
along the Zambesi shrink from mentioning the name of their chief god,
Nyambe.
Cicero mentions the fact that among certain Egyptians it was
criminal to mention the name of an Egyptian god, the son of Nilus.
On two occasions Herodotus refused to mention the name of the god
Osiris. The divine name of Indra was a secret, and the real name of
the god Agni was unknown. The gods of Brahmanism have mystic
names which nobody dares to speak.
Valerius Soranus is said to have been put to death for divulging
the name of the Roman deity.38
The great
name of Allah
is a secret
known
only
to the prophets
because it is believed that whosoever calls on him by his “great name”
will obtain
all his desires.
Merely
mentioning
the name gives one the
power “to raise the dead, kill the living, and to perform any miracle
he pleases.” 39
The real names of Amon and of Atumn “the mysterious” are unknown. The formidable names borne in classical antiquity by Zeus,
Athene and Dionysus have never been found out; these names were
guarded as great secrets for centuries, and were passed on only from
high priest to high priest. They were never recorded and were thus
lost to posterity.40 It is still authoritatively stated that we do not
know the real name of Rome.41
The secret names of the classical gods were very often so carefully
preserved
in depositories
that even today
we do not know
the real
often heen brutally beaten by their father, nudged her eldest child and said, “Bridget,
see who is in that coffin; that can’t be your father the priest is talking about.”
3s Tylor, op. cit., p. 125.
as Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 2, p. 642.
40 The Bible Deity is no exception to the rule, as we shall see.
41Hastings, Encyclopaedia,
Vol. 3, p. 153.
go
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
193
personal names of most of the great figures of past religions; it is only
the apparent names that we know.42
A good illustration
is the story of how the subtle Isis wrested from
Ra, the great Egyptian god of the sun, his secret name:
Isis, so runs the tale, was a mortal woman mighty in words,
and she was weary of the world of men, and yearned after the world
of gods. And she meditated in her heart, saying, “Cannot I by
virtue of the great name of Ra make myself a goddess and reign
like him in heaven and earth?” For Ra had many names, but the
great name which gave him power over gods and men was known to
none but himself. Now the god was by this time grown old; he
slobbered at the mouth and his spittle fell upon the ground. So Isis
gathered up the spittle and the earth with it, and kneaded thereof
a serpent, and laid it in the path where the great god passed every
day to his double kingdom after his heart’s desire. And when he
came forth according to his wont, attended by all his company
of gods, the sacred serpent stung him, and the god upeued his mouth
and cried, and his cry went up to heaven. And the company of
gods cried, “What aileth thee?,’ and the gods shouted, “Lo and
behold! ” But he could not answer; his jaws rattled, his limbs
shook, the poison ran through his flesh as the Nile floweth over the
land.
Wheu
the great god had stilled
his heart,
he cried
to his fol-
lowers, “Come to me, 0 my children, offspring of my body, I am a
prince, the son of a prince, the divine son of a god. My father
devised my name; my father and my mother gave me my name,
and it remained hidden in my body since my birth, that no magician
might
have magic power
over me.
I went
out to behold
that which
I have made, I walked in the two lands I have created, and 101
something stung me. What it was I know not. Was it fire? Was
it water? My heart is on fire, my flesh trembleth, all my limbs
do quake. Bring me the children of the gods with healing words
and understanding
lips, whose power reacheth to heaven.,’
Then
came to him the children of the gods, and they were very sorrowful.
And Isis came with her craft, whose mouth is full with the breath
of life, whose spell chaseth pain away, whose word maketh the dead
to live. She said “What is it, divine Father? What is it?” The
holy
god opened
his mouth,
42 Hastings, Encyclopaedia,
he spake and said, “T went. upon
Vol. 9, p. 133.
my
194
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
way,
have
that
than
I walked after my heart’s desire in the two regions which I
made to behold that which I have created, and lo! a serpent
I saw not stung me. Is it fire? Is it water?
I am colder
water, I am hotter than fire, all my limbs sweat. I tremble,
mine eye is not steadfast,
I behold
not the sky, the moisture
bedew-
eth my face as in summer time.” Then spake Isis, “Tell me thy
name, divine Father, for the man shall live who is called by his
name.” Then answered Ra, “I created the heavens and the earth,
I ordered the mountains, I made the great and wide sea, I stretched
out the two horizons like a curtain. I am he who openeth his eyes
and it is light, and who shutteth them and it is dark. At his command the Nile riseth, but the gods know not his name. I am
Khepera in the morning, I am Ra at noon, I am Turn at eve.” But
the poison was not taken away from him; it pierced deeper, and the
great god could no longer walk. Then said Isis to him, “That
was not thy name that thou spakest unto me. Oh, tell it me, that
the poison may depart; for he shall live whose name is named.”
Now
the poison burned
like fire, it was hotter
than the flame of fire.
The god said, “I consent that Isis shall search into me, and that
my name shall pass from my breast into hers.” Then the god hid
himself from the gods, and his place in the ship of eternity was
empty. Thus was the name of the great god taken from him, and
Isis, the witch, spake, “Flow away, poison, depart from Ra. It is I,
even I, who overcome the poison and cast it to the earth; for the
name of the great god hath been taken away from him. Let Ra
live and let the poison die.” Thus spake great Isis, the queen of the
gods who knows Ra and his true name.43
According to the Avesta, the revelation of the greatest of the names
of Ahura Mazda is besought by Zarathustra that he may conquer, and
not be corlquered by, all demons and men, all wizards and witches.
In late Hinduism we find the belief among Krsnaites, Ramaites
and Savities, that “the mcrc repetition of their god’s name is a means
of salvation, so that sinner and heretic, if he die at last with Krishna’s
name upon his lips, will be saved”1 44
48Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 337-339.
44 Hastings, Encyclopaedia,
p. 163. There is a survival of this primitive and superstitious custom today in what is known as the “last rites” administered by a priest of
THE THIRD
19s
COMMANDMENT
The sacred and secret names of gods were entrusted only to the
high priests because it was necessary that the names be evoked in the
proper manner to produce the magical results supposedly inherent in
them. Since it was believed that a god’s name was as fragile as life, it
had to be pronounced with the same awe as the thing it represented.
Unless the mysterious and magical formula was faithfully and properly
performed in every detail of cadence, tonality, rhythm, and accent of
each of the chanted syllables, there would be no results. Thus a thousand unsuccessful attempts were explained by the fact that the uninitiated did not possess the proper combination of the formula. The
“successful” results were always shrouded in the mystery of the
ritua1.45
Not only were the names of gods taboo, but the names of kings
and other sacred persons were not to be used lightly and without due
reverence.
The name of the king of Dahomey is always kept secret, lest
knowledge of it should enable some evil-minded person to do him some
mischief. In Burma it was accounted a most serious impiety to mention the name of the reigning sovereign.46 In Eastern Asia and Polynesia the names of kings and chiefs are held sacred; in Siam a substitute name must be used in speaking of the king. In Polynesia the
prohibition to mention the chief’s name has been deeply impressed on
the natives.47 The name of the Japanese Mikado is so sacred that it
is seldom mentioned and indeed is not known to a great portion of the
public. A few years ago, when a Japanese mayor discovered that he
the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what the character of the person was, a devout
believer in the religion would much prefer to send for a priest to administer the last
rites,
if
he
thought
he
was
about
to
die,
than
for
a physician
who
might
be
able
to
save him. This is so well known that physicians whose Catholic patients are critically
ill, inform the family so as to enable them to send for a priest before death overtakes
the palicnl.
This is but another
instance
of the pcrsistcncc
of religious
ignorance
and
superstitious fear.
46 Ibid.,
+e Frazer,
p.
1.53.
uy. nil.,
pp.
374,
47Tylor, op. cit., p. 142.
375.
THE
196
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
had given his son the name which the Emperor bore, he resigned and,
in propitiation
of the breach of this taboo, killed himself.48
Religious articles associated with a deity were likewise held in awe.
Anything upon which the name of God is written is considered sacred.
That is why the Torah may be handled only by a rabbi. The Bible iS
sacred. It must not be used except in a reverent manner, as it is
considered “God’s Word.”
Children of orthodox parents are forced to
pick it up and kiss it if it falls to the floor. It is sometimes kissed in
a court of law before giving testimony.
Because of the association with the name of God, religious buildings, such as temples and churches, are regarded as sacred. Many
bow when passing them, and Catholics remove or tip their hats when
passing a church of their faith.
Images of saints are considered sacred, and many a person has lost
his life during a fire while attempting
to recover “sacred” articles from
the edifice in which they were kept. That these things were sacred
and were capable of performing
miracles there appeared to be no
doubt,.but
that they could not save themselves fr-om being burned in
an ordinary fire where common, ordinary articles are saved is not
subject to explanation.
The garments of high priests are “holy,” and devotees consider it
a rare privilege even to touch them. A ring worn by a high dignitary
of the Catholic Church is considered “sacred.”
Persons who make
slighting remarks about holy religious things are guilty of sacrilege
and should expect no mercy from a wrathful God.4Q In fact, at one
time disease and misfortune were believed to be sent as punishment
for lack of reverence for the name of God.
THE
MAGICAL
USE
OF
GOD’S
NAME
The Biblical testimony
in support of the superstitious
the magical power of the supposed name of the Hebrew
4s Walk,
4QMatthew,
Religion
in Primitive
Chapter
9, verses
Society,
20-21.
p. 40.
belief
Deity
in
is
THE
voluminous.
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
197
One significant statement is found in Numbers, Chapter
6, verse 27:
27 And they shall put my name upon the
children of Israel, and I will bless them.
As Judaism was founded on a belief in animism and sympathetic
magic, this accounts for the mystical interpretation of the Bible and
the assumption that certain names possessedmysterious occult powers.
The one who knew the secret “combination” of the letters could do all
manner of wonderful things-gain supremacy over the invisible forces
of evil, regulate the elements, or gain for himself divine favor. This
belief is responsible for soothsayers, priests and sorcerers, who, because
of their pretended knowledge of the secret combinations of divine
names, have claimed heavenly contact through the mysterious medium
of names and numbers, and the ability to connect heavenly forces with
human events.
Certain portions of the Bible are incomprehensible without knowledge of the origin of primitive superstitions, such as animism and
sympathetic
magic.
Religionists,
ignorant
of these
origins,
have
there-
fore run riot in attempting to give “allegorical” interpretations to some
of these meanirqless
phrases.
They
have
also crcatcd
forms
of suppli-
cation which are an inevitable outgrowth of superstition: prayers,
observing certain days of the week, ahstaining from certain foods,
fasting, mixing and non-mixing foods, genuflections, signs and ceremonies, forms of dress, mystic jugglery with numbers and letters,
sprinkling water, doing penance, wearing charms to bring good luck,
amulets to ward off evil influences,“O and literally thousands of silly
deeds and incomprehensible actions that “passeth understanding”-all
for the purpose of transcending earthly affairs and becoming “one with
God.” This belief accounts for the intercession of priests to gain the
60 Jewish
stitious
Hehww,
Encyclopedia,
mostly
Vol. 1, p. 547.
consisting
of the
Amulets were widely used by the super-
name
of the supposed
God
inscribed
upon
an
article and worn to ward off evil. Some had a transposition of the name of the Hebrew
Deity written on paper or engraved on plates. These were used to put robbers to flight,
to calm the sea, to protert
rattle,
to cure disease,
to catch
fish,
to secure
and retain
the
love of a woman. Soldiers even wore them in battle. If, however, one was thrown
upon a man, it would kill him.
198
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
favors of God, to be lucky in love, to secure a job, to cure disease, to
bring sunshine for outings, and even to be successful in baking a loaf
of bread,
It was also claimed that the priests knew how to combine the
letters which formed the secret name of God by which heaven and
earth were created,51 and could perform miracles in the name of the
Hebrew God. The hand of the magician would, with this knowledge,
possess the same power as that exercised by the Deity.52
Through the magic power of the letters of the secret name of the
God of Israel, it is claimed that Babylonian
rabbis “created a calf by
magic.” 63 They also believed that the name of God “creates and
destroys worlds,” 64 and that by the proper combinations
and permutations of the name of God, applied at the right time and in the right
place, man could easily make himself the master of creation.” 66
Jewish physicians were believed to have possession of this magic
name and to use it effectively in the treatment of disease.G6
A vast literature on the magic use of this name of the Hebrew God
was founded, and all forms of superstition
took on a profound meaning; the irresponsible mutterings
of those suffering from visions and
hallucinations
were interpreted
as having divine significance.6’
If miracles were produced in the early days of Judaism by invoking
the name of God, then why would it not be equally effective again?
Influenced by this delusive belief, the medieval Hebrews sought the
magic name of God, with which to repeat the wonders of the past so
that manna from heaven would fall again.
How the imagination
was fanned into believing the most outlandish tales of miraculous achievement can be gathered from the following incidents still to be found in the semi-sacred books of the orthodox
61 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 3, p. 458.
52Trachtenbera.
Jewish Magrc
and Sufierstition,
69 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 3, p. 458.
54 Ibid., p. 461.
56 Ibid., Vol. 1, II. 548.
5’3 Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 119.
57 Ibid., p. 461.
D. 98.
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
199
Hebrews: “Raba created a man and sent him to R. Zeira, who conversed with him, but he could not answer, so he exclaimed, ‘You are
created by magic; return to your dust! ’ ” And here is another:
“Rabbis Hanina and Oshaya used to sit every Friday night and occupy
themselves with the Book of Creation and create a three-year-old
calf,
which they ate.” This miracle was accomplished by the simple process
of combining “the letters of the Name by which the universe was
created; this is not to be considered forbidden magic, for the works of
God were brought into being through His Holy Name.” 68
During the Middle Ages, when the cabalistic Hebrews were trying
to discover the secret of how to perform the miracles attributed to
Moses, it is recorded that “Elijah
of Chelm
created a golem from clay
by means of the Sefer Yezbah. He inscribed the name of God upon
its forehead, thus giving it life but withholding
the power of speech.
When the creature attained giant size and strength, the Rabbi, appalled
by its destructive potentialities, erased the life-giving name from its
forehead and it crumbled into dust.” 6Q
The Jew9.z Encyclopedia
records these significant references to
the use of the name of God:
“The divine names of God, the Haggadah [sacred Hebrew
book] says, were used to perform miracles by those who knew their
combinations.
King
David,
on
making
excavations
for
the
Temple, and finding that the deep was moving upward, asked for
permission to stop its rising, which threatened to destroy the world,
by inscribing the name of God on a potsherd and throwing it into
the deep. His minister, Ahithophel, who was well versed in law,
pcrmittcd
it.” 6o
It was also believed that the presence of the Torah scroll, containing the name of the Bible God, in the room of a prospective mother
would facilitate the birth of the child,01 because of the belief in the
sympathetic
cumlection
between the Deity
58 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 12, p. 84.
59 Trarhtcnherg,
Jewish
Magic
and Superstition,
6O Jewisk
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 9, pp. 463, 479.
61 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 202-203.
and his name.
p. 8$.
Placing
the
200
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
of Leviticus under the head of a child when it was first put in
the cradle was supposed to protect the infant from eviLs2
The word found at the beginning of a page of the Bible when it
was opened at random, or the word touched by the thumb at the
opening, was frequently used as an oracle for magical results.s3 When
a person was seriously ill, the Pcntateuch-the
Five Books of Moses
-was opened and the name which first met the eye was added to the
patient’s name in the belief that this would avert death.
There was a proscription against even writing the name of God:
Book
“The sacredness of the divine name must be recognized by the
professional scribe who writes the Scriptures, or the chapters for
the phylacteries and the mezuzah. Before transcribing any of the
divine names, he prepares mentally to sanctify them. Once he
begins a name, he does not stop until it is finished, and he must not
be interrupted while writing it, even to greet a king. If an error is
made
in writing
it,
it may
not
be erased,
but
a lint
must
be drawn
round it to show that it is canceled, and the whole page must be
put in a genizah and a new page begun.” 68
In ordinary documents the mention of the name of God was
forbidden.G5 Not only was the secret. name of the Hebrew Deity
supposed to be able to produce results, but it was also believed that
extraordinary power for the subjection of nature lay in the mystic use
of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It was also believed that the
allegorical and symbolical interpretation of the Bible could produce
results not attained by human efforts alone.66
The names of angels were also used for magical purposes. He
who knew the names of certain angels and the spheres of their influence could ward off evil 67 and control the powers of nature.6s
It is stated that at the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
after
62 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, pp. 202-203.
03 Ibid.,
p. 205.
e4 Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 163.
GbIbid., Vol. 9, p. 164.
ee Ibid., Vol. 3, DD. 463, 479.
e7 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 595.
88 Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 462.
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
201
the mighty hero, Abikaben Gafteri, had fallen, Haneel, the uncle of
Jeremiah, conjured up angels who struck terror to the hearts of the
Chaldeans, thus putting them to flight. But God, having decreed the
fall Pf the sity, bad changed the names of the angels. Haneel summoned up the prince of the world by using the Ineffable Name, and he
lifted Jerusalem into the air, but God cast it down again.69
The names of Biblical characters have also been used to produce
magical results. For instance, the name of Daniel is used for protection against wild beasts, the name of Moses against fire, Joseph against
pollution, against the evil eye and, I presume, against seduction. The
names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as of their wives, Sarah,
Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, are to be used in a lying-in room.7o
The secret ways to use these names were many and various. Some
were pronounced only in whispers, others over water upon which the
sun had never shone, some while plucking vegetables, over salt, palm
leaves and wine; some at certain times of the day; some were recited
only once and some several times in succession; at times backwards
and at times forwards; sometimes in combinations and sometimes in
permutations;
sometimes abbreviated
and sometimes with one letter
left off at a time.?l Some were written at various places and some on
particular objects.
If there survives today a remnant of this belief in sympathetic
magic and the hidden power of names, what must have been its influence in early superstitious days ! We still name children after those
who were strong, or successful, or intellectual, in the belief that the
child will inherit the qualities possessed by its namesake. Biblical
names are given children for the same reason.72
Even prayer books are replete with references such as “Our Father,
69 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 595.
7” Ibid., Vol. 3, p, 205.
71 Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 205.
7s The superstitious basis of Judaism was carried over into Christianity and became
the very roundation of the Christian religion. The same miraculous results that were
supposed to be accomplished by invoking the name of the Hebrew Deity, it was claimed,
could be duplicated by the mystical use of the name of Jesus, the Saviour. Just as
202
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
our King, do it (have compassion)
for the sake of them that went
through fire and water for the sanctification
of Thy Name”;
78
“Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast
sax-x&f&d
~1s by Thy
Commcmdments
and commanded
us to love
ThY
glorious and awful Name.”
As superstition
is the weed of the brain, it grows profusely, once
started.
That accounts for the multitudinous
necromantic
acts performed for talismanic
purposes.
Bible passages are extensively used
by the superstitious.
The following are some examples:
To become invisible, read Genesis I:I.
To confuse a person’s
mind, and as a protection against pollution, read only the last letter of
each word.
To lighten childbirth,
read Genesis 21.-I. To stop children from
crying, read Genesis 25:14.
For protccTo avoid danger while traveling,
read Ccmsis
32:31.
tion from a vicious dog, read Exo&s
11:7.
However, for greater
security it is advised that you alsn carry a strong stick; if the verse
should not prove efficacious, the stick will come in handy.
To be successful in a lawsuit, reading Exodus 15:16 has been
highly recommended .74 However, today most people think it safer to
get a lawyer.
Mothers today should welcome the revival of Bibliomancy
as it
Reading Deuteronomy
would save them a lot of trouble and worry.
X3.-4 would provide them with the means of getting their children to
school without trouble or mishap,
People with faulty memories
(and this should be particularly
rewards were to follow the faithful performance of the covenants and Commandments
of the Old Testament God, so all good was promised- “If ye shall ask anything in my
name, I will do it.” (John, Chapter 12, verse 28.) The use of the name of Jesus in the
domain of exorcism and to cure disease is directly attributed to the power supposed to
be inherent in his name. Throughout
the New Testament there are innumerable
passages relative to this superstitious belief. Christian Science is based on this delusion.
See Matthew 7: 22; 18: 20; 28: 19; Mark 16: 17; Luke 17: 17-20; John 3: 18; 10: 25;
12: 28; 14: 13. See also Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 5, p. 306.
7g Authorized
Daily
Prayer Book, p. 57.
w Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 3, p. 203.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
203
directed to those who forget their obligations)
are assured that reading
Isaiah 26~1 will strengthen their ability to remember.
In the realms of sickness, there are also verses which are supposed
to be highly beneficial.
To prevent a miscarriage,
read Psalms 1;
against diseases of the eye, Chapter 6.76
For protection against evil spirits, read Chapter 11; against being
caught in a lie, Cbapter 16; against being robbed, Chapter 18. The
insurance companies should insist that all policyholders read this chapter of their Bible while the policy is in force.
To interpret the real meaning of dreams, Chapter 23 furnishes the
key.
For women whose children die young, and as a protection against
epidemics, Chapter 33 is highly recommended.
This is particularly
To
escape
drunkenness,
Chapter 27
appropriate
in time of war.
will help,76 but experience has proved that abstaining from intoxicating liquors is a more reliable method.
To avoid losing one’s job, Chapter 12 should be read.
For the man who has become tired of his wife, Chapter 46 gives
the solution.
If you don’t want to be baptized, Chapter 73 will protect you.
To gain new friends, read Chapter 3; against sudden death, Chapter 116; to protect oneself from slander, 117.
And here is an all-inclusive one: to sharpen the intellect, for disease
of the cyc, when one is in deep perplexity,
against sin, wholesome for
the spleen and kidneys, against temptation,
to win favor, against
weakness nf the hands, on a journey, against catarrh, against weakness
in the feet, against earache, against dizziness, and on taking children
to school, read Chapter 119. For immunity
against heart disease,
lumbago and pain in the arm, read Chapters 139, 140, 141 and 142.
Christian Scientists should become more familiar with Chapter 144,77
since they have decided that broken bones require medical attention
Is Unless
otherwise
76 Jetish
77 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
slated,
Encyclopdia,
all references following
Vol. 3, p. 203.
Vol. 3, p. 204.
are from Psalms.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
204
and the human intellect has not quite attained the power to heal such
fractures. There seems to he none for a pain in the neck, unless it be
the insane practice of Bibliomancy in general.
If there is a belief in a personal God who created the world with
a magic wand, then a belief in a magic formula to ward off the powers
of evil which this God had to overcome in his act of creation follows
as a necessary sequence. Under this delusion, it is small wonder that
man’s efforts were devoted to the pursuits of seeking the magic formula
with which to appease and gain the approbation of such a God. If
man experienced misfortune, he could account for it only by some disobedience to God’s wishes. He therefore devoted his whole life to
gaining the approbation of this deity whose moods were subject to
human appeal and sacrifice. If evil was supposed to befall those who
disobeyed God, and blessings were conferred upon those who kept his
statutes and Commandments, the object of living was not devotion to
mankind, but the adoration and appeasement of God. The magical
use of his name to bring the desired results was the primary objective
of those who sought to escape the duties of life.
The belief that man is the special creation of a God, and that the
world was created for his benefit, is responsible for those fantastic
views of life and the universe which have so plagued the human race.
Man will never discover the causes of disease if he believes that they
are sent by a God as punishment for sin. Man will not solve the problems of existence, or of his general welfare, until hc abandons this false
and delusive belief, looks upon himself as only an insignificant part of
the universe, and understands his true relation to the other forms of
life and existence.
WHAT
IS THE
NAME;
OF THE
GOD OF ISRAEL?
What is the name of the God of Israel which this Commandment
so definitely and so emphatically warns us not to mention? Surely, if
a person is told not to do something under pain of a terrible penalty,
he should at least know what that something is. If he is told not to
take God’s name in vain, and is not told what his name is, how can he
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
205
be expected to obey such an injunction? Can it be that there is no
name for the Hebrew Deity? I say this because nowhere in the Bible
does the name of the God of Israel appearf
And if it does not appear
in the Bible, what was the reason for its having been left out? Was it
left out because of the fear of the Hebrews to write the name of their
God? Or was it left out because it would prove the utter futility of
this Commandment? Or was it perhaps omitted because no such God
exists? Was this Bible God invented by Moses as a piece of legerdemain, since he was unknown to the Israelites before his time? Is he,
like the other gods of his day, merely a creation of the magician’s
imagination, to be invoked in the performance of magical tricks which
would bewilder, and to inspire awe in the credulous and the ignorant?
Not only does the name of the Hebrew God not appear in the
Bible, but there is a striking contradiction in the way it is concealed
in the Hebrew, Protestant and Catholic versions. The three different
accounts about so important a matter are, in my opinion, indisputable
proof that no one account is correct, that there is no name for the
Hebrew Deity, and that the entire story is a fabrication. The testimony of the Bible itself shall be the authority for my indictment.
THE
FIRST
DEADLY
PARALLEL
For the difference in the name of the God of Israel as revealed by
the Hebrew, Protestant and Catholic versions of the Bible, I quote the
Book
of ExoBus,
Chapter
HEBREW
VERSION
13 And Moses said unto
God, Behold, if I come
unto the children of Israel
and say unto them, The
God of your fathers hath
sent me unto you; and
they then say to me,
What is his name? then
what shall I say unto
them? 7s
3, verses
13 to 15:
PROTESTANT
VERSION
13 And Moses said unto
God, Behold, when I come
unto the children of Israel,
and shall say unto them,
the God of your fathers
hath sent me unto you;
2nd they shall say to me,
What is his name? what
shall I say unto them? 78
CATHOLIC
VERSION
(Douay)
13 Moses said to God:
Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to
them: The God of your
fathers hath sent me to
you. If they should say
to me: What is. his name?
What shall I say to
them? 7s
7s Unless Moses was preparing for an act of deception, this was a perfectly legitimate
question to ask of God, and the answer should have been prompt and straightforward.
THE
206
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
HEBREW
VERSION
14 And God said unto
Moses, I WILL BE THAT I
WILL
BE:
and he said,
PROTESTANT
VERSION
14 And God said unto
Moses, I AM THAT I AM:
and he said, Thus shalt
CATHOLIC
VERSION
(Douay)
14 God said to Moses:
I AM WHO I AM. He said:
Thus shalt thou say to
Thou
thou
the children
WIIO
IS
shalt
say
unto
the
children of Israel, I WILL
BE hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, TIIE
EVERLASTING
ONE, the God
of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of
Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name for
ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
say
unto
the
children
of Israel, I AM hath sent
me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, The
LORD God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob, hath sent me
unto you: this is my name
for ever, and this is my
memorial unto all gcnerations.
These parallel quotations of authorized
of
Israel:
RE
hath sent me to
you.
15 And God said again to
Moses: Thus shalt thou
say to the children of
Israel: The Lord God of
your fathers, the God of
the God of
Abraham,
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you:
This is my name for ever,
and this is my memorial
unto all generations.
versions of the Bible are
indisputable
evidence of the deceptive practices that are being perpetrated by the religions represented under the pretense of their knowing
God and preaching salvation in his name. The very lack of agreement
on what the Bible God actually told Moses as to his identity is proof
of its falsity.
If ever there should be unanimity
between people
professing to have received a special dispensation, it is upon the words
If they cannot agree upon so
their God is supposed to have spoken.
fundamental
a matter as the name of God, then what value can be
placed on their statements about less important
matters?
Is the Bible God “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,” or is he “I AM THAT
I AM,” or “I AM WHO I AM”?
Judging from the above quotations,
it seems that something is wrong with the record of what God actually
did say to Moses. In view of these facts, what reliance can be placed
on Bible authority of what Moses said was God’s name?
If God concealed his name from Moses with the statement “I AM
THAT I AM,” then on what basis do the Bible authorities
presume to
give him a name?
latter
If God refused to give his name to Moses when the
was supposed to convince
the Children
of Israel
that he was
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
207
speaking the truth, then how can the word of some other person not so
directly concerned as Moses be accepted on this matter? ‘O
THE
SECOND
DEADLY
PARALLEL
The second deadly parallel which proves the amazing fact that the
Bible does not contain the name of the Hebrew God is without question the most significant revelation that could possibly be made in this
If the foundation be false, the superstructure
study of the Decalogue.
must fall. The proof positive follows in substantiation
of my charge.
I quote Exodus, Chapter 6, verses 2 and 3:
HEBREW
VERSION
2 And God spoke unto
Moses, and said unto him,
I am the Lord:
3 And T appeared unto
Isaac, and unto Jacob, by
the name of God, the Almighty, but by my name
THE
ETERNAL
was I not
made known to them.
PROTESTANT
VERSION
2 And God spake unto
Moses, and said unto him,
I am the Lord:
3 And I appeared unto
Abraham, unto Isaac, and
unto Jacob, by the name
of God Almighty, but by
my name JEHOVAH 8o was
I not known to them.
CATHOLIC VERSION
(Douay)
2 And the Lord spoke to
Moses, saying: I am the
Lord.
3 That appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty; and my name
Adonai I did not shew
them.
The name of the God of Israel, according to the Hebrew Version,
is THE ETERNAL; the Protestant (King James) Version, JEHOVAH; and
the Catholic
(Douay)
Version, ADONAI;
but the significant
fact is
that it is neither THE ETERNAL nor JEHOVAH nor ADONAI.
The leading Biblical authorities today are forced to admit that because of the
taboo placed upon mentioning
the name of the Bible God they do not
79 There is an interesting legend in connection with the magic rod of Moses and the
name of the Deity. The Jewish Encyclopedia
(Vol. 1, p. 5) tells us that Jethro planted
the rod in his garden, where its miraculous virtue was revealed by the h,L LhaL nobody
could withdraw it from the ground, even to touch it being fraught with danger to life.
This was because the Ineffable Name of God was engraved on it. When Moses entered
Jethru’s l~uu~huld, he read 11~ Nuue and, by scam
of it, was able to draw up the rod,
for which service Zipporah, Jethro’s daughter, was given to him in marriage. This rod,
according to Jewish tradition, was in David’s possession, and with its help he slew
Guliath. David left it to his descendants, but with the destruction of the Tcmplc it
miraculously disappeared!
se Sometimes spelled “Yahveh.”
See New Standard Bible Dictionary,
p, 41.
208
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
know the letters that compose, or the proper pronunciation of his
name.81 Because of the fear attached to mentioning the name of the
God of Israel, its actual pronunciation has been completely lost in a
cloud of mystery.
Rabbi Isaac Landman, former editor of the American Hebrew,
and one of the leading Hebrew authorities of the present day, states:
“In obedience to the Third Commandment, the name of God was never
spoken in Biblical times. . . . We do not know how to read the word.
Its pronunciation is lost.” 83 Professor Louis Finkelstein says: “The
precise form of the original pronunciation has been forgotten.”
The Encyclopaedia Biblica adds important testimony by saying that
the explanation offered as to the name of the God of the Old Testament is merely “an attempt to explain a primitive name that had long
since become unintelligible. . . .” “It seems precarious to suppose
that while Hebrew was still a living language, the people should have
been so completely deluded as to the meaning of the most important
sacred name.” 83
Hastings’s Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics likewise states that
to guard against mentioning the name of the Bible God, the Hebrew
laity ceased to pronounce it; the priests mentioned it only at benedictions. After the death of Simon the Just, only the high priests were
permitted
to mention
it, and then only
with
bated
breath
so as to
render it inaudible even to their fellow high priests. Such was the fear
attached to uttering the “unutterable” name of the Hebrew Deity.
Philo, in referring to the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter word
composing the name of the Hebrew Deity, said: “The four letters may
be mentioned or heard only by holy men whose ears and tongues are
purified by wisdom, and by no other in any place whatsoever.” 84
It is also seriously contended that the cruel death which R. Haninan Teraldion suffered in the Hadrian persecution was punishment for
pronouncing God’s “ineffable” name. This accounts for the use of
81 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol.
~32New York Times, Dec. 7,
83 Encyclopaedia
Biblica,
pp.
84 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol.
1, p. 201.
1937.
3322-3323.
1, p. 202.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
209
such appellatives, when referring to the Hebrew Deity, as 9he name
of four letters,” “the great name,” “the great and precious name,”
“the great and holy name,” and again as “the proper, the great, the
wonderful, the hidden, the excellent, the written-but-not-read
name.” 8B
Even Josephus was under the spell of this superstition,
for apparently, judging from his words, he knew the name of the Hebrew
God. He said: “Moses besought God to impart to him knowledge of
His name and its pronunciation
so that he might be able to invoke His
name, hitherto unknown to any man; and it would be a sin for me to.
mention it.” 8G Joseph us’s words reveal the true facts about the name
of the God of Israel.
It was the stigma of sin associated with mentioning the name of God that caused it to be avoided.
It possessed no
value beyond that. After the destruction of the Temple, it was forbidden for a Jew to pronounce the name of the Hebrew Deity under
any circumstances;
if he did, he would “forfeit his portion in the
future world.” 87
In later editions of the Hebrew Bible, published by the Jewish
Publication
Society, the four-letter word JHVH is used to denote the
name of the Hebrew God instead of “The Eternal.” 88 Whether these
four letters form the name of the C;od of Israel, it is impossible at this
late date to know with any degree of certainty.
As they are not taken
from any authoritative
original Hebrew Bible, but from the Masoretic
notes found on the margins of Hebrew Bibles of the Middle Ages,
little reliance can be placed on them. These notes, it is claimed, were
made by the cabalistic Jews who still maintained
their animistic belief
and sought the magic formulas for a Messiah whn would restore their
Temple and their native land to’ them.89
The Hebrew word “Elohim”
is sometimes used, but this is merely
The word “Adonai,”
in the Douay
the plural noun meaning “gods.”
Version, is Hebrew for “Lord,” and does not in any sense reveal the
ss Hastings,
Encyclopaedia,
Vol. 11, p. 296.
*e Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 1, p, 202.
87 Ibid.,
Vol. 9, p. 163.
** Isaac Landman,
New York Times, Dec. 7, 1937.
89 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 1, p. 201.
210
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
name of the Bible God! “Adonai” was used by the early Hebrews to
avoid mentioning the name of their God.O” “Adonai” is found in the
Douay Version of the Bible because this Hebrew superstition was
carried over into Latin Christianity.g1 It is best explained in the
words of the noted Catholic theologian, Origen, who said: “There is a
certain word of four letters which is not pronounced by the Jews . . .
but is read as Adonai, not as it is really written in the four letters,
while among the Greeks it is pronounced the Lord.” g2
Orthodox Hebrews, having been told that “Adonai” was the name
of their God and not knowing his real name, began to avoid using this
word in order to be sure not to violate the provisions of this Commandment. As a result, they substituted “Ado Shem,” which in Hebrew
simply means “name.” This accounts for the widespread use of these
words today when Hebrews refer to their God. If this superstition
continues, it is quite likely that “Ado Shem” will be discontinued for
some other word.
An instance is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia of the power
of this taboo, when an orthodox Hebrew, despite his poverty and
alluring promises of reward, refused to mention the name of the Bible
Deity.Og A similar instance might be given from my own experience
of the pious Catholic who refused to eat meat on Friday, despite a very
tempting dish and a tempting pecuniary rcward.g4
Protestant Christians, not contaminated by this animistic superstition, could see no earthly reasnn for not mentioning the name of
God, or any other name, for that matter. They translated the fourletter word mentioned by Origen and found in the Masoretic notes in
Hebrew Bibles, by inserting the vowels of the word “Adonai” between
each two letters, thus originating the word JeHoVaH. Even the New
QQAs previously stated, they now use “Ado Sbem” to avoid saying “Adonai.”
91 Catholic Rnryrlnfiedin,
Vol. 1, p. 146. The word “Adonai,” used in this translation,
is the way it was pronounced, but not as written.
Q2 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 2, p. 35.
95 Catholic
Encyclopedia,
Vol.
8, p 329.
Q* This is an instance of how easily we can discern useless superstitious
others, but fail to notice our own.
beliefs
in
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
211
Starzduvd BibZe Dictiortary is forced to admit that “the form Jehovah
is impossible, according to the strict principles of the Hebrew vocalization. It is due to the arbitrary transference of the vowels of adhorzay,
‘Lord,’ to the sacred name JHVH after the Jews became overscrupulous as to the pronunciation of the Name.” OK
The word “Jehovah” has been characterized as an “etymological
misadventure.” OS. It has absolutely no meaning or power, and to all
intents and purposes might be “abracadabra.” It is a trick of religion
to throw words together that sound imposing but have no meaning.
Because Jehovah is not the name of the God of Israel, its use is
being discontinued in the proposed edition of the new American
Standard Bible and “Lord” substituted as the name of the Hebrew
Deity. The change is being made, according to Professor Julius A.
Brewer of Union Theological Seminary, “because the term ‘Jehovah’
has not been favorably accepted by American churches.” This is an
open confession that the name of the Bible God is not known. Jehovah
is an improvisation of the supposed name of the Hebrew God. It is a
deliberately falsified name of the Hebrew Deity. Both Christians and
Jews have been deceived for centuries, Millions who are worshiping
Jehovah as God are simply worshiping a meaningless name.
TTTLE
VERSUS NAME
This Commandment distinctly says, “Thou shalt not take the rtame
of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless
who taketh His name in vain.” The words “Lord” and “God” are
titles, not names, just as are King and Ruler, Pope and Pontiff, President and Chief Executive.
The Almighty, Adonai, Creator, Elnhim, Lord, the Eternal-these
are merely synonyms for the title of the “King of Heaven” and the
“Supreme Ruler of the Universe.” “God” is the title of the deity of
the Children of Israel; it is not his secret or sacred name.
King George VI of England is not the name of the present head of
95 Standard BibZe Dictionary,
p. 418.
06 Landman, New York
Times,
Dec. 7, 1937.
212
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the British Empire; it is merely his title. His real name is Albert
Frederick Arthur George Windsor. The President of the United States
is the title of the Chief Executive of this country. The name of the
President is Harry S. Truman. Pope Pius XII is not the name
of the present Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church; that is his
title. His real name is Eugenio Mary Joseph John Pacelli. Their
names in their respective positions as King, President or Pope have
power, but beyond that there is no more secret power in their names
than in mine.
The whole idea of not mentioning the name of a God, even if he
existed, is a silly, childish one, born in the brain of superstitious man
and fit only for the ignorant time in which it was practised. If it was
considered a frightful crime to mention the supposed name of God in
Biblical times, what change has taken place that permits it to be
spoken now with impunity? Judging from the reward bestowed upon
the observers of the Second Commandment, I think we can with complete assurance also disregard the punishment implied for the violation
of this one.
BLASPHEMY
This Commandment also introduced a new sin into the world. To
protect the name of fmd, rcliginn invented the crime nf blasphemy,
and in defense of this nameless deity, man’s inhumanity to man began.
When Robert G. Ingersoll was denounced as “the champion blasphemer of America,” he replied: “Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed
by superstition upon common sense. Whoever investigates a religion
as he would any department of science is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts a priest; whoever has the impudence to use his own
reason; whoever is brave enough to express his honest thought, is a
blasphemer. When the missionary speaks slightingly of the wooden
god of a savage, the savage regards him as a blasphemer. To laugh at
the pretensions of Mohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To
say in St. Peter’s that Mohammed was a prophet of God is blasphemy.
There was a time when to acknowledge the divinity of Christ in
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
213
Jerusalem was blasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemy in
New York.” O7
The Biblical example that has justified the cruelest punishment for
the slightest
suspicion
of casting aspersions
QP
the; Bible Deity iS
found in Leviticus, Chapter 24, verses 10 to 16:
10 And the son of an Israelitish woman,
whose father was an Egyptian, went out
among the children of Israel: and this son
of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel
strove together in the camp;
11 And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed.
And they brought him unto Moses: (and
his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)
12 And they put him in ward, that the
mind of the Lord might be shewed them.
13 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay
their hands upon his head, and let all the
congregation stone him.
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children
of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God
shall bear his sin.
16 And he that blasohemeth the name of
the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and
all the congregation shall certainly stone him:
as well the stranger, as he that is born in the
land,
when he blasphemeth the name of the
Lovd,
shall be put to death.
The above passage may well be considered the cornerstone of
religious intolerance. For this crime of preferring the god of his
father to that of the god of another tribe, ‘I. . . they put him in ward,
that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them.”
Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘(Bring forth him that
hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their
hands upon his head and let all the congregation stone him.” After
this was done, and as an additional warning, the Hebrew God again
instructs Moses to warn the Children of Israel that “whosoever curseth
his God shall bear his sin.” As a result of this injunction, as a sups?Ingersoll
Works,
Dresden Edition,
Vol. 5, p. 50.
214
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
porting warning to this Commandment, a curse was placed on the
mentality of man. Thinking became a crime. Nearly every country
that came under the stultifying and brutalizing influence of the Bible
enacted laws in conformity
with these edicts and executed them with
ever-increasing ferocity.
Equally pernicious and far more obnoxious is the following from
Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 6 to 11:
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or
thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy
bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own
soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go
and serve other gods, which thou hast not
known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which
are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far
off from thee, from the one end of the earth
even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt
thou conceal him:
9 But thou
shalt
surely kill him; thinc hand
shall be first upon him to put him to death,
and afterward the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones,
that he die ; because he hath sought to thrust
thee away from the Lord thy God, which
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from
the house of bondage.
11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and
shall do no more any such wickedness as this
is among you:
Nowhere in the annals of religious intolerance is there to be found
a more devilish doctrine than the one contained in these verses. It
must be repeated for its full significance to be realized: “If thy
brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife
of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,” should seek
to wean you away from the God of Israel to some other god, no matter
who or where he might be, not only must you not hearken unto him
but “thou shalt surely kill him;
. . . thou shalt stone him with stones,
that he die. . . .” Why? What monstrous crime is involved in such
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
21.5
an act that father should inform against son, brother against brother,
friend against friend, and every human relationship
be trampled underfoot?
These
Biblical
citations
have
been
further
elnbnrated
hy thenlq$-l
leaders in justification
of a continuance
of this barbarous doctrine.
Thomas Aquinas calls blasphemy “an offense directly against God”;
he says it “outweighs murder, which is an offense against our neighbor.
The blasphemer intends to wound the honor of God.” 98 “Wounding
the honor of God.”
What a crime!
Its frightful history shows that
blasphemy can be used as a shield to meet all conditions and suit all
purposes.
To the Hebrews, whose forefathers wrote this Commandment, the greatest blasphemy is to call Jesus “God,” and to the Christians the greatest blasphemy is to say that he is not. The people of
one religion hold the God of another religion in the utmost contempt.
Each condemns the other for worshiping a false God, and each denounces the other as an infidel and blasphemer.
In England, in the year 1754, a bequest to propagate Judaism by
reading the Bible daily was declared invalid by the Lord Chancellor
on the ground that it was blasphemy to the Christian religion.D9
‘The Catholic Encyclopedia
defines blasphemy as “a sin against the
virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him
as our first beginning and last end.“loO
It further states that “blasphemy is of its whole nature a mortal sin, the gravest that may be
committed
against religion.
The seriousness
01 an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed.
Since
the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the
degree of its heinousness must be evident..” loi
Medieval canon law, dictated by the Church, provided many
and
various penalties for the blasphemer.
One was that he “was compelled
to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass
for seven Sundays, and on the last of the three days, divested of cloak
0s Westermarck,
Morals,
Vol. 2, p, 640.
Q* Banner,
rcrcazticsupun Opi7zion, p. 35.
1OO Catholic
Encycloficdia,
Vol. 2, p. 595.
lo1 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 596.
THE
216
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck.” loa Obligations of fasting and almsgiving were likewise imposed under the heaviest penalties.
Pope Pius V insisted upon rigorous penalties for those
rruilty nf this “heinous
sin.”
If flogging was not sufficient to purge the
penitent of his sin, his tongue was pierced and he was then sent to the
galleys.
The Jewish Encyclopedia
defines blasphemy as “the evil of profane
speaking of God.”
In Jewish law, as in nearly all laws of different
peoples, blasphemy consists not in “the evil of profane speaking” of
the gods of other peoples, but only of the god of their own peopIe.
Josephus is the authority for the statement that in early Jewish law
“a Jew who blasphemed a heathen deity was not guiIty of the crime
of blasphemy”;
yet a heathen might be guilty if he blasphemed the
name of the Bible Deity.lo3
Likewise, “the death penalty was inflicted
only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God’s attributes was subject to corporal punishment.”
lo4
Even during the taking of testimony in the course of a blasphemy
trial in early Jewish courts, the witness was not permitted
to repeat
the words ‘condemned as blasphemous.
Certain words and phrases
were substituted
for them.
At the conclusion of the trial, however,
since it was necessary that the words of the actual blasphemy
be
mentioned before the verdict could be rendered, all persons not immediately concerned with the trial were ordered out of the room. The
chief witness was then ordcrcd to “state literally
what you heard.”
When he repeated the blasphemous words, “the judges stood up and
rent
their
garments,
that
being
the common
sign
of mourning.”
The
‘%ent” in the garments was not sewed up, to indicate the profound
degree of mourning in expiation for having heard God’s name blasphemed.lo5
lo2 Catholic
Encyclopedia,
IO8 Trachtenberg,
JewisJz
104 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 2, p. 596.
MU&G
wzd
Sw$vz~&ion,
Vol.
3, p. 237.
Vol. 3, p. 237.
IO5 According to R. Hiyya, “the rend of garments was no longer required after the
fall of the temple,” having been sup~radd
by this dictum:
“Hc who hears blasphemy
nowadays is not obliged to rend garments, because otherwise his garments would be
nothing but tatters.” Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 3, p. 237.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
217
During the Inquisition,
the accusation of blasphemy was used as
a means of extortion.
Upon the slightest pretext, a designing Inquisitor would invoke the charge against the person whose property or
daughter or wife he coveted, and nearly always with success106 If in
a moment of despair a poor wretch muttered to himself, “I renounce
God,” he found himself in the clutches of these religious bandits.
The
penalties he suffered are only too well recorded in historical records.lo7
Although savage cruelty was visited on unfortunates for the slightest infringement
of religious duties, blasphemy was even more vigorously condemned.
All other sins were holy in comparison with this
great heresy; blasphemy, being the worst of sins, was punished the
most severely.
On the authority
of the Bible itself-in
fact, in the
words of the Bible God who delighted in the extermination
of his
enemies-neither
age nor sex stayed the hand of those who sought to
inflict on the blasphemers the most frightful
punishment
they felt
their God wanted them to inflict.
Indeed, it was considered exemplary
Christian conduct to find pleasure in contemplating
the anguish of the
sinner.los
“Christians have burnt each other, quite persuaded that all
the Apostles would have done as they did.” lo9
One of the first autos-da-f6 to be held in Paris was for a victim
charged with blasphemy, Marguerite
de Hainault,
who had written a
book explaining her doctrine of the soul. It was condemned as blasphemous and burned by Gui II, Bishop of Cambria.
She persisted in
expounding her belief and fell into the clutches of F&-c. Guillaume
of
Paris. For eighteen months, having been excommunicated,
she lay in
an inquisitorial
dungeon await.ing trial.
The fnrmality
of a trial was
quickly accomplished.
Conviction
having followed the inquiry, she
was burnt at the stake the following day.llO
In 1539, Catherine, wife of Melchier Weygel, was burned at Cracow in Poland for the crime of blasphemy, which consisted in believing
lo’3 Henry Charles Lea,
Inquisition
in
the
Spanish
of
tLc
Middle
Defwzdencies,
p. 391.
107 Ibid.
IoR Lea,
History
of tkc Inquisition
1~ Lord Byron, Don Juan.
llOLea,
op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 123.
Ages,
Vol.
1, pp.
236,
238,
240.
218
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“in the existence of one God, creator of all the visible and all the
invisible world, who could not be conceived by human intelligence.”
111
By the laws of Christian V of Denmark, in 1683, blasphemers were
beheaded after having their tongues cut out.l12 Similar laws prevailed
in other countries during the Dark Ages. Pulling out the tongue of
the heretic before he was bound to the stake was to prevent him from
committing
further blasphemy.
If anyone escaped burning at the
stake, “all his goods shall be confiscated, and upon his forehead shall
be branded with the letter B.”
In order to show to what extent fanaticism in defense of a mythical
God can pervert people, it is necessary, I believe, to give a number of
illustrations
of the severity of the punishment despite the harmlessness
of the “blasphemy.”
It was the opinion of King Louis IX (the only French king who
was canonized by the Church) that “a man ought to drive into the
heretic’s entrails as far as he can.” I13 It was this child of the Church
who recovered for his country the inestimable
relic, the crown of
thorns. The enormous price that was paid was used as an argument
for its authenticity,
despite the fact that the Abbey of St. Denys was
in possession of another one, considered equally authentic!
II*
In June, 1797, a poor bookseller named Williams
was tried before
Lord Kenyou 01 Lor~dun lor selling a “bla5phemous”
book-Thomas
Paine’s Age of Reason. He was prosecuted by a group composed of
the Bishop of London and other high dignitaries of the Church.
The
services of the noted Thomas Erskine, later Lord Chancellor, were
employed against the poor and defenseless man to make sure that a
conviction would be secured. Lord Kenyon, in his charge to the jury,
stated that “every attack upon Christianity
must, as such, be illegal.”
Naturally,
after such a charge, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.
Several days after the trial, while Mr. Erskine was walking through
Holborn, a section of London, a woman seized him by his coat. She
111 Encyclopaedia
I**
Lea,
IIistory
Britannica
of tlzc
113 Draper,
Intellectual
114 Ibid., p. 79.
(13th
Isquisition
Development
Edition),
Vol. 27, p. 594.
of tlrc Middle
rlgcs, Vol. 1, p. 235.
of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 73.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
219
dragged him to a miserable room where Williams,
the bookseller, lay
The
in bed with his three children, desperately fighting smallpox.
woman pleaded with him, in the name of humanity,
not to send her
Mr. Erskine was so deeply touched by this pitiful
husband to jail.
sight and the heart-rending
appeal of the poor woman that he sug
gested to the bishops that they suspend judgment on this man, already
punished with poverty and sickness, So deeply “touched” were these
bishops, and so overwhelming
was their “Christian
compassion,” that
the day following the receipt of Mr. Erskine’s appeal, they enclosed a
note with his fee urging him to press the court’s judgment upon Williams.
Astounded at their heartlessness, Mr. Erskine returned their
fee and drew a pen through the retainer as counsel for the society,
“because they love judgment rather than mercy.”
Williams
was sentenced to serve one year in prison and to be bound in his own recognizance for $S,OOO! On hearing the sentence, he asked the court
whether, in view of his illness, he might not have the indulgence of a
bed!
To this the great-hearted
Christian,
Mr. Justice Ashhurst,
replied: “I cannot order that. I daresay you will be treated properly.
I wish to have it understood that this sentence is a very great abatement of the punishment, as in modern times, within the period I have
sat in Westminster
Hall, three years’ imprisonment
has been ordered
for an offense of much less enormity than this, for this publication
is
horrible to the ears of a Christian.”
115 What a penalty to pay for
selling one copy of The Age of Reasonf
Fourteen years after the conviction
of Williams,
Daniel Isaac
Eaton, another bookseller, also sold a copy of The Age of Reason.
He, too, was charged with having committed blasphemy.
Lord Ellenborough, in instructing the jury empaneled to try Eaton, said: “I leave
it to YOUas twelve Christian men to decide whether this is not a most
blasphemous and impious libel.”
And they did, They found Eaton
guilty as charged. And so this infirm man of sixty years was sentenced
to serve eighteen months in prison and to stand on the pillory fronl
II5 Banner, Penalties
upon
Opinion,
pp. 33-35.
220
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
twelve to one o’clock once a month!
Age of Reason!
All for selling oozecopy of The
llB
In January, 1819, Richard Carlisle was arrested on a charge of
blasphemous libel for having published Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. As part of his defense, Mr. Carlisle proceeded to read The Age
of Reason in justification of its publication. The judge, Chief Justice
Abbott, refused to permit it on the ground that it would be reiterating
the libel, and stated that “to sit here and hear the Holy Scriptures
calumniated is what I ought not to do.” Richard Carlisle was convicted, imprisoned for three years, and ordered to pay a fine of $4,500.
Not having the sum to pay his fine, he served an additional term of
three years. Immediately upon his conviction, Carlisle’s wife committed the same “act of blasphemy” by selling a copy of The Age of
Reason; she was imprisoned for two years, and was followed to prison
by Carlisle’s sister, who received the same sentence. In their battle
for freedom of thought, even the shopmen of Carlisle committed the
same “blasphemous” act, and each in turn was imprisoned until at one
time it was eslirnated that more than 150 persons were jailed for selling
this book, The public at last became so outraged at this prostitution
of justice that an age of rca~~rt finally fell or was forced upon the
judges of England, and since that time not a single person has been
convicted for selling Thomas Paine’s book. Hundreds of thousands of
copies have since been sold with impunity.ll’
If The Age of Reasoti was a blasphemous libel in the times of
Williams the bookseller, what has caused it to be looked upon today
as one of the most remarkable books ever written? The answer lies
in the emancipation of the human mind from the criminal superstitions
of religion, and in the growing disbelief in the brutal Bible God.
On May 24, 1842, George Jacob Holyoake, a mathematics teacher
and social philosopher, lectured at the Mechanics Institute in London
on “Home Colonization as a Means of Superseding the Poor Laws and
Emigration.” At the conclusion of his address, which nearly everyone
116Bonner, PenaMes upon Opinion, pp. 35,36.
117 Ibid., p. 46.
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
221
in the audience considered scholarly and erudite, a question period
was permitted. A local preacher took advantage of this opportunity
to be heard, and stated that although Mr. Holyoake had told the
members of the audience of their duty to man, he had not told them
of their duty to God, and asked whether there should not be churches
and chapels in the community as outlined by the speaker. To this
Mr. Holyoake replied :
“Our National Church and general religious institutions cost us,
upon accredited computation, about twenty million pounds annually.
Worship thus being expensive, I appeal to your heads and your
pockets whether we are not too poor to have a God. If poor men
cost the State as much, they would be put like officers on half
pay; and while our distress lasts, I think it would be wise to do the
same thing with the deity. Thus far I object, as a matter of political
economy, to build chapels in communities.
If others want them,
they have themselves to please; but I cannot propose them. Morality I regard, but I do not believe there is such a thing as God.” ‘Is
and charged with
blasphemy. For more than nine hours he addressed the jury in an
For this explanation
eloquent
and learned
Mr. Holyoake
appeal
that
was arrested
freedom
of speech
was
a priceless
heritage of mankind, that liberty of opinion was essential to the progress
and happiness
of man,
and that
blasphemy
offense.
The jury, however, found him guilty,
to six months in prison1 Tn his day, blasphemy
was
an imaginar-y
and he was sentenced
was a “worse
poison
to man’s soul than even nitroglycerine to their bodies.” II9
I do not know of a more pertinent comment on this barbarous
decision than the words of Mr. Holyoake himself in regard to his
imprisonment. He recounts the following as he starts to serve his
prison sentence: “My little daughter, Madaline, ran from her mother’s
knee to the door, when she found I had gone, and called after me
down the street. Her sweet, ‘clear voice arrested me. I looked back
and saw her dark, black eyes gleaming. I never met her glance again,
118Bonner, Penalties
118 Ibid., p. 87.
upon
Opinion,
p.
63.
222
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
nor heard her voice any more.” He continues: “Word was sent me
that my child was ill, and then a letter came saying that she was dead.
. . . The sole income of home was from subscriptions from friends in
various parts of the country. . . . A few days before the fever took
the child, her mother was carrying her through Bull Street, Birmingham, when she cried from hunger for a bun in a window. There was
no penny to buy it.” I20 This conviction for blasphemy and the penalty suffered by George Jacob Holyoake satisfied God’s representatives on earth and appeased his wrath in heaven.
In another case of blasphemy, about the same time, testimony was
offered to certify to the high character of the defendant, a Mr. George
Adams, but the judge refused to permit it, stating that “had Adams
committed a robbery, such a character might have weight, but in
extenuation of religious offenses it was of no service.”
In 1920, in the State of Maine, a man was criminally prosecuted
for laughing at a pigeon in a painting that was supposed to represent
the Holy Ghost! His crime consisted in this remark: “How can the
Holy Ghost be God when she is afraid a cat will kill her?” X2’
Recently, in the Dominion of Canada, an editor was charged with
blasphemy.
IIe
was tried
and
convicted.
After
imposing
a sentence
of sixty days in jail for his crime, the learned judge had this to say:
“We
have
ever been taught
to reverence
the name
of God.
We regard
the taking of his name in vain as a sin. We look upon the Bible as
the very basis of good law in our country. It has always been painful
to hear any person question any part of the Bible.” The above
remarks are quoted by the Rev. Frederick David Niedermeyer, and
his comment is worth repeating as a revealing attitude upon this
matter. He says: “The attitude expressed by that outstanding jurist
is based upon God’s revelation of Himself through His words, and
upon love for Him .” 122 If this is the position of a present-day clergyman and the conviction of a present-day judge, then one can well
120 Frank Swancara, Obstruction of Justice by Religion, RD. 239-241.
121 Idem, p. 244.
122 Rev. F. D. Niedermeyer, The Ten Commandments Today, p. 59.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
223
understand with what severity the name of God was protected during
the Middle Ages.
After the death of his wife Harriet, Percy Bysshe Shelley tried to
regain the custody of his children, of whom he had been deprived as
the result of his unfortunate
marital difficulties.
His petition to the
court was opposed on the ground that he had published
a blasphemous book for which he had been expelled from Oxford College.
He had also been guilty of writing in defense of the poor bookseller
Williams.
On March 17, 1817, Lord Chancellor
Eldon gave judgment against Shelley, prohibiting
him from taking possession of, or
Their education was assigned to a
associating with, his children.
clergyman of the Church of England, to be paid for by their father.123
What a mockery!
I do not know a more appropriate
summation
of this discussion
of blasphemy than these words of Shelley, which so graphically
depict the heartlessness of those who believe in God but deny to others
the right to disbelieve.
“I was an infant when my mother went
To see an atheist burned. She took me there:
The dark-robed
priests
were met around the pile;
The multitude was gazing silently;
And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien,
Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye,
Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth:
The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs;
His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon;
His death pang rent my heart! the insensate mob
Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept.
‘Weep not, child!’ cried my mother, ‘for that man
Has said, ‘Thcrc is no Cod.’ ”
With what hardness of steel and
religion and the “love” of God petrify
On one occasion, when delivering a
of Biblical
characters for their part
123Bonner, op. cit., p. 36.
with what coldness of ice do
the human heart!
lecture, I denounced a number
in some particular-ly
fiendish
224
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
acts, and when the names of Moses and David were mentioned,
a
man in the audience quickly left the hall. When seen after the lecture, he was asked why he had left so suddenly, and replied that he
did not intend to remain and suffer the possibility
of being killed if
God should wreak his vengeance upon those in the audience for listenirtg to my blasphemy. 1 Here the taboo of this Commandment
extends
merely to listening to others who may be guilty of violating
it. It
is not uncommon, particularly
in religious discussions, to see people
put their hands over their ears so that they will not be able to hear
what they consider “taking the name of the Lord in vain.”
If modern man, with all the intellectual
development
that has
taken place since this Commandment
was formulated,
with all the
educational
facilities at his disposal to become acquainted with the
facts of the Bible and the truths of the universe, can still become so
mentally paralyzed by such a fear, then what must have been the
effect of this Commandment
upon the grossly ignorant and the superstitiously credulous people of primitive
times when almost everyone
was “afraid of his own shadow”!
It is impossible for me to believe in the Bible God. My mind
rebels against it. I cannot help but louk upun this God as “an inlmman wretch, incapable of pity, void and empty from any dram of
mercy,” an ignorant force that has stupefied the brain of man and
paralyzed the intellect with fear. I denounce this God with all the
energy I possess, and if this be blasphemy, then make the most of it.
THE
CLERGY
AND
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
One of the most amazing things I have discovered in analyzing
the Decalogue is the ignorance of the clergy concerning the origin and
meaning of the Commandments.
For more than a thousand years,
billions and billions of dollars have been spent building
institutions
for the specific purpose of inculcating
the doctrines of the Bible,
on the assumption that these Commandments
were a special revelation from God; and millions and millions of men and women have
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
225
devoted their energies to this useless task.
The salvation of the
soul was dependent not only on the strict observance of these socalled Commandments
of God, but also on the acceptance of everything else in the Bible as “inspired
knowledge”-indisputable
facts
and incontestable
truths of life to the contrary notwithstanding.
Anyone who dared to question these dogmatic edicts of the Bible was
summarily
suppressed.
That a civilized world shouId engage itself in
not only a useless and fruitless endeavor, but one that has the most
demoralizing
and stultifying
results, is hardly believable.
The labors of men and women in writing and printing
endless
volumes of “explanation”
of Biblical
doctrines furnish only one
example of wasted energy. Nowhere is this better illustrated
than in
the books of the clergy offering their explanations
of this particular
Commandment,
and the code of conduct to be followed in its observance.
Dean Farrar gives this inspired opinion:
“The
ordinary
notion
of this
Third
Commandment
is that
it
forbids profanity and perjury; and therefore those who are guilty
of neither think that it little concerns them. But ‘the word of God
is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword; and
pierceth even to the dividing of the soul and spirit, of both joints
and marrow,
and is quick
to discern
the thoughts
and intents
of the
heart.’ . . . And before I have ended, even the most self-satisfied
of us may well tremble lest we too should stand within the judgment
of this Third Commandment, for its violation is practical Atheism.
Thou takest His name in vain when thou triest to forget or to
ignore
Him;
to live without
Him;
and, yet more defiant
than
the
very devils, to believe, yet not to tremble.” lz6
This explanation
is an example of the religious fanaticism
that
dominated
the mentality
of the clergy during the early part of this
century.
An already overstimulated
imagination
reached the breaking point in appraising the Bible Deity, and any act that could be
construed as nut conforming
with the most slavish devotion to this
lz4Dean Farrar, Voice
fvom
Sinai, pp. 132, 137.
226
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
tyrant of the sky was considered a breach for which the culprit was
to receive punishment
that might well make him “tremble.”
The Rev. J. C. Masse widens the field of acts which violate this
Commandment,
saying: “. . . Every man or woman who violates in
thought, desire or deed the marriage vow or the marriage relation has
blasphemed the Holy Name”;
equally culpable are “church members
who have changed residence without changing church membership.”
lz5
In studying religion, and particularly
its exposition by its leaders,
one wonders how people not unintelligent
in other fields can be so
mentally
unbalanced
in explaining
religious conduct.
If the Rev.
J. C. Masse says that “every man or woman who violates in thought,
desire or deed the marriage vow or the marriage relation”
violates
this Commandment,
then let me ask him what acts violate the Seventh
Commandment.
I have read many explanations
of what constitutes
a violation of this Commandment,
but “church members who have
changed residence without changing church membership”
is a new
one. Beware, you roving church members who fail to let your local
preacher expound his doctrine of hell-fire, or take the consequences
of violating this Commandment
!
The Rev. G. Campbell Morgan says that “a man takes the name
of God in vain when he does not use it in the way God intended it
should bc used, when he himself is not true to the rcvclation of God
that the name makes.” lsB One of the purposes of this study of the
Decalogue is to understand the Commandments
so as to be able tn
determine what their meaning is and what must be done to observe
them.
This “explanation”
only adds confusion to confusion.
How
does anybody know how God “intended”
us to use his name?
It is
difficult enough to understand the meaning of the written words that
God is supposed to have said without attempting
to presume what
he also intended.
What is the revelation
of God that the name
makes?
How can anyone be true to such a thing when he hasn’t
the slightest conception of its meaning?
The Rev. G. Campbell
125 Rev. J. C. Masse, Gospel in the Ten Commandments, pp. 53, 58.
IzaMorgan, The Ten Commandments, p, 37.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
227
Morgan’s explanation
that every man is a law unto himself in this
matter may account for the vast number of religiously
insane who
have attempted
to observe this Commandment
as “God intended it
should be used.”
What religious hallucinations
have not resulted
from the attempt to be “true to the revelation of God that the name
makes”!
As further evidence of the qualification
of the Rev. G. Campbell
Morgan to speak with authority on this subject, the following public
statement is pertinent:
(‘ ‘You must not believe these lying spirits,’ was the answer today
at the twenty-first annual general Bible conference of the Stony
Brook Assembly of the Rev. Dr. G. Campbell Morgan of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to reports that Dr. Morgan had given up his
belief in the second coming of Christ, thereby surrendering his
views as a premillennialist.
“ ‘I understand
that someone on the campus
has questioned
my
belief in the second coming of the Lord,’ said Dr. Morgan, ‘and my
premillennial views as to his return. You must not believe these
lying spirits. If I did not believe in the second coming of our Lord
and his glorious return as the only hope for the world, I would
quit preaching.’ ” 1~
In reaffirming his faith in the second coming of Christ, does the
Rev. G. Campbell Morgan mean to imply that some of his brother
clergymen violated this Commandment
by their false accusation as to
his changing his beliefs on this matter?
Or are they observing it
according to his own explanation
by claiming that their expression
was the way God “intended”
them to speak?
This gem of wisdom comes from the brain of the Rev. John Anderson Powell, Jr., Ph.D.:
“Hypocrisy
and profanity,
perjury a.nd
irreverence, these are the sins against which the Third Commandment is directed.” 12* He also states, in his discussion of this Commandment, that “we have come to a pretty poor pass when profanity
on the stage is thought to be funny,” and gives as an illustration,
*W New York Times, Aug. 31, 1930.
I** Rev. John A. Powell, Jr., Ten Commandments,
p. 37,
228
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“when some woman came out to sing a song in which she used God’s
name coupled with the proverbial ‘damn.’ ” 12g
For the edification of the Rev. Mr. Powell, I wish to state emphatically
that this Commandment
has absolutely nothing whatever
to do with profanity, perjury or irreverence.
“Profanity”
is merely
a vulgarization
of speech; “irreverence”
has to be defined, as it differs
according to time, place and thing.
The Roman Catholics condemn
those who do not accept their religious tenets as being irreverent, and
I am irreverent for not accepting yours.
The Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin tells us that “this Commandment
was primarily
a safeguard for the sanctity of oaths . . . ,” and that
“it requires no small effort to fulfill our Lord’s Commandment
to
make our yea exactly yea, and our nay precisely nay.” 130 If “this
Commandment
was primarily
a safeguard for the sanctity of oaths,”
what was the Ninth Commandment
intended for?
Rabbi Isaac Warsaw says that this Commandment
“is intended to
be a lesson in reverence.” 131 Reverence for what?
For so-called
“holy things”-and
what are they?
Did Mark Twain
violate this
Commandment
in his book, Innocents A broad, when he poked fun at
the ugly and repulsive statues of the saints in the Vatican, and the
ridiculous adoration of them by their slavish devotees?
Who is to
say what
are the holy things to be reverenced,
and who is to dctcrminc
the standard of reverent conduct?
The Rev. John Alexander Hayes implies that. to protect God’s
name against misuse, it should have been registered in the United
States Patent Office like any other trade-mark!
132 That is indeed
a splendid idea. The licensee should pay well for the privilege of its
use, and infringers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law. In this way, too, all criticism of the Bible would be prohibited
as in violation of patent rights. He also states that “this Commandment is violated . . . by calling into question the truth of scriptural
12eRev. John A. Powell, Jr., Ten Commandments, pp. 31, 32.
130
Rev. H. S. Coffin, Ten Commnn&~~tr,
pp. 53, <7.
la* Rabbi Isaac Warsaw, Broken Tablets, p. 83.
I32 Rev. John Alexander Hayes, The Ten Commandments,
p. 59.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
229
statements . . . jesting at holy things, such as the Holy Scriptures
and the Church of God . . . it forbids making a mockery of sin.” 133
Rabbi Nathan Krass, formerly of Temple Emanu-El,
New York
City, says : “When a man pretends he is a saint and is living in a
state of sinless perfection, using the Church of God to place himself
on a pedestal above his fellows, he violates the Third Commandment
by taking the name of God in vain, merely through his hypocrisy.” 134
If every person who places himself on a pedestal above his fellowman
violates this Commandment,
then the majority
of the religionists
are
the greatest offenders.
They consider themselves as having supreme
religious authority on the assumption of being vicars of ‘God on earth.
Do not ministers of religion pretend that their prayers obtain better
results than those of parishioners?
The similarity
of the quotations by these clergymen leads one to
the conclusion that they all must have got their ideas from the same
source. Each seems to. have repeated the mistaken
notion of the
other, and all combined show their complete ignorance of what this
Commandment
is supposed to mean.
They use such expressions as
profanity,
reverence, perjury, without the slightest understanding
of
what these words mean in relation to this Commandment.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
AND
OATHS
Does this Commandment
really deal with the question of invoking the name of God to prevent the crime we call perjury, or
with the sanctity of an oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth”?
If it were intended to prevent perjury, why
was it not more explicit?
If it were intended to prevent lying, either
in a court of law or anywhere else, it was a simple thing to state this
plainly.
If this Commandment
said, “Thou shalt not lie,” and warned
that “I the Lord thy God will not hold him guiltless who disobeys this
Commandment,”
then there would be no question as to its meaning.
133 Hayes,
134
Paterson
The Ten Commandments,
(N.J.)
Evening
News,
pp. 59-61.
Oct. 24, 1930.
230
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
But no such interpretation was intended by the one who wrote this
Commandment. When it was promulgated, modern jurisprudence was
not in existence.
As we have previously noted, this Commandment was written for
one specific purpose, and this has not changed in the slightest degree.
For the clergy to interpret it in any other way than as a primitive
taboo associated with mentioning the name of one’s god is indisputable
evidence of their utter lack of understanding of its real meaning. In
fact, to invoke the name of God in taking an oath is in &self a violation of this Commandment
and not an act in observance
of it.la5
If society depended only upon invoking the name of the Bible
Deity when taking an oath, to secure the truth in legal matters, I fear
that our entire system of jurisprudence would crumble into dust.
Taking an oath, with the hand upon the Bible, and invoking the name
of God, has ahnut. as much effect. as any
other ridiculous and mean-
ingless gesture.136
If this practice caused people to tell the truth, we should have
no need for prosecuting attorneys. Instead, the moment a witness is
sworn in and gives his testimony, he is immediately subjected to a
searching and relentless cross-examination by the opposing attorney
to prove that the testimony which he swore was the truth, was a premeditated lie! Significant is a statement of the Hon. Joseph N.
Ulman, Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of Baltimore, Maryland, in an article entitled “Perjury in the Courts.” He wrote that
some of the most shameless lying he ever listened to was done by rival
13s Because the Hebrews refused, as a specific observance of this Commandment,
to
invoke the name of God when required to do soin a court of law, they were regarded
with susnicion. This contributed to intensifying the prejudice already incurred by their
observance of the Second Commandment, and aggravated the anti-Semiticattitude
Hastings, Encyclopaedia, Vol. 5, p. 434.
already grown to menacing proportions.
136 The following is a good illustration: “A witness was being sworn. The judge
noticed that he was not holding up his right hand. He said to the clerk, ‘Let the witness
hold up his right hand.’ ‘His right arm was cut off,’ replied the clerk. ‘Let him hold
LID his left, then. ‘That was shot off, your Honor.’ ‘Well, then let him raise one foot;
Hastings,
no man can be sworn in this court without holding something UP.“’
Encyclo~aedia, Vol. 5, p. 315.
THE
THIRD
COMMANDMENT
231
groups of religious trustees in a contest over the control
Of some
church property.13’
The use of an object, sacred or otherwise, or invoking
a curse,
as ;t pledge to tell the truth,
is a custom that belongs to the primitive
past, and its prevalence among the Biblical Hebrews attests to its
primitive
origin.
For such a system to be practised in our courts
of law is to place us on the same footing as ignorant tribal groups.
Oath-taking
is a form of sympathetic
magic and is a survival of the
belief in animism.
The fear of magic power accounts for oaths
being associated with the curse of retribution.
Attesting by the name
of a deity prevails in many primitive
societies, as it is believed that
treaties and business transactions
are not binding otherwise.
The Negroes of Loango believe that Zambi, their supreme being,
who punishes fraud and perjury, uses his name in giving testimony.
The god Leaa ul the Awemba, who rewards the good and punishes
thieves, murderers and adulterers, is invoked both in blessings and
curses; the injured man prays that Leza will send a lion to devour
the evildoer.
In the Ewe-speaking Ho tribe on the Slave Coast, the
grea.t god Maws, who is said to inflict punishment
on the wicked, is
frequently appealed to in law cases by the judge as well as by the plaintiff and the accused. The Mpongwe, we are told, always invoke
Mwetyi, their supreme being, as a witness when a covenant is about
to be formed among the different tribes.
He is commissioned
with
the duty of visiting vengeance on the party who violates the contract.
Without
this, their national treaties would have little or no force.
And when a law is passed which the people wish to be especially binding, they invoke the vengeance of Mwetyi upon the transgressor;
this, as a general thing, is ample guarantee for its observance.13*
In Egypt especially, it was the belief that there were certain gods
who were the guardians of the truth.
Truth, “the judge in heaven,”
was invoked when the person’s words were intended to convey the
I37 American
Mercury,
13* Westermarck, Morals,
May,
1935,
Vol. 2,
p. 95.
p, 686.
THE
232
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
truth.139
There is a survival of this superstition
even today.
It is
not uncommon to hear a person who wants to impress YOU with the
truth of his words say, “God is my witness.”
Among certain tribes,
witnesses.
hefnre
niving
testimony,
used to swear to its truth by
placing their hands upon their genitals, 140 the inference being that if
they spoke falsely they would lose the use of their vital organs.141
This form of swearing was eventually abandoned because it was discovered that the genital organs of those who were false to their oath
were not affected. In Tibetan law courts the great oath is taken by
placing a holy scripture on the head,142 sitting on the reeking hide of
an ox, and eating part of the ox’s head. Hindus sometimes swear by
holding some water of the Ganges River in their hands, sometimes by
touching the leg of a Brahman.
The Kandhs frequently take an oath
on the skin of a tiger, “from which animal destruction to the perjured
is invoked.” 143 The Angami Nagas, when they swear to keep the
peace or perform any promise, place the barrel of a gun or a spear
between their teeth, signifying
that if they do not live up to their
agreement, they are prepared to fall by either of the two weapons.
The Chuvashes put a piece of bread and a little salt in the mouth and
swear, “May I be in want of these, if I say not true,” or “if I do
not keep my word.”
The Ioaw (Indians)
have a mysterious
stone wrapped in seven
skins on which they make men swear to speak the truth.
The people
of Kesam, in the highlands of Palemnang,
swear on an old sacred
knife; the Bataks of the South Toba on their village idols; the
Ostyaks on the nose of a bear, which is regarded by them as an animal
endowed with supernatural
power. Among the Tunguses, a criminal
may be compelled to climb one of the sacred mountains, repeating as
he mounts, “May I die if I am guilty,” or “May I lose my children
I80 Wrsterrnar~k, Murub, Vol. 2, p. 699.
140 Genesis, Chapter 24, verses 2-9.
141 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 113.
142 This
we
think
is
more
sensible
than
placing
the
hand
upon
the
book,
words do come from the mouth, and the brain is responsible for their utterance.
Iha Westermarck, op. cit., pp. 119-120.
for
the
THE THIRD
COMMANDMENT
233
and my cattle.” I44 There is a survival of this superstition even
today, not only among orthodox Hebrews, but among nearly all religiously inclined people. Very often we hear a person who wishes
to emphasize the truth of what he is saying, state that he hopes never
to see his wife and children if he is not telling the truth, We know
today that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between his
telling the truth and the security of his family. It is still common to
hear expressions like “I would not believe that person if he swore on
a stack of Bibles.”
Arabs swore by dipping their hands in the blood of a camel. The
Latins swore by Jupiter Lapis, holding the sacred stone in the hand.
In Samoa the accused lays his hand on the sacred stone of the village, and says: “I lay hand on stone. If I stole the thing, may I
speedily die.” Among the Tunguses, the swearer drinks the blood
of a dog, the throat
of which
has been cut and the flesh cut up.
The
swearer says, “I speak the truth, and that is as true as I drink this
blood. If I lie, let me perish, burn or be dried up like this dog.” 145
Innumerable examples could be quoted to show the prevalence of
this custom among primitive tribes. Despite the fact that we now
look upon this method of attesting as having no value or effect, it
nevertheless persists with superstitious stubbornness. Although an
insult
to modern
intelligence,
our own
government
papers
invariably
state, after the proper signatures are affixed, that they were “done
in the year of our Lord,” etc.
How much longer will civilized people continue to follow customs
that plnce them in the same category
and on the same level as primitive and savage tribes? Fortunately there is an ever-increasing number of intelligent. people whn refuse to take oaths, and who merely
affirm to tell the truth.
If the penalties of perjury are not a sufficient
144Westermarck,
Morals,
p. 120. In Londononly recently an instance of this superstitiousbelief in sympatheticmagicin relationto oath-takingwasprovidedwhen some
Chinesesailor insistedon taking an oath by cutting a rooster’s throat or breaking a
saucer, while saying: “As this saucer is broken, so may my soul be shattered if I do not
tell the truth.” New York Times, Sept. 24, 1942.
10 Hastings, Encyclopaedia,
Vol. 9, pp. 431-433.
THE
234
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
deterrent to prevent false testimony,
invoking the myth of God will
not accomplish it. Quakers do not swear, and I will match their
degree of veracity with that of those who insist on making God a
witness
to their
testimony.
Fetishes
of all
kinds
have
been
used
by
different peoples of nearly all lands for the purpose of extracting
the truth; yet, despite the methods used and threats of punishment,
the widespread prevalence of perjury attests to the inadequacy of the
oath.
The Rev. Frederick
David Niedermeyer
says that this Commandment
is not only a call for reverence, but “all false swearing,
such as perjury, is forbidden because it is in effect making
God a
witness to a lie . . . and the severity of the penalty reveals how vital
it is for man to fear God.” 146 If this Commandment
was intended
to prevent perjury, and if God is a witness to the oath when his name
is invoked,
then it reveals
his impntence
when he fails to punish the
utterer of the lie!
If a witness to a lie remains silent and fails to
reveal the truth, he is just as guilty as the liar himself.
An accessory to a crime is as guilty as the perpetrator.
If this Commandment was a warning of “the severity of the penalty”
to be inflicted
for committing
perjury, and if, when it was being disobeyed, the
person suddenly became tongue-tied, then indeed it would have some
value and “reveal how vital it is for man to fear God,” by experiencing “the severity of the punishment.”
But nothing like that happens. This Commandment
is valueless as a deterrent in prcvcnting
perjury.
If this were not true, how could we account for the widespread prevalence of perjury in our courts of law by the very ones
who profess this Commandment
to be a prohibition
against it?
Men and women have been put to death on perjured testimony
for crimes they did not commit and to which others have later confessed, yet the author of this Commandment
was as silent as the
Sphinx during the commission
of these irreparable
mistakes.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women have been deprived
of their property and have suffered the loss of their liberty as the
l*eNiedermeyer,
Ten
Commandments
Today, pp. 46, 53, 66.
THE
THTRD
COMMANDMENT
23.5
direct result of perjured testimony by persons who invoked the name
of God in taking the oath upon which their testimony was given.
If this Commandment
means what the ministers of religion say it
does, why does not God show his disapproval of false testimony, especially when the innocent are made to suffer and the guilty not only
remain undetected, but enjoy the fruits of the labor of others? How
can ministers of religion account for such a state of affairs? Unless
the innocent are repaid for their suffering and recompensed for the
loss they have sustained, of what benefit is God’s not holding “guiltless” the one responsible for the crime? Punishing the guilty is not protecting the innocent.
A wrong once committed
can never be undone.
If ever a situation demanded the exercise of omnipotent
power, it
is when the defenseless weak are robbed by the unscrupulously
strong.
If the Bible Deity could smite Ussah for touching the Ark, and kill
more than fifty thousand people ior rr~erely looking at the Ark, then
surely he could prevent false testimony
by the wicked against the
gnod.~4~ If the Bible God is a witness to an irreparable crime which
he possesses the power to prevent, and yet remains silent, then the
blood of murder stains his hand.
The essence of a truly moral philosophy is to live so that no act
requires forgiveness;
then there is no need for expiation to make
amends.
Robert
G. Ingersoll
said that an oath
“furnishes a falsehood with a letter of credit. It suppries the wolf
with sheep’s clothing and covers the hands of Jacob with hair. It
blows out the light, and in the darkness Leah is taken for Rachel.
It puts upon each witness a kid nf theological gown. This gown
hides the moral rags of the depraved wretch as well as the virtues of
the honest man. The oath is a mask that falsehood puts on, and
for a moment is mistaken for the truth. It gives to dishonesty the
advantages of solemnity. The tendency of the oath is to put all
testimony on an equality.
The scoundrel is delighted with the
147Samuel 1, Chapter 6, verses 1 to 20; Samuel 2, Chapter 6, verses 1 to 8; Samuet 2,
Chapter 6, verses 8 to 29.
236
THE
opportunity of going
coin to base metal.
ship, for a moment,
in the witness credit
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
through a ceremony that gives the ring of true
To him the oath is a shield. He is in partnerwith God, and people who have no confidence
the firm.” 148
We know that to invoke the name of God to prevent perjury is
an act in vain.
It has proved barren of results.
You will not be
rewarded if you do invoke his name, and you will not be punished
if you don’t. The person who testifies falsely soon discovers that no
secret vengeance is wreaked upon him; as a result, taking an oath
by invoking the name of God has lost its effect, its value and its significance.
Shakespeare expressed this when he said:
“ ‘Tis not the many oaths that make the truth,
But the plain simple vow that is vowed true.”
How well do Ingersoll’s words apply here: “‘l’he alchemist did not
succeed in finding any stone the touch of which transmuted
baser
things into gold; and priests have not invented
yet an uath with
power to force from falsehood’s desperate lips the pearl of truth.” 14Q
Henry Thomas Buckle, in his great book, History
of Civilization
in England, after stressing the prevalence of perjury due directly to
the manner by which the oath was invoked,
quotes Archbishop
Whately,
who declared that “if oaths were abolished, leaving the
penalties for false witness . . . unaltered, I am convinced that, on
the whole, testimony would be more trustworthy than it is.” i5o
Truthfulness
is not achieved merely by taking an oath. It is part
of the intellectual
development
of the individual,
and to achieve it
requires the same careful education as to learn any phase of behavior.
To be able to tell the truth is a sign of moral development.
The higher
the social order, the more scrupulous the ethical conduct, the more
readily is the truth told. The ignorant, uncivilized man has no regard
for truth or honesty for its own sake.
1*81ngersoll,
1481bid.,
Works,
Vol.
~0 Buckle,
8,
History
Vol.
8,
p.
p. 188.
of Civilization
181.
in
fhgland,
Vol.
1, p. 281,
THE
THIRD
TAKING
GOD’S
One of the most heart-rending
a mother
in fervent
prayer
COMMANDMENT
NAME
IN
237
VAIN
sights ever witnessed
to save her dying
child.
Her
was that of
prayer
went
unanswered; her child died; her appeal to God was in vain.
A girl who loved not wisely but too well found herself abandoned
by the boy she had trusted.
She appealed to God to save her from
what she felt was inevitable disgrace. Never did a human being plead
more strongly for divine assistance in her hour of trial, but the only
answer was the “echo of her wailing cry.” She took the name of God
in vain, for she found solace not in prayer but in a poison potion.
When crops fail and famine stalks the land, in vain do the starving people appeal to Heaven for a morsel of food to stay the agonizing
torture of death by starvation.
The maimed and t.he crippled, the heavily burdened, the despondent and the depressed have all taken the name of God in vain when
they appealed for assistance to help them meet the emergencies of
life.
What is more pitiful than the drowning man as he sinks below the
water, his prayer to God for help in vain?
The whole human race has taken the name of God in vain for
centuries.
When man has appealed to Heaven to help solve the problems of the race that have caused so much misery, suffering and injustice,
it has been in vain.
II God would answer but one prayer
and stop human beings from murdering one another, we might forgive
him his callous attitude toward our other requests.
Three little innocent, playful children wandered aimlessly into a
vacant house. Unconscious of the time and busily amused, they were
unaware that night had fallen.
It grew darker and darker.
The
smallest child became frightened and began to cry. The oldest groped
her way from room to room in search of light.
She came upon some
matches. The anguished sobbing of the other children filled the empty
and abandoned house with terrifying
sounds. Frightened
almost beyond the endurance of her childish mind, the oldest girl, in her eager-
THE
238
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
ness to lead the others out of the darkened house, stumbled
The lighted match ignited her dress and in a few moments
Her cries, mingled with
aflame.
She screamed for help.
the
other
children.
reverberated
with
sllch
hideous
n&e
and fell.
she was
those of
t-hat
the
al-
ready terror-struck
children became paralyzed with fear. Within
a
short time the house was on fire and the flames swept the building.
In the meantime the frantic parents were looking feverishly for the
children, uttering prayers to God for their safety. The whole neighborhood was aroused.
Alarms were sounded.
They finally came
upon the burning building.
The children had been taught that in an
hour of trial they should pray to God for help and their prayers would
be answered. There they found the charred bodies of the three children. One was lying flat upon the floor, the other two were found in
a kneeling position, indicating that the little ones, in a last desperate
mnment,
fell
upon
their
knees
and
prayed
to God
so horrible
Do you
uttered in
answered?
to save them
from
a death. These children took the name of God in vain! 151
want me to tell you why appeals in the name of God are
vain? Do you want me to tell you why prayers are not
I will tell you. There is no such thing as a God who answers the prayers of man. The sooner we come to that realization,
the sooner the human race becomes cognizant of this fact, the sooner
will man set about to accomplish for himself all that he has appealed
to God for in vain. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy
God in vain. . . .” Thou cans1 not take the name ol God in any
other way.
16’T~t.
hts
r&ted
ahve
are
based
on an actual
tragedy.
The
Fourth
Commandment
Remember
the sabbath day, to keep it
holy.
Six days shalt thou labor, and do all
thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day: wherefore the
Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
IS THERE
A SABBATH
T
DAY?
HE ESTABLISHMENT
of a “Sabbath”
day, a day superior
to, and more “sacred” than, any other day of the week, a
day to be observed simultaneously
by all the peoples of the
earth, is a physical and astronomical
impossibility.
It is therefore
not surprising that one professed Christian authority
confesses that
the explanation of this Commandment
is “full of difficulty.”
f
For one day in seven to be set aside for all eternity for the complete cessation of labor because “God rested” on the seventh day, with
death as a penalty for the violation
of this order, is obviously too
puerile for intelligent
consideration.
If the Bible God had put a
time limit upon his period of rest, especially when there is so much
still to be done to make the earth a truly habitable place, we could
possibly pardon his rigorous demands and excuse his passion for
adoration;
but to rest for eternity is laziness without an excuse,
Yet, of all the Commandments
which God is supposed to have
given to Moses on Mount Sinai for the guidance of the Children of
Israel, the observance of the Sabbath day was considered the most
important.
What made the Sabbath day the holy bond between the
Children of Israel and their God?
Was the Sabbath but another
superstition
founded upon a primitive
taboo based upon sympathetic
magic?
In addition to the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned in each
and every one of the different sets of the Commandments,
the ncccssity for its strict observance is repeated innumerable
times throughout the Bible.
The Bible Deity insisted that the Children of Tsrael
observe it as a sign between him and them, as visible evidence that
they would keep his Commandments.
There can be no mistake
about this; the provisions are clear and definite.
The Sabbath was
1 Charles,
The
Decalogue,
p.
110.
241
242
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the Day of Days-the most sacred tie between the Israelites and their
God.
This Commandment also contains an additional injunction not
present in the others- the admonition to “remember” the Sabbath.
Forgetfulness was not a valid excuse, and woe unto those who failed
to observe it.
How could one remember the Sabbath day? By what means and
by what method could it be identified? How had the Lord “blessed”
the seventh day? How was it hallowed? Has it some particular
mark of identification to distinguish it from the other days of the
week? Does the sun rise and set at a different time, or is the temperature on that day even and unvarying, or must we depend on
the man-made calendar to tell it from the other days of the week?
Since man began to measure the movements of the heavenly bodies,
the arrangement, number and names of the days of the week have
been changed innumerable times in the calendar. How, then, is it
possible to designate the authelztic seventh day?
Does not the sun shine on the seventh day as well as on any other
day? Does it not sometimes rain, and do we not have storms and
cyclones and earthquakes on the Sabbath as well as on any other day
of the week? According to religionists, the Lord sends all these phenomena. Does God, then, not violate his Sabbath by “working”?
Are the heavens any different on the Sabbath? Is the sky any bluer
or the sun any brighter? ‘Do we not have to eat and drink and sleep
on the Sabbath as on any other day?
Why is there sickness and death during the Sabbath just as on
any other day of the week? What about war-the cruelest and most
stupid undertaking of man, the wholesale murder of human beings by
each other in a blind fury of hate-does that not continue on the
holy Sabbath? If there were no sickness, no death, no mean and
despicable act, no vicious thoughts on this “holy” day, then indeed it
would possess some distinguishing merit.
The story of the six days of creation is not only unscientific, it
is not even good fiction. In the cycle around the sun there are no
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
243
favorite days of the earth; no one day is more blessed or hallowed
than another; there are no “stepchildren” in the family of months.
In the Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue,2 the reason given
for the observance of the Sabbath is the deliverance of the Children
of Israel from bondage in Egypt. In the Exodus version, however,
the Sabbath is to be observed because God created “heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
This glaring contradiction exposes something more than merely
textual errors. It proves the falsity of the Exodus explanation and
places the other in the category of fiction. It also proves that the
Sabbath was unknown to the Hebrews until the time of Moses and
was merely one of the many superstitions he imposed upon the credulous Israelites. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia makes this important
admission: “. . . the Sabbath was either improperly observed or sometimes, perhaps, altogether ignored in the time of the prophets.” 3
When geologists determined the age of the earth to be hundreds
of thousands of years, the believers in the Mosaic account of creation
tried to defend the Biblical narrative by stating that the ‘(six days” of
creation as mentioned in Genesis indicated “long periods of time.”
This explanation would certainly negate a “seventh” or “Sabbath” day
in the scheme
of creation.
It belongs
in the same category
with
the
stupidities of the early Church Fathers, who laid down infallible
propositions, such as this “profound”
utterance of St. Augustine: “Although the world has been made of some material, that very same
material must have been made out of nothing.” Upon the vital question of the six days required by God to accomplish his task, he further
enlightens us: “There are three classes of numbers, the more than
perfect, the perfect, and the less than perfect, according as the sum of
them is greater than, equal to, or less than the original number. Six is
the perfect number, wherefore we must not say that six is a perfect
number because God finished all his work in six days, but God finished
2 Deuteronomy,
Chapter
3 Jewisk Encyclopedia,
5, verse
12.
Vol. 10, p. 587.
244
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
all his work in six days because six is the perfect number.” 4 Peter
Martyr was so certain of the truth of this that he stated that were
“this article taken away, there would be no original sin, the promise of
Christ would become void, and all the vital forces of our religion would
De clestroyed.” 0
Is it any wonder, in view of these infallible
declarations,
that the
Westminster
divines, in drawing up their Confession of Faith, especially laid down that it was necessary to believe that all things visible
and invisible were created not only out of nothing, but in exactly six
days? G
Martin Luther brought his great intellect to tackle this problem,
and with his “usual boldness” declared that Moses “spoke properly
and plainly, and neither allegorically
nor figuratively”’
and that therefore “the world with all creatures was created in six days.” He then
goes on to show how, by a great miracle, the whole creation was instantaneous! T
John Calvin, taking an opposite view of the instantaneous
six-day
creation, said that “creation was G&II&~
through six days that it
might not be tedious for us to occupy the whole of life in the consideration of it! ”
We must not fail to add to this weighty testimony
that of St.
Hilary of Poictiers, whose accomplishment
lies in the reconciliation
of
these two apparently
irreconcilable
conceptions.
These are inspired
conclusions : “For, although according to Moses, there is an appearance of regular order in fixing the firmament,
the laying bare of the
dry land, the gathering together of the waters, the formation
of the
heavenly bodies, and the arising of living things from land and water,
yet the creation of the heavens, earth and other elements is seen to be
the work of a single moment.”
It was, however, left to St. Thomas Aquinas, that mighty Church
intellect, to bring about some agrccmcnt on this subject by declaring
4
A. D. White, Warfare
p. 8.
p. 9.
6 Ibid.,
6 Ibid.,
7 Ibid.,
p. 8.
of Science
with
Theology,
Vol. 1, ps 1,
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
24.5
that God creatkd the substance of the things in a single moment, but
required six days for the separating, shaping and adorning of creation!
TO cap the climax of this bitter controversy that threatened the
Church for over a thousand years, Dr. John Lightfoot,
Vice-Chancellor
of the University
of Cambridge and one of the most eminent Hebrew
scholars of his time, declared in his great work-the
result of a most
profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures-that
“heaven and
earth., center and circumference, were created all together, in the same
instant,” and that “this work took place and man was created by the
Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o’clock in the morning.”
8
Later theologians, however, have supplied a serious omission of Dr.
Lightfoot’s
findings by adding: “Eastern Standard Time.”
Again, R. H. Charles is forced to conclude that “no educated man
now accepts the literal account of creation in six days. This supernatural
conception
of the Sabbath
is without
any basis in actuality.“’
The explanation
that the “six days” of creation indicated “long
periods of time” has now been completely
abandoned
by religious
apologists as not having the slightest shred of evidence. They are even
ashamed of it.
That the sun was created before there was vegetation was of little
concern to the theologians, and, according to St. Isadore of Seville in
his great encyclopedic work which was the intellectual
authority
for
the human race for a century under the domain of Catholic Christianity, “bees are generated from decomposed veal, beetles from horseflesh, grasshoppers from mules, and scorpions from crabs.” lo
The discussion of the Sabbath has not ended, however, and that
this momentous question is still agitating the minds of the clergy is
evidenced
by the following:
LONDON.--&
unexpected discussion today concerning the crea-
tion of the world enlivened the hitherto quiet sessions of the Church
*A. D. White, op. tit., p. 9.
o Chalks,
op.
d.,
p. 123.
10 White, op. cit., p. 55.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Assembly.
It began when the Rev. C. E. Douglas referred to the
biblical account of the creation in six days. The Bishop of Birmingham intervened to say that those who read the popular newspapers would believe Mr. Douglas took the story of the creation
literally.
Amid cries of dissent the Bishop continued:
“For the sake of our people I think it ought to be stated here
that such a statement is not accepted seriously by this house withIt is to be desired that our people should know that
out protest.
we as a Church feel we can accept the conclusions of modern science
without feeling thereby in any way disparaging the value of the
spiritual witness of the Bible.
“We believe the first chapter of Genesis still demands our regard
because of the emphasis thrown on the creative activity of God.
The world, we affirm, as disclosed to us by modern science, has not
come into existence as a result of some fortuitous concourse of
atoms.”
“On a point of honor, I did not make that statement,”
Mr.
Douglas interjected.
“The Bishop of Birmingham doesn’t seem to
have a sense of humor.”
“I am glad to have elicited from Mr. Douglas the fact that he
does not wish to insist, on the literal truth of the creation of the
“Recent scientific
world in six or seven days,” the Bishop returned.
discoveries have enabled men of science to state the age of the earth
with very considerable accuracy.”
The Bishop was interrupted by cries of ‘(Oh, oh,” and laughter
when he added, “The approximate age of the earth is between two
and four billion years.”
The Bishop of London, presiding, ruled
out any further discussion of the creation.
“I have alluwed lhe Bishop of Birmingham to correct what he
thought a misstatement, but we cannot now discuss the creation of
the world,” he said.
Loud laughter ended the debate.ll
In no other category than that of a ridiculous yarn, were the consequences not so tragic, could the question of a Sabbath day be placed.
11 New
York
Times,
Feb.
7, 1931.
THE
FOURTH
WHICH
DAY
COMMANDMENT
IS THE
247
SEVENTH?
We live on an earth whose geographical proportions can be matheThis fact was unknown
matically computed in latitude and longitude.
to the “inspired”
writers of the Bible.
It was their belief that the
earth was a flat parallelogram
having %orners” and “ends,” the length
being east and west, the breadth north and south (“going around the
earth” was therefore inconceivable),
and that it was the center of the
universe around which the sun and all heavenly bodies revolved.
We
now know that the earth is globular and revolves around the sun; that
when the sun rises in the east, it sets in the west--“and never the twain
shall meet.”
Those who have traveled to, Europe know that during the six-day
voyage they lose an hour each night in order that the time they left
Why
New York may not conflict with the time they arrive in Europe.
must they adjust their timepieces to correspond with the time of the
place they are visiting?
l’he answer is simple.
The sun cannot rise
and set over the whole face of the earth at the same time!
For instance, if we sl~ould take as an example the beginning of the day at
Honolulu,
only 20 degrees from the International
Date Line, at 6:30
A.M.
on Saturday, it would simultaneously
be
9 a.m. Saturday in San Francisco
6 p.m. Saturday
in London
12 midnight in Singapore
1 a.m. Sunday in Manila
2 a.m. Sunday in Tokyo
-which
makes
The following
time, like morality,
article
sons for the impossibility
a geographical
presents the astronomical
of a Sabbath
problem.
and scientific
day for a11 the peoples
reaof the
earth at exactly the same time.l”
leMiss Marguerite L. Galois, secretary to the late Sir Hiram Maxim, in the Truth
Aug. 2, 1913. Although this deals with Sunday as the Sabbath, it is, of course,
equally applicable to any othkr day.
Seeker,
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“Ten years ago, while I was still a girl in my early teens, I
was one of a New Year’s Eve party of twenty in London. At about
eleven o’clock an all-knowing gentleman present remarked that it
was already New Year’s Day in Vienna; a little later he said, ‘It is
now New Year’s Day in serlm’; at fourteen minutes to twelve hc
said, ‘The New Year has arrived at Paris and will be in London in
fourteen minutes; in five hours the New Year will have reached
New York, and about three hours later the people of San Francisco
will commence to celebrate the New Year.’ All this seemed very
curious to me-so I ventured to ask where the New Year commenced. They all answered, ‘Of course, it commences at twelve
o’clock midnight.’
‘But,’ I said, ‘I did not ask z&en it commenced,
I asked where it commenced; it must have been New Year’s somewhere else before it was New Year’s in Vienna.’ There was not one
present that could enlighten me on the subject.
“Shortly after this I went to Vuna-Taviuni,
one of the Fiji
group of Cannibal Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. This island
was exactly on the one hundred and eightieth meridian, that is, it
was one hundred and eighty degrees west of Greenwich and one
hundred
and eighty
degrees
east of Greenwich.
A British
man-o’-
war equipped with scientific apparatus and instruments, had visited
the island some years before, made observations, and set up a row
of stone posts having the figures ‘180’ sculptured in each. This was
said to be for the guidance of mariners in those distant seas.
“Both
the Catholics
and the Presbyterians
(natives)
were strong
Sabbatarians; among other restrictions a law was passed making it
a criminal offense to sell alcoholic drinks on the Sabbath day. I
noticed a row of shanties erected exactly on the line of the one
hundred and eightieth meridian. Suppose, for example, that it was
Sunday
morning
on the west
side of the meridian
line,
Sunday
would commence to travel westward, and would take twenty-four
hours to get completely around the earth and arrive at the east
side of the same meridian; then again, the very instant that Sunday
arrived, Monday morning would start on the west side. Therefore,
while
it was Monday
on the west side of the meridian
it was Sunday
on the east side. When a barroom was exactly on the line, it was
only necessary to move the bottles from one side to the other to
enable the dealers to sell rum every day in the year without infringing the Sunday law.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
249
“I was much amused at the ingenuity displayed in the arrangement of one restaurant with a barroom attached. It was a light
wooden structure about twenty feet wide and sixty feet long,
mounted on wheels in such a manner that the whole building could
he moved from one side of the line to the other.
By this ingenious
arrangement, not only could the bar be opened every day in the
year, but the restaurant was very convenient for the Catholics,
as it enabled them to eat meat every day in the week without ever
eating it on Friday.
“One could catch fish every day in the year without fishing on
Sunday, for while it was Sunday on one side of the island, it was
either Monday or Saturday on the other side. It was absolutely
impossible for it to be Sunday on both sides at the same time, This
was much appreciated by the beachcombers and natives who depended very largely upon fish for their food. Moreover, men with
large families were able to work every day in the year without
working on Sundays.
“It
was thus that I learned definitely
where
the New
Year
commences and, for that matter, where every day in the week
commences: but, curiously enough, this small island, with its few
thousand inhabitants, is the only land, except in the frozen arctic
regions, where such a state of affairs prevails.”
If we do not know when the year begins, how can we tell when the
week
starts?
traveling
A mathematically
minded
person
has shown
back and forth across the international
have ten Sundays
in a single month!
date line,
And, by reversing
how,
by
one can
his course,
he
could avoid having any Sundays at all1 Would such a person, if he
followed the first course, be obligated to observe the ten Sundays in
the month? Or, if he followed the second course, would he be entirely
free from the obligations of the Sabbath?-because,
if he did this, his
seventh day would be in the middle of the week.
The primitive Biblical Hebrews had no calendars, such as we have
today, and it was difficult to keep an accurate record of the days of the
week. They determined the days of the week by counting the threads
on their prayer
shawls.
The later
crude calendars of other nations,
Biblical
Hebrews
relied
upon the
250
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The first calendars showed the measurements
of the year by the
seasons.13 It is stated on good authority that the Greeks of the Classical period had no week of any kind, nor can any trace of the week, as
we now know it, be found in ancient Egypt.
The lunar months, determining the days of the week by the phases of the moon, were the only
guide of primitive
man from remote antiquity
until the invention of
the modern calendar.
The arrangement
of the years into months,
weeks and days is not only of recent origin, but was the result of the
development of astronomical
science in determining
the actual time it
took the earth to revolve around the sun.
It was not until the third century that the practice of measuring
time in cycles of seven days, each of them dedicated to the seven
planets, was to any degree universally
used.l*
The division of time
into seven days to the week as the basis of our present calendar belongs
to the Greeks.
(If the Greeks had known that there were ten planets
instead of only the seven with which they were acquainted, it is quite
probable that they would have provided for a ten-day week instead of
the seven-day week, fo’r in China the ten-day week prevailed until
almost the present era.) The very names of the days, called after the
planets, were made up by the Greeks. Surely if God had “hallowed”
the seventh day, he should have given it a name, instead of leaving
this important
function to the despised Greeks.
No mention of so
fundamental
a thing as the names of the days of the week is to be
joarnd in the Bible.
However,
if the Greeks had not divided the revolution of the earth around the sun into years, months, weeks and days,
it would have been impossible to determine the day when the Bible
God is supposed to have completed his task of creation!
The lunar month was determined by the four quarters of the moon
of approximately
seven days each. Long before the introduction
of
the months-which
were also named by the Greeks-the
year was
determined by periods of 52 weeks, the length of time it took for the
earth to revolve around the sun.i5
1s F. H. Colson, The Week, pp.
16 A. D. McLaren,
The Chistian
18, 19.
Sunday,
Pioneer
1h Ibid.
Press, London.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
251
The first and seventh days of the week, and particularly the number seven, were regarded by the Greeks as sacred to the god Apollo,
probably because of their supposed relation to the seven planets.
References
of the seventh
day implying
some special,
though
vague,
significance of a sacred character are frequently mentioned in Homeric
poems and other early Greek records .16 One writer quotes the Greek
historian Strabo, who wrote before the Christian era: “The Greeks and
barbarians have this in common, that they accompany their sacred
rites by a festal remission of labor.” I7
The reformed Egyptian calendar was dated from what is called the
first year of Augustus-the year in which he entered Alexandria after
his victory over Anthony and Cleopatra. This actually took place on
August 1, 30 B.C., but as the Egyptian year begins with the month of
Thoth, which almost coincides with our month of September, the
Augustan
era of Egypt. was calculated
from the first of Thoth.l*
In shifting the calendar, making January instead of September the
first month of the year, what happened to that sacred “seventh” day?
It was irretrievably lost, because when these changes were made, Rome
was living under a calendar of an eight-day week! le
To complicate matters and make even more impossible the designation of tke seventh day, it must further be remembered that while the
Egyptian calendar was based on the solar year, the Hebrew calendar
was based on lunar reckonings. The lunar year is shorter than the
solar
year by about
ten days,
twenty-one
hours
and twelve
seconds.
With such a great difference, it is utterly impossible for the Hebrew
calendar
to run parallel
with
the months
as divided
under
the solar
year. The lunar month contains 29% days; consequently, every five
months a new day is added to the month. This would make the
original seventh day, according to the lunar calendar of 28 days to the
month, or seven days to the week, the eighth day, five months later it
would make it the ninth day, and thus the original seventh day of
I6 A. D. McLaren,
The Christian
*I Charles,
op. cit., p. 117.
l* Colson, op. tit., p, 64.
10 Ibid.
Sunday.
THE
252
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
creation would be totally lost down the corridors of time.
This accounts for the yearly change of the time for the observance of the
so-called holy days in the Hebrew calendar,
In making these changes
and
in
fixing
the
day
fnr
the
observance
of
the
Day
of
Atonement,
it
is so arranged that it never falls (according to Hebrew law, it must
not) on a Sunday. Likewise, the day of the New Year, Rosh Hashana,
must never fall on a Saturday.20
With such a jumbling of days and dates, how is it possible to designate the seventh day? 21
What happened when the new Gregorian calendar, the one now
used, came into existence?
While the number of days in the week
remained the same, the number of the day the Bible God designated as
the seventh was lost forever in the rearrangement
of the months. While
Saturday remained the seventh day of the week, the seventh day in the
old Hebrew calendar was not the seventh day in the Gregorian.
What better proof is there of this confusion concerning the seventh
day than the indisputable
fact that the “Sabbath”
is observed on
diferent
days of the week in different countries among different
peoples? For instance, the Christians observe the Sabbath on Sunday,
the first day of the week; the (old) Greeks observe Monday;
the
Persians observe Tuesday; the Syrians observe Wednesday; the (old)
Egyptians,
Thursday;
the Mohammedans,
Friday;
the Hebrews,
so’fdelsohn,
Ceremonies
of Judaism,
pp. 51, 52. For instance,
if Thursday,
October
2, 1940, was the 5,701st year since the world
was created,
according
to the Hebrew
calculation,
how is it possible for Saturday
to be the seventh
day of creation?
According to this reckoning,
Wednesday
of the following
week would
be the seventh day; and
since the reckoning
of the New Year according
to the Hebrew
calendar
is constantly
changing,
this is additional
evidence
substantiating
the claim
that if there
was a
“seventh”
day of creation,
it has been irretrievably
lost.
Then again, how silly to assume
the accuracy
of the Hebrew
reckoning
of creation,
when
astronomers,
geologists
and
biologists
present indisputable
evidence
of the existence
of the universe
and of life on
this earth for millions
of years.
Now that the Jews have abandoned
the observance
of the Sabbath
as the bond between
them and their God, they should discontinue
the
observance
of Rosh Hashana
and Yom Kippur
and complete
their emancipation
from
this demoralizing
superstition.
zl Even today the orthodox
Hebrews,
not knowing
definitely
which was the first day
of creation,
observe
two days so as not to make a mistake
in failing
to observe
the
proper one.
A more accurate
method
would
be to observe every
day of the week.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
253
Saturday-and
each claims that the day he observes is the “real”
Sabbath!
Walter Scott Haskell has carried the question of the Sabbath to its
logical conclusion in a humorous poem:
HIS
RELIGIOUS
SCRUPLES
“The woodpile, sir,” the lady said
Unto the hobo she had fed,
“Is waiting for a man like you
To give it a close interview.”
“I’m sorry, Ma’am!” the hobo yelled;
“By pious thoughts today I’m held;
My mother was a Greek, they say,
And Monday is her Sabbath day,
And while in Persia a dear friend
(His goodness
I would
not offend)
Did entertain me with good fare;
And Tuesday is the Sabbath there.
Another friend, a Syrian priest,
Gave me the church rite and the feast;
My
wrrd
duty
cnnnnt
shirk:
On Wednesday Syrians do not work.
Egyptian lore I learned by rote,
For I have traveled, if you note,
And Thursday is the day they rest;
Of all the days it is the best.
Mohammedans on Friday find
The sacrednessof Islam’s mind,
And,
lady, it is sad but true,
On that day I can’t work for you.
My father was a Jewish gent,
And Saturday’s the day God meant
That men from labor e’er should cease
And
rest their
weary
bones
in peace.
No Christian Sabbath 1’11 profane;
The thought of work then gives me pain.
I’m conscientious in my creed,
But thank you for your generousfeed.”
2.54
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
As a result of this confusion there were three official Sabbaths each
week in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople)
: Friday for the Mohammedans, Saturday for the Hebrews, Sunday for the Christians-and
the entire city observed all three! 22
Because of the mixed population of Hebrews, Moslems and Christians, so much confusion exists in Jerusalem at the present time regarding the Sabbath that the High Commissioner
of Palestine empowered
each municipality
to determine for itself by local option which day was
to be designated as the Sabbath.23
Even in our own country we are faced with this dilemma.
A
mother was brought to court for failing to’ send her children to public
school on Fridays.
She defended her action by stating that she was of
the Mohammedan
faith and since Friday was their Sabbath, children
were forbidden to attend school on that day. Since Hebrew and Christian children in this country enjoy the privilege of celebrating
their
Sabbath according to their faith, the judge felt that he had no alternative but to grant a similar privilege to’ the Mohammedans.24
As a result, the question as to which is the seventh day of the week
is confusion worse confounded.
THE
SABBATH
AS A TABOO
The “sabbaths and the full moon” are mentioned
together in
The derivation of the word
numerous passages of the Old Testament.
“sabbath” is from the Babylonian
“Shabattum,”
meaning the day of
the full moon, and the designation of the seventh day by the Hebrews
is attributed to’ the Babylonian “U-hul-gallurn,”
which means the “evil
That the Hebrews copied or
day” and “a day of rest for the heart.”
aa Only recently the National Assembly of Turkey, discarding the centuries-old
tradition, designated Sunday instead of Friday as the Sabbath for the Mohammedans.
New
Yovh
23 New
24 New
testified
on
Times, May
29, 1935.
York Times, Apr. 13, 1935.
York
Times, Feb. 9, 1934. It
behalf
of the parent did not
is interesting
t&e
the
oath
to note that the witnesses who
on
the
Bible,
but
by
Allah,
holding up two fingers of the right hand and five of the left. Another interesting point
is that a movement has been started recently to include Moslem chaplains in the army.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
255
borrowed their Sabbath day from others cannot be disputed. That it
was a taboo day, a day portentous of evil and associated with the full
moon, seems also undisputed.
However, instead of making their Sabbath in accordance with the
moon’s changes, the Hebrews decided upon the seventh day regardless
of its coincidence with the moon’s variations. As the Children of Israel
were a nomadic people, they could not depend upon the phases of the
moon to determine their day of rest. In order to have their Sabbath
come at regular intervals, they abandoned the lunar religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians, and adopted the seventh day of the
week.25
In 1869, George Smith, well known as a pioneer student of Assyriology, discovered among the cuneiform tablets in the British Museum
“curious religious calendars of the Assyrians, in which every month is
divided into four weeks, and the seventh days, or ‘Sabbaths,’ are
marked out as days on which no work should be undertaken.” Authorities contend that this reckoning of the days of the week and the taboo
prescribed for the seventh day probably belonged to the age of Hammurabi.2C
Even the name Sinai means “moon-mountain,” a synonym for
‘%in.” One of the Hebrew names for “month” is ye&, from yareah,
“moon”; it is also called hades~, which means “new moon.” Orthodox
Jewish mothers still teach their children to take off their hats to the
new moon,2’
and the custom
of offering
a prayer
to the new moon still
prevails.
A passage in one of the Psalms is significant: “Blow the trumpet at
the new moon, at the full moon, on our feast day.” 28
The late Professor Morris Jastrow, in commenting on the twentythird chapter of Leviticus, where it is prescribed that “on the morrow
about the sabbath” fifty days are to elapse before the commencement
of the Feasts of Weeks, clearly shows that the word “Sabbath” is here
25 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 5’90.
2aIIutton
Wcbstcr,
27 Ibid., p. 248.
28 Psalms LXXXI:
Rest Days: A Study its Early Law and Morality,
3.
p. 223.
256
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
used, not in its later sense of a seventh day of rest, but as a survival
of the old designation of the Sabbath as the full-moon day.2Q
Even modern Jewish ritual prescribes a special service for the newmoon day, including the recital of psalms of joy. The new or full
moon was the only means of lighting the evening, and we can readily
understand its influence upon primitive man. He became awed by its
appearance to the extent that he would do nothing to frighten it away
before its regular time of disappearance.
The Babylonians regarded the disappearance of the moon at the
end of the month with great anxiety.sO Modern Arabs consider the
last day of the month unfavorable for any sort of undertaking. The
Lolo Pula and other aboriginal tribes of southwestern China keep a
“sabbath” as a rule every sixth day. No plowing may take place at
this time, and among some tribes the women are not allowed even to
sew or wash clothes31
Evil days, unlucky days, taboo days go back to primitive times.
Traces of this superstitious awe are to be found in the remote periods
of Egyptian history. Today among the peasants of Thebes and the
Said, there are many who on certain days of the year refuse to kindle
a fire, to approach a flame, or even light a candle or lamp, while the
more timid or the more superstitious do not smoke.82
In Slavic antiquity, Friday appears to have been consecrated. On
this day certain kinds of work were suspended. Spinning, sewing or
weaving was considered a sin and especially obnoxious to “Mother
Friday” because the dust and refuse thus produced injured her eyes.
Men did not twine cords. Any work begun on a Friday was believed
sure to go wrong.33 Some people even today avoid Friday when beginning an undertaking.
On the Babylonian Sabbath, the King was not to show himself in
29 Morris Jastrow, “The Day dkr the Sabbath,”
Languages and Literatures,
1914, Vol. 30, p. 104.
so Webster, op. cit., p. 138.
R1 Ibid., p. 194.
82 Ibid., p. 258.
a3 Ibid., p. 222.
Ametican
Journd
of Semitic
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
257
his chariot, not to hold court, not to bring sacrifices, not to change his
clothes, not to eat a good dinner, and not even to curse his enemies.34
A taboo’ or evil day is to be found among almost all tribes. “The
idea is carried to such an extent that most of the natives of the Basutos
believe that if they obstinately persist in their labor at such a moment,
the clouds are irritated and retire, or send hail instead of rain. Days
of sacrifice, or great purification, are also holidays. Hence it is that
the law for resting on the seventh day, far from being objectionable to
natives, appears perhaps even more fundamental than to certain
Christians.” 35
In some tribes the unlucky or taboo days are those of the new and
fulI moon, and its first and third quarters.36 It is fairly well authenticated that even the Buddhist Sabbath dates back to ancient taboos
observed at changes of the moon. The Ga of the Gold Coast, who also
have a seven-day week, observe the first day as a communal Sabbath.
Its name, dsu, means “purification,” a term which seems also to have
been used as a title of the moon.
The Siamese Sabbath (Walz phra) is always the fourth day of the
moon; in each month they have two great ones, at the new and the full
moon, and two less solemn, on the seventh and twenty-first.
Fishing
and hunting are forbidden on these days. Those who are caught
violating
these prohibitions
arc thrown
into prison
for having
profaned
the sanctity of the day. The Mandingo pay careful attention to the
changes of the moon because they think it very uducky
to begin a
journey until they feel the moon’s influence is favorable. Among the
Scottish Highlanders a similar superstition prevails.
There still survives a Jewish superstition, reaching back to the
Talmud, that it is lucky to begin an undertaking on a Tuesday, because in describing the third day of creation it is said, “God saw that
it was good.” Contrawise, it is unlucky to commence anything on a
Monday, about which nothing at all was said.37
34Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 2, p. 288.
=li Ibid.,
p. 281.
36 Webster,
37Ibid.,
p. 274.
op. cit.,
p.
37.
258
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
From primitive times it has been believed that the moon has exerted
an influence upon mankind. Even today, the Brazilian Indians believe
that the rays of the moon are deleterious to children. Newborn infants
are taken by their mothers into the thickest parts of the forests in
order to prevent the moonlight from falling upon them. Greek nurses
were careful never to show their charges to, the moon. French peasants
consider it dangerous toI sleep in the moonlight, and even among
sophisticated moderns there is a remnant of that belief. Fishermen,
when lucky enough to catch fish on a moonlight night, hide them from
the moon’s rays for fear that they would spoi1.38
German peasants subject themselves to a long list of restrictions at
the new moon. No spinning must be done in the moonlight, for the
yarn will not hold; wagons or tools must not be left exposed to the
moonlight, or they will soon be broken; water from a spring or well in
which the moon shines should not be drunk, since this would be to
absorb the evil influence of the moon; the lunar rays should never be
allowed to penetrate into the kitchen or the maid would break many
dishes. The superstition still prevails that any work begun when the
moon is on the increase is sure to succeed, and that the full moon
brings cvcrything to perfection, whereas business undertaken dul-ing
the waning moon is doomed to failure.
So numerous
are these superstitions
relative
to the moon
that
throughout Germany Monday is generally considered an unlucky day
because it is thought to partake of the qualities of the moon from
which it is named. Even in certain parts of the United States, Monday
is thought to be unlucky; “Blue Monday” is still feared by a great
many people.
In various parts of Europe it is believed that plants and other
growing things which are cut while the moon is on the increase will
grow again fast, but that, if cut while the moon is on the wane, they
will grow slowly or waste away.30
Particularly in France, the belief prevailed that timber should be
**Webster, op. cit., pp. 125, 127.
39 Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Vol. 2, p. 133.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
259
cut only after the moon had passed the full. The moon’s effect on the
wood was regarded with such apprehension
that bills for the sale of
lumber contained a special notice that the wood had been cut in the
waning of the moon.
Mexicans as a rule will not cut timber while the moon is increasing.
The Wabondei of Eastern Africa, before building a house, cut the posts
when the moon is on the increase, for they believe that if the posts
were to be cut while the moon was wasting away, they would soon
rot.40
The Spartans as a rule never marched to war except when the moon
was full.
The early Greeks and the Negroes of Dudan had this in common:
they never marched to war during the last quarter of the moon; they
always waited until the first day of the full moon.
Tacitus is the
authority for the statement that the Germans considered the new or
full moon the most auspicious time for business.
The Armenians think that the moon exercises a baneful influence
upon little children, and have developed numerous ceremonies to counteract the evil, Both Christians and Moslems in Syria turn their silver
money in their pockets at the new moon for I~ck.~~
The Bushmen throw sand in the air and shout loudly when they
see the new moon, which is their usual procedure when they want to
drive away evil spirits.
The Masai throw stones at the new moon
with their left hand. The Zulus beat drums, a proceeding which is
thought to frighten the luminary or any evil spirit which it may have
let loose upon mankind.
One of the most familiar lunar superstitions still current is that one
must not see the new moon through glass. This superstition,
says
Kobert Briffault, certainly could not have originated since the invention of glass, but is a survival from the time when it was considered
unlucky to see the moon from within the house. Savages come out of
their huts to see the new moon.
And the Bushmen are careful to
40Ibid.,
41 Frazer,
pp. 134-139.
op. cit., pp.
140-150.
260
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
build their huts in such a way that the new moon does not shine
through the door. In Nigeria, among the Hukon, should the light of
the moon happen to shine into the house, a sacrifice is at once offered.
Briffault mentions a present survival of this superstition now prevalent
in the state of Louisiana.
When the new moon appears, the window
shutters are closed and securely bolted by some people so as to exclude
the entrance of the new moon’s rays. Certain superstitions die hard.
Look at the new moon over your left shoulder and make a wish, and it
will come true-who
has not heard and perhaps practised that “moon
superstition”
today?
The aborigines of Australia regard the moon as wicked and accuse
it of going up and down the world doing all the harm it can. The
Eskimo regards the moon as the cause of all plagues and epidemics.
The Dene live in constant dread of the moon.
“The man in the
moon,” according to the Tartars of Asia, is a giant who eats men.
Among the Bechuanas, when the new moon appears, all must cease
work. The Thermia, in the Cyclades, maintain
that all work, as far
as possible, should be suspended on the days immediately
preceding
the full moon. In the Vishnu Purana, it is said that one who attends
to secular affairs on the days of the full moon goes to the Rudhirandha
hell, whose wells are filled with blood.
Even the Buddhists have their Sabbath, or Uposatha, which occurs
four times in the month, namely, on the day of the full moon and on
the two days which are eighth from the new moon. On these days all
normal activity ceases.
In Ashanti and the neighboring districts, where people reckon time
by the moon, there is a weekly “fetish day” or Sabbath, which seems
to be df native origin.
On this letish or taboo day, the people generally
dress themselves in white garments, mark their faces with white clay,
and rest from labor. They bclicvc that if they fish on that day, the
anger of their god will be visited upon their heads.42 In Ashanti, the
day of the new moon is called “The Day of Blood,” and the Yoruba
42 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 284, 286.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
261
believe that if they work the fields that day, the corn and rice will turn
blood-red.43
In Hawaii, the taboo days were reckoned by the changing of the
moon, and were observed by strict silence broken only by the prayers
of the natives. Not a fire or light was to be seen, none bathed, the
mouths of dogs were tied up, the heads of fowl were enveloped in
cloth, and only those who officiated at the temple were permitted to be
about04* Women at such times were forbidden to enter canoes; sexual
intercourse was also forbidden.45 In Central Africa the natives hide
from the sight of the moon.
It is known that moon worship long preceded any form of sun
worship and is the lowest stage in the worship of the heavenly
bodies.4s
That the Hebrew Sabbath was also a taboo day seems self-evident
from
its very
nature,
and is substantiated
by the fnllnwing
Rihlical
text.
Book of Amos, Chapter 8, verse 5:
5 Saying, When will the new mien be gone,
that we may sell corn? and the sabbath,
that we may set forth wheat, making the
ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?
It was through fear that business transactions on the Sabbath
Deity and prove unprofitable that the idea of a
taboo became so strongly associated with the day. The same thought
would displease the
seems to bc behind these words from Isaiah, Chapter 2, verse 13;
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is
an abomination unto me; the new moons and
sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn
m-ding.
43 Briffault, Mothers, Vol. 2, p. 436.
(1 Wentrrmarck, ag. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 284, 286.
45 Webster, op. cit., p. 15.
46 Briffault, op. cit., pp. 573, 578. See also Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 5, pp. 132, 139.
262
A similar
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
idea is also expressed by Hosea, Chapter
2, verse 11:
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
Such fear was manifested by the early Hebrews regarding the evil
results of working on the Sabbath that even objects were taboo. This
Jeremiah emphasizes in Chapter 17, verses 21 and 22:
21 Thus saith the Lord; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath
day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem ;
22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your
houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye
any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as
I commanded your fathers.
The above strongly emphasizes the belief in sympathetic
magic prevailing among the Biblical Hebrews.
This is further substantiated
by
Frazer, who said: “Observers, ignorant of savage superstitions,
have
commonly misinterpreted
such customs as worship or adoration paid
to the moon.
In point of fact, the ceremonies of the new moon are
probably in many cases rather magical than religious.” 4p
That the full moon has a physiological
effect upon women, and that
many feel the symptoms of menstruation
at the time of its appearance,
undoubtedly
did much to associate with its cycle the element of
a taboo. It seems firmly established that the influence of the moon
upon menstruating
women has much to do with its worship and fear
by primitive
man, as well as for the taboos placed upon the female
of the species.
It is firmly believed, even in some parts of Europe, that the moon
regularly menstruates.
When the moon is on the want, for instance,
the peasants of Bavaria say that “she is sickening,”
using the same
expression as they employ in reference tn a menstruating
woman.48
To this day, among orthodox Hebrews it is customary for women to
abstain from work at the time of the new moon.
‘4?Frazer, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 142.
48 Briffault, op. cit., p. 436.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
263
Among the Murry Islanders, however, the moon is supposed to be
a young man, who at certain periods defiles young girls, causing a
Among the Papuans, the mooa is considered rebloody discharge.
sponsible for the menses. They look upon the moon as a diminutive
youth who follows young girls and women and has sexual relations
with them, thereby causing menstruation.
The Vaupe Indians of the
Upper Amazon have the same notion; they call the first menstruation
“defloration
by the moon.”
The Papuans believe that the moon’s amours with women aroused
the jealousy of the husbands, and in punishment
“all girls and young
women should bleed when he appeared, but the older and pregnant
women should be excepted, since in the latter case he was responsible
for their condition.” 4s
In Greenland, the Eskimos believe that the moon comes down at
night and cohabits with their wnmpn;
and
young girls are afraid to
stare at the moon, imagining they may get a child as a result. Among
the Nutka Indians of Vancouver, a chief can cohabit with his wife
only by the light of the full moon.Iio
The Ja-Lou of Eastern Uganda believe that a woman can only
become pregnant at the time of the new moon, and it is generally
believed that the moon has a great deal to’ do with the occurrence.
No doubt, behind the belief in praying for a child is the thought that
real fecundation can come only from a divine source.
In Central Europe il is believed that if a girl or woman drinks
from a well or spring in which the moon is reflected, thus “swallowing
the moon,” she will certainly become pregnant in consequence.
In Brittany
the women are extremely careful not to expose the
lower part of their bodies to the rays of the moon, especially in the
first and last quarter, when the moon is horned.“l
Among the primitive tribes of East Africa, the phases of the moon
are said to have an important
influence on the child’s sex and virility.
*B Briffault,
5o Ibid.,
51 Ibid.,
op.
pp. 585,
p. 587.
cit.,
586.
p.
584.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
264
The waxing moon is supposed to produce male children, and the
waning moon females. In Cornwell the belief is current that when a
child is born in the interval between the old moon and the first appearance of the new one, it will only live to reach puberty. Hence the
saying, “No moon, no man.” It is believed that children born when
there is no moon, if they live at all, are weak, delicate, sickly and
feeble-minded.G2
In the Highlands of Scotland, girls would generally not marry until
there was a full moon.
The sa.cred bull Apis was held to be the outcome of the impregnation of a cow by the moon. In Babylon, human fertility depended
upon the moon, and offspring were called “children of the moon.”
“&looncalf” is our expression for an incomplete pregnancy,53 and
is sometimes used to refer to adolescent lovers. Women in all parts of
the world have addressed prayers to the moon for children, and many
modern songs continually refer to the moon as the presiding factor in
romantic love.
All phases of the moon are supposed to have a certain significance.
Among the Wasania, a tribe of British East Africa, no cohabitation
takes place during an eclipse. The natives of northern India are said
to consider it a great crime to partake of food, drink water, or answer
the call
of nature
during
an eclipse.
A pregnant
woman
will
do no
work then for fear that her child would be born deformed.54
In ancient
Mexico,
pregnant
women
were
greatly
pcrturbcd
when
there was an eclipse of the moon, for they feared that their children
Similar
would be born incomplete, lacking a nose, a lip or finger.
beliefs are held by Hindu and Malay women.B5 Among the high-caste
Hindus, no food that has been in the house during an eclipse of the
sun or moon must be eaten. Earthen vessels must be broken.“‘3 The
Chinese formerly observed lunar eclipses by a general suspension of
52Briffault, op. cit., p. 5%‘.
63 Ibid., pp. 436, 438, 584.
54 Webster,
op.
tit.,
66 Briffault, op. cit.,
e6 Webster, op. cit.,
p.
135.
p. 588.
p. 135.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
265
business. Many orthodox Hebrews abstain from food on the day of
an eclipse of the moon, considering it a portent which they regard as
eviLG7
A dispatch from Istanbul, Turkey, states that superstitious Turks
fired thousands of shots during a total eclipse of the moon, as, in accordance with Oriental legend, they believed that Satan was devouring
the moon and they wished to frighten or kill him. The same terror
gripped the Italian soldiers in Eritrea who feared their God was frowning in wrath upon them.58
In some German country communities a pregnant woman must on
no account linger in the moonlight lest she should bear a lunatic child;
and it is the belief in Iceland that if a pregnant woman should sit with
her face toward the moon, her child would be a lunatic.sQ No wonder,
then, that lunacy has been associated with certain phases of the moon.
The Sabbath might well be called the lunatic day of religion.
The Sabbath, then, is a survival from the days when primitive man,
awed by the appearance of the new moon, and fearing the celestial
visitor, made the time of its arrival a taboo day. Under the belief in
sympathetic magic, they thought evil results would follo’w acts committed that might displease this visitor of the sky, who shone with such
awe-inspiring brightness approximately once in every twenty-eight
days.
Therefore
any four
phases
of the moon’s
appearance
became
a
taboo day-a day on which all activities of every kind were prohibited.
The conclusion
of Hutton
Webster,
after an exhaustive
study of
Sabbath days, was that “the observance of tabooed and unlucky days
must be included among the many superstitions which have retarded
the progress of mankind.” B”
57 Webster,
op. tit., p. 135.
ES New York
Times,
SQ Briffault,
op. tit.,
Jan.
9, 1936.
p. 587.
6o Webster, op. cit., p, 302.
266
THE
THE
MAGIC
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
ASSOCIATION
OF THE NUMERAL
AND THE SABBATH
“SEVEN”
There can be no question that the reason for the observance of a
Sabbath is based upon the superstitiolus
principle
of sympathetic
magic. The “seventh” day was selected because of its supposed magical quality.
It was believed that there was so,me homeopathic
connection between its observance and good fortune, and that ill fortune
would follow its violation.
The orthodox Hebrew believed that if he
observed the Sabbath he would be followed by a good angel, and that
if he failed to observe it an evil angel would curse him.
He also
believed that by observing it strictly he would be blessed with riches
and his sins would be foNrgiven.B1 He had ample justification
for his
acts by Biblical authority.
“Let no man go out of his place on the
seventh day” was the warning injunction.e”
If it rained on the Sabbath, it was considered a positive sign of God’s displeasure with man’s
acts.63
It is the contention of Tacitus that the satellite Saturn was responsible for the observance of the Sabbath by the Hebrews because
“of the seven stars which rule human affairs, Saturn has the highest
sphere and the chief power.” O4 Tibullus,
writing before 18 B.C.,
describes
his reluctance
to underlake
a journey
which
turned out
unluckily on the seventh day of the week: “I often allege auguries and
evil omens,
or that
I held
the day of Saturn
sacred.”
Oli Even
the color
associated with Saturn was significant of evil. While gold and silver
were the colors applied to the sun and the moon, black-the
color
nearly always associated with misfortune-symbolized
Saturn.O” The
Seven Ages of man are based upon the influence of the seven planets,
61 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 10, p. 589.
F2 Exodus,
Chabter
16, verse 30.
o3 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 10, p. 490.
64 Colson, Week, p. 17. As previously
mentioned,
the Sabbath
the Israelites
until their contact with Babylonian
culture.
B5 Ibid.
OB Ibid., p. 45.
was unknown
among
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
267
and the last stage, dealing with old age, infirmity
and death, is under
Saturn, the “evil” planet.
It is quite probable that the superstitious origin of magic associated
with the seventh day was derived from the belief in the seven planets
of the sunU7 The Biblical sto’ry of creation was no doubt based upon
the erroneous belief, each planet symbolizing
a day of creation.
The
seventh day of the week, and particularly
the number “seven,” were
regarded by the early Greeks as sacred to the god Apollo.
Thus it came to be believed that the numeral “seven” had some
divine significance and that by abstaining from any activities on the
seventh day, as God is supposed to have done, evil consequences would
be avoided. The day was exclusively the Lord’s day, and labor would
be displeasing and disturbing to him. If God rested on the Sabbath, it
was considered man’s sacred duty to reverence that day by also “resting.”
The influence of this taboo prevails even today; any unusual
noise is condemned as “disturbing”
the Sabbath.
Particularly
among the Biblical
Hebrews, the number “seven”
exercised
a tremendous
religious
system.
Bible,
influence
It is mentioned
and its relation
and played
an important
part in their
more than five hundred
to the Sabbath
is extremely
times in the
significant.
A
partial survey of the number “seven” in the Bible follows:
There were seven days of creation; the seventh day was blessed
and sanctified, for God rested on the seventh day; Lamech lived seven
hundred and seventy years; Noah took ‘(of every clean beast by seven”
as well as “of the fowls also of the air by sevens”; after seven days it
rained upon the earth; and after seven days “the waters of the flood
were upon the earth”; the ark rested on the seventh month, on the
seventeenth day; it was seven days after the dove’s return when “he
again sent forth the dove out of the ark, he waited another seven days
and sent forth the dove.”
Abraham
took seven ewe lambs and Abimelech
took these seven
ewe lambs as a witness; Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty
years
old; Jacob served
67 Colson, op. cit., p. 39.
seven years
for Rachel;
Laban
pursued
Jacob
268
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
for seven days; Jacob bowed himself to the ground seven times; in
Pharaoh’s dream appear seven well-favored kine being consumed by
seven ill-favored; the seven ears of corn on one stalk were consumed
by seven “thin ears”; Joseph interpreted the dream as seven years of
plenty
and seven years of famine.
Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, bore Jacob seven sons; Jacob lived “a
hundred forty and seven years”; Jacob’s sons mourned him for seven
days; on the seventh day the Lord called unto Moses out of the midst
of the cloud; the priest of Midian had seven daughters; the Feast of
the Passover is seven days; also the injunction was given that “there
shall be seven lamps”; holy garments are to be worn seven days; there
shall be seven days of consecration; blood is to be sprinkled before the
Lord seven times; a woman was unclean for seven days after the birth
of a male child; for a female child it was twice seven; leprosy was
determined by seven days of observation; seven days were required
for purification.
The seventh Sabbath has special ceremonial significance; the first
day of the seventh month was to be a memorial; seven times seven
years was a Sabbath year; you were punished seven times more for
your sins, and seven times more plagues were added; you were unclean
seven days if you touched a dead body; all who entered the tent of
the dead were unclean seven days; Balaam built seven altars, sacrificed
seven lambs and seven oxen; seven nations were to be destroyed; seven
years’ service brought release; seven weeks from the Passover was
planting time; the Feast of Tabernacles was to be observed seven days
after the gathering of the corn; Israel’s enemies were to flee seven
ways; seven priests were to bear seven trumpets and on the seventh
day encompass the city seven times; and this magic combination of
seven caused the Lord to deliver the city to the Israelites; seven tribes
of Israel were divided into seven parts.
Seven parts of Israel did not receive their inheritance; for doing
evil, the Lord delivered the children of Israel into the hands of the
Midians for seven years; a.seven-year-old bullock was sacrificed at the
altar of Baal; Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel seven years; Samson
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
269
demanded that a riddle be solved in seven days; he was bound with
seven green switches; Delilah was to weave seven locks of his hair;
seven locks of his hair were cut off and he lost his strength; seven
hundred chosen men could sling a stone at a hairsbreadth and not miss.
A daughter-in-law “which Ioveth thee” is better than seven sons;
the ark of the Lord was in the country of the Philistines seven months;
after seven days tarry in Gilgal, the Lord promised a visit to Samuel;
the elders of Jabesh asked for a seven days’ respite; the seven sons of
Jesse passed before Samuel; they fasted seven days at Jabesh; David
was king in Hebron seven years; David slew the men of seven hundred
chariots; seven sons were hung in Gibeah; Solomon took seven years
to build the Temple; there were seven wreaths for one chapiter and
seven for the other; the assembly of the men of Israel took place
before King Solomon during the seventh month; Solomon had seven
hundred wives.
Elijah’s servant went seven times to behold the miracle of the cloud
out of the sea; Ahab numbered the children of Israel as “being seven
thousand”; on the seventh day they went forth to battle; the King of
Judah and the King of Israel planned a seven days’ journey; when the
King of Moab saw that the battle was too strong for him, he took with
him seven hundred men.
The child sneezed seven t.imes; to wash in the Jordan seven times
was the cure for leprosy; a sojourn of seven years avoided a seven
years’ famine; Johoash was seven years old when he began to reign in
the seventh year of Jehu; unto the Lord were offered seven hundred
oxen and seven thousand sheep; the Arabians presented Jehoshaphat
seven thousand and seven hundred rams and seven thousand and seven
hundred he-goats; Ahasuerus held a feast for seven days; on the
seventh day he ordered the seven chambermaids to bring Queen Vashti
before him; with the king were the seven princes of Persia; he gave
Esther seven maids; she was taken into the king’s house during the
seventh year of his reign.
Job had sewn
sons;
he also had seven thousand
sheep;
his friends
sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights; the
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
270
Lord was praised seven times; the House of Wisdom has seven pillars.
The just man falleth seven times; there are seven thousand abominations; seven women shall take hold of one man; the Lord shall smite
the seven streams; the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days; at the end of seven days the word of the Lord came
unto Ezekiel; the weapons of war shall burn with fire for seven years;
every day for seven days a goat was prepared for a sin offering; seven
days shall they purge and purify the altar; from the commandment to
restore the Temple shall be seven weeks; upon one stone laid before
Joshua shah be seven years; there were seven pipes to seven lamps.
Ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day; there were seven
counselors; the furnace was heated seven times more; vengeance shall
be sevenfold; Joseph was seventeen years old when he brought his
father the evil report; Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen
years; in seven no evil shall touch thee.
“All sevens are beloved,” says the Midrash.
Even the name of
God was supposed to have seventy-two syllables; God had seventy
attributes;
scvcnty
names of angels were
good for protection
against
all sorts of danger.
There
were
seven occasions
which
required
the ritual
washing
of
the hands; the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple is celebrated by seven “rain fasts” on Tisha B’ab. To recite the seven
references to the voice of God 68 was suggested to protect one who
must drink water on a night when evil spirits are particularly active;
mourners encircle the coffin seven times; the bride walks around the
groom under the canopy seven times; the mezuzalzcontains the seven
names of angels; magical results were obtained by repeating things
seven times; draw seven circles on the ground and continue the performance
seven days.
A classic illustration of the number seven in magic is this Talmudic
prescription
to cure a tertian
fcvcr:
“Take
seven prickles
from
seven
palm trees, seven chips from seven beams, seven nails from seven
bridges, seven ashes from seven ovens, seven scoops of earth from
68 Psalms
29: 3-10.
THE
FOURTH
271
COMMANDMENT
seven door-sockets, and seven pieces of pitch from seven ships, seven
handfuls elf cumin, and seven hairs from the beard of an old dog, and
tie them to the neck-hole of a shirt with a white twisted cord.” BD
In view of the recital of the numeral seven among the Biblical
Hebrews one can well understand what magical results they associated
with its use.
The only book of the Old Testam,ent which does not contain the
word seven is the Songs of Solomon, and that is the one book that
Biblical scholars agree is not a Hebrew wo’rk!
THE
SANCTITY
OF THE
SABBATH
Orthodox Hebrews still consider the observance of the Sabbath the
In fact, to many the
most essential part of their religious duties.
Sabbath is the holy boad between them and their God. As previously
stated, the Sabbath is not onIy rruxliorm.I
in all the different
sets of
Commandments,
but appears in innumerable
passages throughout the
Bible as an additional warning of its importance.
In Leviticus, Ckapter 24, verse 8, we find:
8
Every
sabbath
he
shall
set
it
in
nrclrr
fore the Lord
continually,
being taken
the children
of Israel by an everlasting
nant.
And in the same bo’ok, Chapter
be-
from
cove-
26, verse 2:
z VP shall keep my sabbaths,
my sanctuary:
I am the LORD.
and
reverence
Another indication of the BibIe God’s insistence that the Sabbath
observed is found in Ezekiel, Chapter 20, verses 12 to 20:
12
Moreover
also I gave them my sabbaths,
be a sign between
me and them, that Lhry
might know that I am the Lord that sanctify
them.
to
13
But
the
house
of
Israel
rebelled
ngnimt
me in the wilderness:
they walked
not in my
statutes,
and they
despised
my judgments,
which
if a man do, he shall even live in
them; and my sabbaths
they greatly
polluted:
6o Trachtenberg,
Jewish
Magic
and
,Supersiition,
p.
119.
be
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
272
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon
them in the wilderness, to consume them.
14 But I wrought for my name’s sake, that
it should not be polluted before the heathen,
in whose sight I brought them out.
15 Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them
in the wilderness, that I would not bring them
into the land which I had given them, flowing
with milk and honey, which is the glory of all
lands ;
16 Because they despised my judgments, and
walked not in my statutes, but polluted my
sabbaths: for their heart went after their
idols.
17 Nevertheless mine eye spared them from
destroying them, neither did I make an end
of them in the wilderness.
18 But I said unto their children in the
wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of
your fathers, neither observe their judgments,
nor defile yourselves with their idols:
19 I ~m the Lord your God; walk in my
statutes, and keep my judgments, and do
lhrm ;
20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall
be a sign between me and you, that ye may
know that I nw the Lord your God.
It could not be stated more emphatically than in vcfse 20, just
quoted, that the Sabbath was the holy bond between the Children of
Israel and the Bible Deity.
penalty for its violation,
They observed it not only to avoid the
but to receive the rewards promised for its
observance.
So strictly
was the Sabbath to be observed
that. even to cook food
on that day was prohibited. All meals which were to be eaten on the
Sabbath had to be prepared the previous day. Exodus, Chapter 16,
verses 23 and 24:
23 And he said unto them, This t that
which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the
rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake
that which ye will bake to-day,
and seethe
that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth
over lay up for you to be kept until the
morning.
24
And they laid it up till lhe morning, as
Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither
was there any worm therein.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
273
As a matter of fact, the Sabbath was so holy that even putrefaction
and decomposition
were supposed to be suspended on that day!
But
despite the Bible statement, both processes continue wholly unmindful
of the day of the week. The seventh is no exception; if it were, and
if food were not subject to the laws of nature, then, indeed, there would
be some justification
for its observance.
Nature, however, gives the
lie to the Bible.
We quote Exodus, Chapter 16, verses 25 to 29:
25 And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for today is a sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye
shall not find it in the field.
26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the
seventh day, zerhick is the sabbath, in it there
shall be none.
27 And it came to pass, that there went out
some of the people on the seventh day for to
gather, and they found none.
28 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long
refuse ye to keep my commandments and my
laws?
29 See, for that the Lord hath given you
the sabbath, therelore he giveth you on the
sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye
every man in his place, let no man go out
of his place on the seventh day.70
The statement “that there went out SorYte of the people . . . for
to gather, and they found none” (meaning food), is false, for the earth
knows no seventh day and the fruits of the fields no’ Sabbath.
The
grass grows, Aowers bloom, fruit ripens, the winds blow, the sky is
blue, the stars shine, the birds sing, love buds and blossoms on the
seventh, just as on any other day of the week. The sanctity of the
seventh day as a holy Sabbath is without validity.
By observing such
a day, man has robbed himself of a substantial portion
of the jny
of
living.
If Nature could give vent to her emotions, she would laugh at
this stupidity of man.
In order to emphasize the importance
of the observance of the
Sabbath, we quote Exodus, Chapter 31, verses 12 to 17:
reThe last line of verse 29, quoted above, is the reason why a pious Hebrew
traveled only a limited distance from his home on the Sabbath.
274
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
I3 Speak
thou
also unto
the children
of
Israel,
saying,
Verily
my sabbaths
ye shall
keep:
for it is a sign between
me and you
throughout
your
generations;
that
ye may
know
you.
that
I
am
the
Lord
that
cloth
snnrtib
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath
therefore;
for
it is holy unto you.
Every
one that defileth
it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever
doeth nny work
therein,
that soul shall be
cut off from among
his people.
15
Six days may Twork be done; but in the
seventh
is the sabbath
of rest, holy to the
Lord:
whosoever
doeth alzy work
in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore
the children
of Israel shall keep
the sabbath,
to observe
the sabbath
throughout their generations,
for a perpetual
covenant.
17 It is a sign between
me and the children
of Israel for ever:
for in six days the Lord
made heaven
and earth.
and on the seventh
day he rested, and was refreshed.
This day was to be a perpetual covenant between the Bible God
and the Children of Israel, binding them fo’rever, and death was the
penalty for its violation.
If they kept the Commandments,
they were
lo “know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” We shall see
presently how much truth there is in either or both of these statements.
A strict interpretation
01 this Commandment
forbids all work, all
labor of any kind, “for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul
shall be cut off from among his pcoplc,” and “whosoever doeth any
work in the sabbath day, shall surely be put to death.”
It is almost
impossible to describe the frightful paralysis that this taboo day had
on the primitive mind.
Intelligent
people today know that there is no
relationship whatever between the “violation”
of the Sabbath and evil
results. The best proof is the fact that millions of people now perform the same work on the so-called Sabbath as on any other day of
the week, with identical results. Demonstrations
are the best method
of counteracting
the unfounded
fears associated with taboos and
religious superstitions.
The Christian who works on Sunday will suffer
no more ill effects than will the Hebrew who’ labors on Saturday.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
275
Let the Bible speak for itself regarding the punishment to be
inflicted for “violating” the Sabbath. Numbers, Chapter 15, verses
32 to 36:
32
And
while the children of Israel were
in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks
brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto
all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it
was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man
shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without
the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him
without the camp, and stoned him with stones,
and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
On the advice of Moses, who was commanded by God, the unfortunate man who gathered some sticks on the Sabbath day was
taken by the congregation
outside the camp and stoned to death.
This
man did not commit murder, he did not steal, nor did he violate a
maiden.
His crime
was
far more
heinous.
T-IF! fiickd
up some sticks
Religious taboos can so pervert the mind that committing murder for an infraction of a taboo is considered justifiable,
even though one of the provisions of the Decalogue specifically admonishes, “Thou shalt not kill.”
The following pa,ssage- Numbers, Chapter 15, verses 37 to 41gives us further enlightenment:
on the Sabbath!
37 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and
bid them that they make them fringes in the
borders of their garments, throughout their
generations, and that they put upon the fringe
of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe,
that ye may look upon it, and remember all
the commandments of the Lord, and do them;
and that ye seek not after your own heart
and your own eyes, after which ye use to go
a whoring:
276
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
40 That ye may remember, and do all my
commandments, and be holy unto your God.
41 I am the Lord your God, which brought
you out of the land of Egypt, to be your
God: I am the Lord your God.71
So important were the Sabbath and its observance that the Bible
God bade the Children of Israel make fringes in the borders of their
garments, “and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband
of blue,” and that they look upon it “and remember all the commandments of the Lord.” Before the invention of the calendar, the Hebrews
separated the fringes on their holy garments in order to count the days
of the week and determine which one was the Sabbath.
In order that the sacredness of this day might be still further
impressed upon the Children of Israel, there were additional instructions-Exodus, Chapter 35, verses 1 to 3:
1 And Moses gathered all the congregation
of the children of Israel together, and said
unto them, These ere the words which the
Lord hath commanded, that ye should do
them.
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the
seventh day there shall be to you a holy day,
a sabbath of rest to thP T.nrd*
whosoever
doeth work therein shall be put to death.
3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your
habitations upon the sabbath day.
Again the Lord emphasizes the importance and holiness of the
Sabbath, making it without any doubt. the most important
of all the
Commandments to be obeyed,
Whether Moses has again been in communication with the Lord or
whether this is merely an elaboration of the Commandment given at a
previous meeting with him, we do not know. But the injunction is
very specific: “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day
there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord:
whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”
“The last two verses quoted above would indicate that the Sabbath was to be
observed because their God “brought ynn out of the land of Egypt, to be your God,”
and not because he rested after six days of labor. Which again raises the question:
Is the Sabbath as old as creation or only as old as Moses?
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
277
The following quotation is significant because it emphasizes the
complete taboo associated with the Sabbath and the necessity for a
cessation of labor on this day. It also presages the work that was to
be prescribed-Nehemiah, Chapter 13, verses 15 to 17:
15 In those days saw I in Judah some treading winepresses on the sabbath, and bringing
in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine,
grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens,
which they brought into Jerusalem on the
sabbath day: and I testified against
them in
the day wherein they sold victuals.
16 There dwelt men of Tyre also therein,
which brought fish, and all manner of ware,
and sold on the sabbath unto the children of
Judah, and in Jerusalem.
I7 Then I contended with the nobles of
Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing
is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath
day ?
The above text is in direct contradiction to the statement made in
Exodus, Chapter 16, verse 27. There it was stated that no food was
found on the Sabbath, while here it says that food in abundance was
not only found and prepared, but even “sold on the sabbath unto the
children of Judah, and in Jerusalem,” and apparently consumed with
great satisfaction and no evil results!
Not only did picking up sticks and kindling a fire constitute a
mortal sin, but buying food was condemned as a “profanation of the
Sabbath day.” What a monstrous crime that was! I continue with
Nehemiah,
Chapter
13, verses 18 to 22:
18 Did not your fathers thus, and did not
our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon
this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon
Israel by profaning the sabbath.
19 And it came to pass, that when the gates
of Jerusalem began to be dark before the
sabbath, I commanded that the gates should
be shut, and charged that they should not
be opened till after the sabbath: and Some of
my
servants
set
I at the gates, tkot there
should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.
278
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
20 So the merchants and sellers of all kind
of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or
twice.
21 Then I testified against them, and said
unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if
ye do so again, I will lay hands on you.
From that time forth came they no more on
the sabbath.
22 And I commanded the Levites, that they
should cleanse themselves, and tlzat they
should come and keep the gates, to sanctify
the sabbath day. Remember me, 0 my God,
concerning
this also, and spare me according
to the greatness of thy mercy.
The Children of Israel kept the Sabbath as specified in this Commandment
and in other passages of the Bible.
They observed it
with the same fanatical devotion as the previous Commandments
and
with much the same results: they paid in blood, tears, torture and
humiliation.
If picking up sticks and lighting a fire on the Sabbath were punishable by death, surely other acts must likewise be condemned.
Is it
any wunder, then, that with such a taboo attached to the Sabbath
there were formulated detailed provisions of what could and could not
be done?
The patriarchs were ingenious in their reasoning.
Moses has said,
“These arc? thr! ~emro?s.‘s.”
The arithmetical
sum of the Hebrew letters
composing the words is thirty-six.
They valued “the words” as three,
making a total of thirty-nine
articles to be prohibited on the Sabbath.
But thirty-nine
prohibited
articles gave entirely too much leeway to
violate the Sabbath, and so these “inspired”
patriarchs
multiplied
thirty-nine
by thirty-nine
and arrived at the “infallible”
number of
152 1 separate and distinct acts that were not to, be permitted
on the
Sabbath! y2 They then proceeded to enumerate them. If they failed
to include anything, the credulous made up for any lack of their
imagination.
Naturally,
we cannot here enumerate all the things that were
specifically mentioned as forbidden on this sacred day. Under the
12 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 10, p. 536.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
279
thirty-nine provisions, which touch every branch of human activity,
the laws founded upon this Commandment were invoked. The reader
may get an idea of the comprehensiveness of the prohibitions from the
following acts forbidden on the Sabbath: plowing, sowing, reaping,
binding sheaves together, threshing, winnowing, bolting, sifting, kneading, baking or cooking, shearing, bleaching o’r beating fleece, dyeing,
spinning, braiding, knitting two loops crosswise, weaving two strands,
separating two strands, knotting, unknotting, sewing two stitches,
rending for the purpose of sewing two, stitches, snaring, slaughtering
or flaying a deer, salting, marking or erasing the mark or cutting the
skin, writing two letters, erasing for the purpo,se of writing two letters,
building, breaking down, extinguishing, kindling, beating with a hammer, carrying from one place to another.
Some of the 1521 prohibited acts follow: It is forbidden to fast on
the Sabbath for the express purpose of fasting, even for a very short
time, and to fast until noonday is forbidden, at any rate, even if not
done for the purpose of fasting. Squeezing lemons is forbidden. It is
forbidden to milk an animal on the Sabbath. A woman to whom the
abundance of milk in her breasts causes pain is permitted to let the
milk
out upon the ground.
It is forbidden
to, scrape snow or hail or
crush it into small portions in order to extract the water, but it is
permissible
to put it in a cup of water and Ict it melt.
It is forbidden to wring out a garment which has absorbed any
liquid.
If water is spilled,
it. is fnrbidden
to’ wipe it up with a cloth
about which one is particular, as there may be the temptation to wring
it out; nor should it be wiped up with a sponge unless there is a handle;
the handle might possibly guard against its being wrung out, as it is
impossible to keep from wringing it if it has no handle. It is forbidden
to shake out a garment which has been soaked in water, or upon which
rain has fallen; it is even forbidden to handle it for fear of wringing
it out. It is forbidden to shake from a black garment rain, snow, dust
or feathers that have fallen upon it.
It is especially
forbidden
to wash one’s head on the Sabbath,
cause that would transgress many prohibitions.
be-
It is forbidden to
THE
280
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
pare the nails or remove a hair or an ulcer either with the hand or with
an instrument, either from oneself or from others. It is likewise
forbidden to comb the hair with a comb or hairbrush on the Sabbath,
as it is impossible that hair should not be torn out. It is forbidden to
pull out even one gray hair from among the black on one’s head so as
not to appear old.
If a fly falls into an edible ot beverage, one should not remove the
fly itself, but should throw some of the edible or beverage out along
with it.
It is forbidden to rub off mud from a garment or scrape it off with
the fingernail. One must not write; even carrying a pencil is prohibited. A writer must not carry his pen, or a tailor his needle. It is
not permitted to carry money on the Sabbath. Shining one’s shoes is
forbidden.
False teeth had to be removed on Friday, and false hair could not
be worn on the street on the Sabbath. Wadding that fell out of the
ear on that day had to be left out.7S
Simeon ben Yohai regarded too much talking as inconsistent with
a proper celebration of the Sabbath. 74 Loud noises were a violation;
clapping one’s hands, striking with a hammer, music of any kind, and
any demonstration of joy were condemned as impious.
Although
it was contended
that every
animal
carries
itself
and it
would not be a burden if it carried a man, still a man should not ride
an animal
for fear that if he did he might
cut a switch
in order
to
whip the animal to make it go.
If an act is permissible but the result of that act should lead to
another that is prohibited, the former is considered a violation of the
Sabbath. If an act is prompted by a good motive and results in a good
deed, the perpetrator is nevertheless guilty if the thing he did is
prohibited.
Extinguishing a light is forbidden, even if done for the purpose of
7s For a complete list of acts prohibited on the Sabbath, see Laws and Customs of
fvom the Codes.
Translated from the Hebrew by Gerald Friedlander
Shapiro, Valentine and Co., London, 1929, p. 264.
74 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 589.
Iwool Com@Ied
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
281
conserving oi1.76 It is better to permit the consumption of oil uselessly
than to violate the Sabbath by putting out the light!
Reading on the Sabbath was permitted provided you were not too
close to the light. To’ get the full benefit of the light would be a
violation. You must suffer difficulty in being able to see1 76
Tying or untying knots was prohibited. One rabbi said that a knot
that could be untied with one hand was permissible, while another said
that if the knot was not intended to be permanent it would not violate
the Sabbath.
If there be a stain o’n an article made of leather, it is permissible to
pour water on it, but it is forbidden to’ wash it.
Broken windows or doors, even though they be hanging on their
hinges, cannot be removed on the Sabbath. One must not carry an
umbrella. The leg of a broken chair must not be replaced. It is
forbidden to put laces in shoes if the holes are too small and there is
difficulty in putting them in. A dull knife must not be sharpened.
If a burning candle or sparks fall upon a table, it is permitted to
shake the table, but not with the intention of extinguishing the sparks.
It is forbidden to open a door to let the wind extinguish a candle or a
fire.
Removing the bastings which a tailor has temporarily placed in a
garment is prohibited. Tearing paper is prohibited.‘7
To carry a child is forbidden. If the child is too small to walk, the
parent must make some semblance of its walking by letting its feet
touch the ground. However, to drag the child is considered the same
as carrying it, and hence forbidden.
One should especially abstain from carrying a watch. If a hand76 Jcwbk
Vol.
Encyclopedia,
16 Ibid.,
10,
pp.
593,
594.
p. 594.
77 So intensely can this taboo complex stifle the mind that the following
incredible
had
it not
been
told
to me
by
the
person
who
observed
the
practice.
would seem
On
the
Sabbath, this person would not tear paper to cleanse himself after performing his
physical duty. He would tear paper on Friday and carry it with him, in case of
necessity,
to
be
used
on
Saturday.
Wxs
he
murh
wmnved
primitive who refused to answer the call of nature during
Webster, The Rest Days, p. 35.
intellertually
from
the
the eclipse of the moon?
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
282
kerchief is carried, it must be around the upper garment. Since making two knots on the Sabbath is prohibited, care should be taken that
only one knot is made in o’rder that it may remain on the garment.
The application of saliva to the eyes is supposed to have a curative
effect, and is therefore forbidden. On the Sabbath you may put a
plaster on a wound to prevent it from getting worse, but not for the
purpose of its getting better or well. Broken bones may not be set on
the Sabbath; that would be considered curing. Not even the dislocated limb of a child may be set. A surgical operation must not be
performed. Emetics must not be given.
It is unlawful to kill a flea on the Sabbath. To pluck a blade of
grass is forbidden. It is unlawful to wear any garment which one
might take off and carry in the hand, for this would be a burden.7s
Fruit that ripened on the Sabbath is taboo. Fruit found under a
tree on the Sabbath must not be handled, for perchance it may have
fallen on that day. Eggs laid on the Sabbath are likewise taboo.
Ringing a bell is prohibited. Making mental calculations on the Sabbath is a violation. Reading letters is prohibited.
If one is ill but is able to get about, he cannot take medicine to
relieve his pain. An aching tooth must continue to ache until the
Sabbath is over before it may be treated. You may, however, use
vinegar to allay the pain, provided you drink it, as it is then considered
food. To spit it out would classify it as medicine, and that is prohibited. Rinding an open wound is prohibited, as the cloth may be
colored by the blood that flows, and that is prohibited. If cold water
would bring relief to a sprained ankle, it may not be used.79
It is a violation to attempt to save anything from a burning house.
Sacred books, however, are an exception, provided they are not of
another religion and do not mention the name of God.*O
Could there be a day that more nearly required suspended animation in order that all of its insane restrictions and prohibitions might
78Charles,
78 Jewish
e” Ibid.,
The Lkalogue,
Encyclopedia,
p, 594.
p. 120.
Vol.
10,
p. $97.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
283
be observed? How can a system of religion whose God provides a
day that so paralyzes the brain of man be productive of good to the
human race?
So fanatical did the Hebrews become regarding the observance of
the Sabbath that they even refused to defend themselves from their
enemies on that day. To fight in self-defense was prohibited.*l JOsephus states: “They avoided to defend themselves on that day
because they were not willing to break in upon the honour they owed
the Sabbath, even in such distress. . . .”
When the enemy nations of the Hebrews learned about this, they
took advantage of their stupid “day of rest” and concentrated their
attacks on the day they feared to “labor.”
Plutarch commented:
“They so lay still until they were caught like so many trout in the
dragnet of their own superstition.”
The general of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the second century B.C.,
took advantage of the law of the Sabbath of the Hebrews, and put to
the sword 1000 unresisting Jews who were engaged in worship.*” Their
strict, literal interpretation and observance of this Commandment, the
fear of breaking a taboo day even in defense of their lives, is one of
the most amazing phenomena of religious superstition.
During the time of the destruction of the eagles and the protest
against the use of ensigns and flags by the Remans in t-he Jewish
provinces, Apion used as one of his strongest arguments against the
Jews their fanatical observance of the Sabbath day, A “Sabbath”a cessation of all work and the devotion of the entire day to prayer
-was then unknown to either the Greeks or the Romans and indicated to them an unbalanced mind.s3 What must be said of modern
Christians for imitating this superstition?
But even the fanaticism of the early Hebrews could not forever be
maintained in the face of wanton destruction. The result of this strict
observance of the Sabbath would have meant complete annihilation
81 Charles,
The Decalogue,
p, 12.5.
82 Charles,
op. cit.
83 Josephus,
Wars c~f the Jews, Vol.
10.
284
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
because of their refusal to obey the laws as prescribed by the emperor
of the Roman Commonwealth. It was therefore decided, after much
needless sacrifice, that the Sabbath was not to be binding when it
was necessary to defend themselves from attack. Mattathais, their
leader, advised them that unless they defended themselves “they
would become their own enemies, by observing the law [so rigorously], while their adversaries would still assault them on this day
and they would not defend themselves, and that nothing could then
hinder but they all must perish without fighting.” This speech persuaded them; and this rule continues to this day-“that
if there be
necessity, we must fight on Sabbath days.‘, 84
Although the Hebrews had dedicated themselves to a strict observance of the Sabbath, they found it necessary, as a means of preservation, to violate this prohibition. Unable any longer to permit the
unmerciful slaughter and frightful decimation to continue, they finally
decided that in times of war and in defense of themselves, the Commandment could be violated. To succor the ill, however, to help one
in distress, to do a good deed that required labor, to work for the
benefit of others, even to pick up a stick, were all condemned as the
worst of sins if performed on the Sabbath, punishable with death by
stoning; but to kill as a means of defense in warfare was declared
permissible.
Either the whole concept of the Sabbath should be repudiated or
they should sufler the consequences for the observance of those provisions which they believe their God imposed upon them, even if it
means annihilation.
If the Hebrew God wanted the Children of Israel to observe this
Commandment literally, as the many texts in the Bible indicate, why
did he not exercise his omnipotent power and prevent his “chosen
people” from being attacked by enemies, at least on the Sabbath3
If it were necessary to violate the literal interpretation of the
Fourth Commandment so as to prevent complete destruction, does it
not follow that each and every Commandment is subject to the same
84 Josephus, The Antiquities,
Vol. 4, p. 254.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
285
elastic interpretation when a similar crisis presents itself, and when
its enforcement presages disastrous results? If that is true, what is
to be the standard by which these exceptions are to be determined?
And do not these exceptions in effect nullify the validity of the Commandments?
To emphasize again not only the importance of observing the
Sabbath, but also the penalties to be inflicted for its violation, I quote
Exodus,
Chapter
35, verses 1 to 3:
1 And Moses gathered all the congregation
of the children of Israel together, and said
unto them, These are the words which the
Lord hath commanded, that ye should do
them.
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the
seventh day there shall be to you a holy
day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
3
Ye
shall
habitations
kindle
no
fire
throughout
your
upon the sabbath day.
The refusal of the Hebrews to light a fire on the Sabbath day,
because of this injunction, caused them frightful suffering, particularly
during the Spanish Inquisition.
WLen the terrible
edict of expulsion
was put into effect, thousands upon thousands went through the formality of renouncing their faith and becoming Christians rather than
suffer the tortures and misery of dispersion for believing, practising
and observing the “Laws of Moses.” They were called Conversos and
Marranos. Conversions are not easily accomplished, and, believing
discretion to be the better part of valor, they gave the semblance of
assent. But the Spanish Inquisitors had a method of detecting the
genuineness of the conversion. They watched for the slightest indication of the observance of tke Sabbath.
One way they could discover this was when the weather made heat necessary in the house.
Because of the strict observance of this Commandment to “kindle
no fire throughout their habitation” on the Sabbath, the Inquisitors
observed that no smoke came from the chimneys. On this cvidcnce,
they accused the Conversos of practising the tenets of their pre-
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
286
sumably abandoned religion, which to the Inquisitors justified arrest
and trial and subjection to the Inquisitorial methods of torture.
The misery and suffering that the Children of Israel endured for
observing this Commandment cannot be told more poignantly than
by merely mentioning historical facts. In the whole story of religious
persecution there is no bloodier page. The fanatical Spanish Christian butchered and slaughtered the Jews in a manner unparalleled in
history. So intense was the hatred in the hearts of the Inquisitors
that “a kindness to a Jew was a sin against God.” 85 A Christian was
forbidden to drink wine in the house of a Jew.86 Was this one of the
blessings that the Bible God conferred on them for keeping his Commandments? Did ever a people suffer such atrocities as the direct
cause of the observance of their religion which their God imposed upon
them under threat of death? Could the punishment for violation of
this Commandment have been as terrible as the suffering they endured
for its observance?
The most ingenious devices were used by the believers in the
Mosaic law to observe the Sabbath and at the same time avoid the
suspicion of the Inquisitors, One of the methods of concealment was
for the mother and daughters of the house to sit with reels or spinning wheels before them on the Sabbath so that if anyone came,
they could pretend to be at work.87 These ruses, however, were
not often successful.
In the public autos-da-f6 of Cordova, from 1655 to 1700, out of
three hundred and ninety-nine persons brought forward, three hundred and seventy-four were those who tried to follow literally the
provisions of the Fourth Commandment. In Toledo, from 1651 to
1700, where were ei&
hundred
and fifty-five
cases of which five
hundred and fifty-six were for Sabbatical observances. In Valladolid,
in 1699, out of eighty-five accused, seventy-eight were for this “crime.”
abLea,
History of the Inquisition
80 Ibid.,
p. 70.
87 Ibid.,
Vol.
3,
p. 300.
of
Spain, Vol,
1, p, 111.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
287
For observing the Sabbath, not for violating it, Antonio Lopez,
at Valladolid, in 1648, was tortured from eight o’clock in the morning
until eleven at night, and was left with a crippled arm. Unable to
stand the terrific pain he was suffering ari a result of the torture he
had endured, he endeavored to strangle himself, and died within a
month. After being confined for ten months in the inquisitorial dungeon and suffering numerous tortures, among which was having an
arm broken and a toe wrenched off, Engracia Rodrigues, a woman of
sixty, finally confessed her diabolical crime of Sabbath keeping and
Jewish practices.@?
For confession under torture, and for revoking the confession when.
relieved, Miguel de Castro, at Valladolid, in 1644, had an arm dislocated and lost two fingers. He was to be tortured again, when the
physician and surgeon declared him unable to endure it. However,
after he confessed and begged for mercy, he received a final punishment of a hundred lashes.
At Toledo, in Spain, in the year 1567, there lived Elvira de1
Campo, who was of Converso descent and married to a respectable
Christian. She was charged with observing the Sabbath, refusal to
eat pork, and keeping other Mosaic rituals. She was also charged
with putting on clean linen on Saturdays, and not working. Although
her frierlds and neighbors testified that she was a Christian
who
attended mass regularly, made confession, and gave all outward signs
of being devout,
she was nevertheless brought to trial.
It was admitted that she was a good woman, kind and charitable, ad never
spoke ill of anyone. Her trial was vigorously pushed, but had to be
delayed because of her pregnancy. On the strength of the evidence,
some by witnesses she had never known, she was subjected to inquisitorial torture in order to force a confession.89
The priests of the Holy Roman Catholic Church lost no opportunity to wreak their vengeance upon these “miserable relics of
Judaism,” the “unhappy fragments of the synagogue,” these “detesta**Lea,
History
of the Inquisition
0g Ibid., pp. 232-235.
of Spain,
Vol.
1,
pp.
22-23.
288
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
ble objects of scorn.” And for what? Were they guilty of unmentionable crimes against others? Did they butcher innocent children
or rape virgin girls? No. Their crime was that they believed that
this Commandment was God’s divine message. They believed the
words of this Commandment to be true. That is all. The innocent
blood of millions of the Children of Israel had been shed for the
observance of this Commandment. And yet a fundamentalist minister
has the brazen effrontery to say that “Nothing marks their [the Hebrews’] later decadence in morals or in practical righteousness more
than their constant evasion and desecration of the Sabbath day”1 go
What a mockery!
Around the day designated on the calendar as the Hebrew Sabbath
there should be a band of mourning in memory of all those who died
because of the brutal fanaticisms that accompanied the observance of
this lunatic day of religion.
In making
a superstition
of the Sabbath, with its masochistic
ritual, the Children of Israel inflicted self-strangulation
upon themselves. Never have a people sugered so much for so invalid a reason.
Their day of freedom will come only when they completely emancipate
themselves jrom the superstitious tyrunny uj the delusion of the Sabbath day.
THE WIFE AND THE SABBATH
If this Fourth Commandment is read carefully, a significant omission will be noted: the wife is not included among the persons particularly and specifically mentioned as those who should not labor on
the Sabbath!
This Commandment tells us that not only was the seventh day of
the week “blessed” and “hallowed” by God, and that it should be
kept holy in honor of the Lord, but “in it thou shalt not do any work,
nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy
cattle,
nor the stranger
~OMasse, The Gospel in the Ten Commandments,
that
p. 67.
is within
thy
gates.”
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
289
But not thy wife-why?
Why was she put in a class below that of the
beasts of burden?
For the answer, it is necessary to understand
the position of
women in early Hebrew society. In those days a woman was considered, if she was considered at all, to be of little value and deserving
of little consideration.
Had she not been cursed by God? Was she
The wife was therenot the means of bringing sin into the world?
fore not only excluded from observing certain religious tenets, but she
herself was taboo as far as sacred things were concerned.
To have
included the wife in this Commandment
would have violated the taboo
placed upon woman as a polluting
agent when associated with sacred
things.g1
Among the Hebrews of Biblical
times, the “Congregation
of the
Children of Israel” meant the men only; women were not included.
They were not permitted to take part in religious ceremonies for fear
that they would pollute the sacred portals of worship.02
The most important
daily prayer uttered by a pious Israelite is,
“Blessed art thou, 0 Lord Our God, King of the Universe, who hast
not made me a woman.”
Considering the status of woman among the
early Hebrews, oae can well urlderstand this profuse thanks and appreciation for not being an abject, despised and polluted creature.
One can get an idea of the multitude
of restrictions placed upon
women in Hebrew ritual from the recent announcement
of the Rabbinical Association of the Hebrew Theological
College that a com01 Especial significance is also attached to the omission of the word “woman”
as
the
proper
counterpart
of
5nan”
servant.
The
mentinn
nf ‘%naid”
servant
servant
is of
course proper, as it signified a girl not yet physically mature. Mention also of “thy
daughter” must be understood to mean an immature girl, as in early Hebrew tribal life
SI mature
girl was sold by her fnthw
Chapter
21, verse 7; Genesis, Chapter
either a~ a concubine
or in marriage.
29, verse 18.)
An unmarried woman
(Exodus,
in the early
society of the Children of Israel was a disgrace.
82 This
influence
was
rarrierl
into
Christianity,
and
at a council
held
at Auxerre
at
the end of the sixth century, women were forbidden to receive the Eucharist in their
naked hands. In various canons women were enjoined not to come near the altar while
~RSS was king
relebrated.
Some churches
during
the Middle
Arres. in order to avoid
any possible pollution from the presence of women, employed eunuchs to supply the
Vol. 1, p. 666.)
soprano tones for the cathedral choirs. (Westermarck, Mot&,
290
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
mittee was named to frame the necessary procedure to bring to an
end the two-thousand-year-old
taboos against women’s participation
in religious ceremonies and handling sacred, articlese3
The lower the scale of human society, the more degraded is the
position of woman, and the more despicable is she in the eyes of
the male who believes that she was created solely for his sexual satisfaction, to be disposed of and discarded at his pleasure.
In many
preliterate
cultures, Professor Wilson D. Wallis found that women
were not only forbidden to use sacred articles, but were even denied
the knowledge that they existed.
A Hindu woman may not read the Veda, nor worship a Vedic
deity, nor is she permitted
to touch the sacred images.
During certain periods of Shinto worship in Japan, women were
forbidden to pray before the miya, make offerings, touch the sacred
vessels, or kindle the lights of the Mami.04
Greek women were not
allowed to swear by Hercules and participate
in the worship at his
altar. They were also not permitted
to touch the Temple of Juno.“5
In Cairo, women are not only forbidden to pray with the congregation in the mosque, but they may not even be in the mosque during
religious services.
In Haiti, voodoo women may not enter the chamber set aside for
the worship of the native god. Tucano women may not look upon the
god Yurupari.
When the Edo of southern Nigeria are about to bring
out the ss.cred drum, they shut all doors and with loud noises warn
the women to keep away.
Among the Yahuna and o,ther tribes of Brazil, women are not allowed to see the flutes which the men use at festivals to celebrate the
ripening of fruits. The death penalty is invoked on those who out of
curiosity violate this taboo.O”
The women of the hill tribes near Rajmahal
may not sacrifice or
93New
York
‘94Eli Eduard
96 Ibid.,
Times,
Burr&,
Aug. 7, 1940.
Taboo,
Magic, Spirits,
p. 43.
p. 44.
99 Wilson D. Wallis, Religion
in Prhitive
Societies,
Chap. 17.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
291
appear at shrines, or take part in the religious festivals. Todas women
may not approach enclosures where the sacred cattle are kept. Among
the Chuvashes, women dare not assist at sacrifices. In the Sandwich
Islands, women are not allowed to share in worship or festivals, and
their touch “pollutes” offerings to the gods. In the Tongo and the
Fiji Islands, women are not allowed in places of worship, though
dogs are permitted to enter. The Arabs of Mecca will not allow
women to receive religious instruction because “it would bring them
too near their masters.” If a Hindu woman touches an image, its
divinity is destroyed and it must be thrown away.07 In the Tahiti
and the Society Islands, a wife may not touch a sacred object that belongs to her husband.98 In Africa, Bayeye women may not enter the
place of sacrifice, though this is the center of tribal life. Among the
Gallas, women may not go near the sacred zerodatree where worship is
celebrated.9e
The reason for all these prohibitions against woman lies in the
fact that what the primitive mind could not understand, it feared.
These taboos are directly traceable to woman’s “mysterious” sexual
functions, which both awed and revolted the male, He believed that
they were the cause of her physical inferiority. That, together with
the belief that her touch at certain times was polluting, resulted in
her subjugation to the physically stronger and “cleaner” male.
There is a definite connection between the taboo against the wife
in this Commandment and her periods of menstruation. From the
Bible itself comes the most convincing testimony for the reasons for
the taboo being placed upon women so as to avoid their contaminating
holy and sacred things. The exclusion of women from this Commandment also places the culture of the early Hebrews in the category of
Primitive and superstitious peoples. I quote Leviticus, Chapter 15,
verses
19 to 31:
9* E. Crawley, Mystic Rose, Vol. 1, pp. 56-61.
88 Ibid., pp. 45-46.
QQIbid., p. 60.
292
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her
issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put
apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth
her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in
her separation shall be unclean: every thing
also
that
she sitteth
upon
shall
be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall
wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water,
and be unclean until the even.
22
And whosoever toucheth any thing that
she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe
kimself
in water, and be unclean until the
even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing
whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he
shall be unclean until the even,
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and
her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean
seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth
shall be unclean.
2.5 And if a woman have an issue of her
blood many days out of the time of her
21
separation,
or if
it
run
beyond
the
time
of
her separation; all the days of the issue of
her uncleanness shall be as the days of her
separation: she skull be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days
of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of
her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth
upon shall be unclean, as lhr uncleanness of
her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things
shall be unclean, and shall wmh his clothes,
and bathe kimself in water, and be unclean
until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then
she shall number to herself seven days, and
after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take
unto her two turtles, or two young
pigeons,
and bring them unto the priest, to the door
of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a
sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement
for her before the Lord for the issue of her
uncleannr~a.
31 Thus shall ye separate the children of
Israel from their uncleanness; that they die
not in their uncleanness,
when they defile my
tabernacle that is among them.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
293
This primitive superstition regarding the function of woman was
made part of the ritual and law of the Children of Israel. Her physical condition was looked upon as a curse from God, and fear of contamination became an obsession. Naturally, a menstruous woman
was taboo on the Sabbath. Not only was everything that she touched
made “unclean,” but “everything that she lieth upon . . . everything
that she sitteth upon . . . whoever toucheth her bed . . . whoever
toucheth anything that she sat upon . . . shall be unclean.” Under
such conditions, how could she possibly participate
in the observance
of so sacred a day as the Sabbath without corrupting
it? Since it
was obviously impossible for any woman to avoid her “uncleanness”
on the Sabbath, she was forbidden to participate in observing this
sacred day solely to prevent its contamination by her. “Ye shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness . . . unless . . .
they defile my tabernacle.” loo
Even the Talmud refers to the taboo associated with a menstruating woman, and the dread with which she is held when in that condition. It is related that when a woman meets a snake on the road, it
is enough for her to say, “I am menstruating,” and the reptile will
glide away hastily.lO’ According to the Talmud, if a woman at the
beginning of her period passes between two men, she causes one of
them to die; if she passes bctwccn them at the end of her period, she
only causes them to quarrel violently.
This belief concerning a menstruous woman was not confined only
to the early and uncultured Hebrew; it prevailed in many societies
and is mentioned in many “sacred” books.
The Persian lawgiver, Zoroaster, who claimed to have received his
code direct from the mouth of the Supreme Being, Ahura Mazda, says
that a menstruous woman is the work of Ahriman, the devil. Therefore’ as long as a woman is in that condition, she is unclean and
possessed of the demon; she must be kept apart from the faithful
loo It must be understood that the highest Biblical authorities
“unclean”
as
biblically
used
is
not
the
ordinary
word
for
things
admit that the word
physically
foul
unhygienic, hut is used in a ritual sense and specifically applies to that which is taboo.
101 Trachtenberg. op. cit., p. 185.
or
294
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
whom her touch would defile. The Zoroastrian religious books enter
into minute details. The very glance of a menstruous woman was
regarded as polluting anything upon which it fell. Hence, a menstruating woman must not loo’k upon a fire, or upon water, or converse with any man. No fire was to be kindled in the house during
that period.
Among the Gonds it was believed that the greatest evils would
befall anyone who looked at a woman during her state of impurity,
and the Nayar women cannot enter a sacred place in such a condition.lo2 Among the Kamar, when a woman is menstruating, no man
belonging to the same household can enter the temple or perform
any act of worship until he is “purified.” lo3
Among the Veddas of Travancore, the wife, during her monthly
periods, is secluded for five days in her hut.lo4 In Queensland, menstruous women are “unclean,” and no one will touch a, dish which
they have used. A Brahman must not allow himself to be touched
by a menstruous woman, or even to eat food offered by her.
Among the Eskimos, women are regarded as dangerously contagious during menstruation ; they must have their own cups and
dishes, which men must be careful not to use or touch.
Among certain tribes of Indians, while a woman is menstruating, she is the very
incarnation
of evil, a plague to be avoided at all costs. Among the
Bribri Indians of Costa Rica, a menstruating woman must not use
any household utensil, hut. must make shift with banana leaves, which
are afterwards carefully buried, for it is believed that if a cow should
happen to eat such a leaf, it would die. The Macusi of Guiana believe that women and girls, while menstruating, are impure and would
be attacked by snakes if they went into the forest. The vessels
which they use are directly broken, and the shreds and pieces carefully buried.lo5
Among the Guayquiry of the Orinoco, it is believed that whatlo2 Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. 2, p. 370.
~73 Ibid..
Vol. 1, p. 37X.
lo4Crawley, Mystic Rose, Vol. 1, pp. 56-61.
106 Briffault, op. cit., pp. 365-371.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
295
ever a menstruous woman steps on or touches will wither and die, and
that if a man treads where she has been, his legs will swell. The
Visayans of the Philippine
Islands believe that if a menstruous
woman comes in contact with fishing nets, they will no longer catch
fish, weapons will no longer be efficient, and fighting cocks will no
longer be able to fight.log
Like many Indians, the Uganda believe that weapons touched by
a menstruating
woman would cause them to lose their value and that
the owners would be killed the next time they attempted to use them.
Among the North American Indians, everything
that was touched
by the hand of a menstruous woman was deemed ceremonially
unclean, and if she crossed the path of a hunter or warrior, he would
have no luck that day.lo7 The Stseelis Indians of British Columbia
imagined that if a menstruous woman stepped over a bundle of arrows, the arrows would thereby be rendered useless and might even
cause the death of their owner; if she passed in front of a hunter
who carried a gun, the weapon would never shoot straight again.lO*
The peasants of Lebanon think that menstruous women are the
cause of many misfortunes
and that their shadows cause flowers to
wither and trees to perish.log
The Menangkabau
of Sumatra believe that if a woman goes near
a rice field while she is menstruating,
the crop will fail. In the wine
districts of Bordeaux and the Rhine, women, when menstruating,
are
strictly forbidden to approach the vats and cellars, lest the wine should
turn to vinegar.
A similar taboo prevails in the sugar refineries where
sugar is boiling or cooking, for fear it will turn black.liO
Similar superstitions,
too numerous to mention,
prevail among all types of
people.lll
lOOBriffault, op. cit., pp. 375, 381.
107 Frazer, Bnldev the Beautiful, Vol. 1, pp. 86, 87.
108 Ibid., p. 89.
109 Ibid., p. 83.
110 Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 385, 387.
II1 The superstition still prevails today that a living plant will wither at the touch
of a menstruous woman, and that women during that period should not make food
preservesof any kind as they will spoil.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
296
The Orang Belenda believe that contact with a menstruous woman
will deprive a man of sexual strength. It is stated that an Australian
native killed his wife when he discovered that she had used his blanket
while menstruating.
During the time of Maimonides, it was the common custom of
the women of the East during their periods to be kept in a separate
house, and to burn everything upon which they had trodden. A man
who spoke to such a woman, or who was merely exposed to the same
wind that blew over her, became thereby unclean.
In Australia, among the Pennefather, Margaret Bay and Proserpine River tribes, a menstruating girl is buried up to her waist in a
pit in the sand, a fence of brushwood is built around her, and no
one would think of coming near. She is fed by her mother, and is
provided with a stick to scratch herself, as she must on no account
touch her body with her hands.l12
The Parsees, who reverence fire, will not suffer menstruous women
to see it or even to look at a lighted taper.
The Anglo-Saxon Penitentials forbid menstruating women to enter
a church.l13
The superstition about walking under a ladder originated in the
fear of a menstruating woman. In primitive tribes, men avoided
walking under a tree because a woman might have been in it and
some of her blood might fall on them.
In Southern Italy it is still believed that if a menstruating woman
gets into a carriage, the horses will be unable to make it move and
that they will die in the effort unless the woman has taken
the pre-
caution to put three pebbles in her pocket.lt4
Sicilians believe that if
a woman in that state were to ride a donkey,
the hack of the animal
would break unless some salt had been sprinkled over it.llG
The Hindu
lawgiver,
Manu,
who professed
to have received
his
institutes from the Creator, Brahma, informs us that the wisdom, the
l12 Briffault,
op. tit., Vol. 1, p. 384.
11.~ Havelock
Ellis, Studies in the Psychology
of Sez, Vol. 1, p. 292.
llJ Briffault,
op. cit.,
115 Ibid., pp. 389-390.
Vol.
2, p. 411.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
297
energy, the strength, the sight and the vitality of a man who approaches a woman in her courses will utterly perish; whereas, if he
avoids her, his wisdom, energy, strength, sight and vitality will increase.
So widespread was this superstition, and so firmly was it believed,
that even members of the medical profession fell under its influence.
As late as 1878, a physician wrote to the editor of the British Medical
Journal asking him whether a ham cured by a menstruating woman
would be spoiled! Not until 1891 did Dr. William Goodell, a distinguished medical authority, state: “I have learned to unlearn the
teaching that women must not be subjected to a surgical operation
during her monthly flux. Our forefathers, from time immemorial,
have thought and taught that the presence of a menstruating woman
would pollute solemn religious rites, would sour milk, spoil the fermentation
of wine-vats,
and do much other
mischief
in a gcncral
way.
. . .” 116 Today there are women physicians! This taboo of woman
has undoubtedly been the cause of the restriction placed upnn her, not
only in association with the Sabbath, but in excluding her from the
fields of the learned professions.
Frazer states that “the Hebrew lawgiver Moses, whose divine legation is as little open to question as that of Manu and Zoroaster,
treats the subject at still greater length; but I must leave the reader
the task of comparing the inspired ordinances on this head with the
merely human regulations of the Carrier Indians which they so closely
resemble! ” 11’
When a person is taboo, the taboo applies not only to that persou
but to everything he or she touches. If food that a menstruous woman
touches is unfit for a man to aa.t, how much more serious is her association with sacred things, and how much more important is it that
she be prevented from corrupting them! To the Biblical Hebrew,
what was more sacred than the Sabbath? It is very important that
this primitive conception of woman’s position be understood in order
116 Ellis, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 293.
117 Fram, Balder the Beautiful,
Vol. 1,
pp. 95,
96,
298
THE
to obtain
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
a proper comprehension
of the reason for her being omitted
from the provisions of this Commandment.
No wonder Frazer was constrained
at the conclusion of his researches to say that “In civilized society most educated people are not
even aware of the extent to which savage ignorance survives at their
door.”
THE
SECRET
OF CIRCUMCISION
Pregnancy and childbirth
also place woman in the category of a
‘taboo person and call for a ritual expiation of her “sinful” condition.
The Biblical Hebrews distinguished
between the birth of a male and
a female child by providing a different form of expiation, and in carefully examining this, we come upon the secret of male circumcision,
as well as additional evidence for the reason why women were excluded
from the provisions of the Fourth Commandment.
I quote Levili~us,
Chapter 12, verses 1 to 4:
1 And the Lord spalce unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,
If a woman have conceived seed, and borne a
man
child,
the11 shr shall he unclean seven
days; according to the days of the separation
for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of
her purifying three and thirty days; she shall
touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be
ftilfl!ed.
The Lord himself
“spake unto Moses, saying, . . . If a woman
have conceived seed, and borne a man child, then she shall be unclean
seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity
shall she be unclean.” Let us repeat this highly significant statement,
which makes the wife’s exclusion from the Sabbath a certainty.
“ . . . She shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and
thirty days; she shalt touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary [italics mine], until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.”
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
299
Since the Sabbath was a “hallowed thing,” her participation
or observance would be “polluting”
during the period of her “purification.”
Thus she is absolutely and completely
excluded from Sabbath observance, and all that she touches, inclzadirzg her own child, is taboo
until “purified.”
Since the mother, during her period of thirty-three
days of purifying, must of necessity touch her child, what must be done to save
him from the pollution caused by his contact with her? Let us repeat
the necessary mode o’f expiation contained in Verse 3, just quoted.
“And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”
This ritual injwnctiort, follo~‘ng
the birth of a male child,
and its direct relation to the mother’s state of taboo, is a blood sacrifice on behalf of the boy to avoid the contamination
of having come
in contact with the mother’s “uncleanness.”
So vitally important was this blood expiation on behalf of the child
that the rite of circumcision
had to be performed on the eighth day
after its birth, even though that duy fell on the Sabbath.
This preeluded others from doing it, making it necessary for the mother herself
to perform the task.li8
This blood sacrifice, so obvious when understood in relation to
the taboo of women and the primitive
Hebrew’s belief in animism,
sympathetic magic and blood pollution, reveals the secret of the origin
and meaning of the ceremonial rite of circumcision
among the Children of Israel, which has puzzled anthropologists
and students of religion for centuries.
The highest Biblical authorities still tell us that
the rite of circumcision
among the Children of Israel is one of the
mysteries of Judaism, as its origin has been lost in antiquity.
There
seems to be no doubt that this rite originated in the remotest past, as
the first Biblical reference to it mentions that circumcision
was performed with sharp stones, the most primitive
cutting instrument used
by manllg
Among some Hebrews it is the custom that when a male
118 Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 4,
llg Exodus,
Chapter
4, verse 25.
p. 95.
300
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
child dies before the eighth day, it is circumcised before burial,120 in
order that its soul may be saved.
Even the correct meaning of the word, both in Arabic and Hebrew, is “purifying,” as well as “removing a sexual obstacle” and
“cleansing” in a religious sense. That “purification” was the purpose I21 of circumcision cannot be doubted in view of the indisputable
facts here recorded. That circumcision is an ancient blood sacrifice
for sexual purification is also indicated by its prevalence among the
Egyptians. Ancient Egyptian records speak of “the blood that fell
from the phallus of Ra, when he accomplished his own mutilation.” A
recent discovery, dated in the year 44 of the reign of Rameses II,
speaks of the day “when men come to rid themselves of impurity
before Amon.” 122
Further evidence regarding the rite of circumcision is given in its
existence among other primit.ive tribes, although the method varies
from that of merely slitting the prepuce to its complete removal.
Many and various customs have been associated with it. Among the
East African Wakikuyu, the prepuce is buried in the ground in front,
of the boy just circumcised; while the African Bara father throws
it into the river. For fear of its being used in black magic, the Turks
bury the prepuce as they do parings of nails and other parts of the
body. For a similar reason, the Amaxosa Kafir boy carries away his
prepuce and buries it in a sacred spot.
On the West Coast of Africa, the prepuce, soaked in brandy, is
swallowed by the boy operated on. The Arabs of Algiers wrap it
in a cloth and put it on a tree or animal. The Hove of Madagascar
wrap it in a banana leaf, which is given to a calf to eat.. Among
the Wolof, the prepuce is dried and is carried by the circumcised
lad, the object being the promotion of virility.
Today, among the
Sakalava of Madagascar, the foreskin is shot from a gun or fastened
to a spear; if it falls sticking in the earth, it is a good omen, Among
120 Tyler,
Early
History
of Mankind,
p. 216.
121 Hastings,
Encyclopaedia,
Vol. 3, pp. 661-677,
122 Ibid., p. 672.
THE
FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
301
the Australian Urabunna, the stomach of each elder brother is touched
with the foreskin, which is then placed on a fire stick and buried.123
The northern Arunta bury the prepuce together with the blood
caused by the operation.
The Kalkodoon
of Cloninny (North Queensland) string it on twine of human hair and hang it around the
mother’s neck “to keep the devil away.” Among the Yaroinga of the
Upper Georgina District, the blood shed in circumcision
is drunk by
the women of the tribe as a strengthening
draught.124
In some Australian tribes, boys who are being circumcised are laid
on a platform formed by the living bodies o’f the tribesmen;
and when
a boy’s tooth is knocked out as an initiatory
ceremony, he is seated
on the shoulders of a man on whose breast the blood flows and may
not be wiped away.lz5
And to think that this bloody ritual of savage superstition survives
today under the guise of a health and hygienic measure!
126
In religion,
What damned error but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text.
-Merchant
of Venice, Act III,
Scene 2.
If circumcision
is the expiatory rite for the birth of a male child
who comes in contact with the mother’s uncleanness, what shall be done
as a sacrifice for a “maid chilld”? See Leviticus, Chapter 12, verse 5;
12s Hastings, Encyclopaedia, Vol. 3, p. 600.
124 Ibid., p. 661.
125 Frazer, The Golden Bough, p. 229.
126 Today, however, intelligent leaders of enlightened Jews advocate the abolition of
the rite of circumcision on the ground that it “no longer is in keeping with the dictates
of a religious truth intended for humanity at large,” and because of the large number of
Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 6; Vol. 10, p. 357;
deaths that follow the mutilation.
see also William Roseneau, Jewish Ceremonial
Institutions
and Custonzs, pp. 130-132.
A step in this direction is indicated when proselytes of Judaism do not have to be circumcised. That it has no hygienic value has been admitted by advanced Hebrew students.
See David Jacobson, Ph.D., Social Background
of the Old Testament.
For a condemnation of circumcision on aesthetic, physical and psychological grounds, see Miles Atkinson,
Behind
the Mask of Medicine,
pp. 175-183. Circumcision belongs in the same category
of stupidity as knocking out a boy’s tooth at puberty in certain savage tribes; binding
Chinese women’s feet; the Zulu’s custom of strapping the skull in infancy to give it an
elongated shape, and mutilation of the women’s lower lips by the Ubangis. In his book
Idiot
Man,
Charles Ricket scathingly denounces circumcision as a horrible mutilation.
302
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
5 But if she bear a maid
shall be unclean two weeks,
tion: and she shall continue
her purifying threescore and
child, then she
as in her separain the blood of
six days.
Although
female circumcision
was practised
among primitive
tribes, it was hardly ever performed upon a female infant.lz7
This
may have been due to the fact that the external genital organs of the
female infant do not permit as easy an operation as those of the
male, and that when done by unskilled
hands, it almost always resulted in the death of the child .lz8 This, then, accounts for the purifying rite of the maid child being tz&ce that for the male child. Hence
the mother was not only unclean two weeks, instead of one week, but
“she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
tkeescore and six
days”- a period twice as long as for the male child.
Equally important,
in regard to the relation of a taboo and the
Sabbath, is the method of expiation for the mother’s own state of
blood contamination.
The Bible reveals the methods for her to follow “when her days of purifying are fulfilled.”
Leviticus, Chapter 12,
verses 6 to 8:
6 And when the days of her purifying are
fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall
bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt
offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove,
for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the Lold, ancl
make an atonement for her; and she shall be
cleansed from the issue of her blood. This f~
the law for her that hath borne a male or a
female.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb,
then she shall bring two turtles, or two young
pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and
the other for a sin offering: and the priest
shall make an atonement for her, and she shall
lie clean.
127 For the prevalence of female circumcision,
pp.
66’7,
see Hastings, Encyclopaediu,
Vol. 3,
668.
12s When a female was circumcised, it was done at puberty, and consists in cutting
off the nymphae, or labia minora, of the vulva, which unite over the clitoris.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
303
For the mother herself to be made “clean” again, she must make
the following additional blood sacrifices: “. . . if she be not able to
bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons;
the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering.” Here
is convincing evidence of a primitive superstition of blood sacrifice
based on sympathetic magic.
What better parallel is there than between the uncultured and
primitive Hebrew and the ignorant people of Bokhara? In Bokhara
the mother of a child is taboo for forty days, and does not even dare
to pray to God while her supposed impurity lasts! 12g How similar
to the Bible are the provisions in the sacred book of the Zend-Avesta
for the purification of women after childbirth!
Not only must a
woman’s clothes all be burned after her ordeal, but she must be
purified by being washed with bull’s urine.130 Her taboo lasted forty
days, and anyone attempting to break this taboo was severely punished as guilty of the most unspeakable crime. Nyan women are similarly regarded at such times. After confinement, they must not enter
a sacred place for forty days.131 A woman in this state is supposed
to be possessed by some dangerous and maleficent spirit that corrupts all with which she comes in contact.
Among the Yukaghir, a woman is taboo after childbirth and must
be careful not to touch any hunting or fishing instrument. A Koryak
woman after childbirth is taboo and her touch would deprive a shaman’s drum of its virtue; she must not even be seen by anyone.
Among the Gilyak, a woman never dares to give birth to a child at
home ; she must, in spite of the scvcrity of season or wcathcr,
go
out of the hut for the purpose. The women of Kamchatka are under
obligation
to leave
their
huts
when
about
to give birth
to a child,
which is born in the public street of the village, before the populace.132 Among the Samoyeds and the Ostyak, women at childbirth
may not eat any fresh meat for fear that living animals would be
129Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 314.
1301bid.,
131 Ibid.,
133
Ibid.,
p. 376.
p. 378.
pp. 373-314.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
304
affected, and in order to insure against all possible risks they must
not, even at ordinary times, stand over the reindeer while unloading
a sledge, but must undo the straps from be10w.l~~
Among
the Basutos
the father is separated
from the mother
and
child for four days after birth, and may not see them until the “medicine man” has performed the religious ceremony of “absolution of the
man and wife.” If this were neglected, it is believed that he would
die when he saw his wife.
Women
in Russia, before the present regime,
were considered
in a
state of impurity after childbirth, and were not permitted to communicate with others until they had been purified by a priest. In
Serbia, similar conditions prevailed.
Lab Nor, a mother is driven from
Among the Tibetan
the village in which
tribes of
she lives,
and is compelled to live in a near-by hut or along the roadside. Food
is supplied to her by the husband.134
If women had to be purified in early Biblical times, what change
has taken place that makes such a ceremony no longer necessary?
The same liberating force of scientific knowledge that has emancipated
us from other forms of religious superstition is responsible for breaking these taboos which have so long enslaved women.
Now that women are no longer forced to observe this savage custom of “purification,” nor condemned to suffer for the “sin” of uncleanness, circumcising the male children of Hebrew parents cannot
be characterized
as anything
but a. cruel mutilation.
The number
of
deaths resulting from circumcising a male child before it is physically
able to stand such an ordeal might
well be called
the slaughter
of
the innocents.
BORN
ON THE
SABBATH
In addition to woman’s period of “uncleanness” occurring on the
Sabbath, babies are born on the Sabbath as well as on any other day
133Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 374.
1a4 Briffault, op. cit., p. 375. See also k’razer’s Golden Bough:
Taboo and Perils of
tlze Soul, pp. 145, 157. The reasons for this taboo will be found in the analysis of the
Sixth Commandment.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
30s
of the week. That factor provides additional evidence for the wife’s
exclusion from the provision of this Commandment. In early Biblical
days, as now, babies were born on every day of the week, and the
“seventh”
was no exception.
I wonder how long the “divinely inspired” men debated as to
whether any member of the household should perform work on behalf
of a woman giving birth to a child on the Sabbath, and to what extent
the beasts of burden might be used in such an emergency, since they,
too, were included in the provisions of “rest” on this day. I ask this
in all seriousness because it was actually forbidden to help an animal
out of a pit into which it had fallen on the Sabbath. The question
was asked: If a man had a sheep and it should fall into a pit, would
a person be justified in lifting it out on the Sabbath? That was a
point of great controversy which occupied the minds of leading Biblical authoritics.la5
“If
an animal
has fallen
into
a well,
it is pro-
vided with food until the Sabbath is over, if this is possible; but, if it
is nnt., covers,
cushions
and mattresses
are placed
under
it so that it
may get out without further aid; the pain of the animal is sufficient
excuse (‘za’ar Ba’ale hayyim’) for this Sabbath violation. But the
animal might not be drawn out by man.”
It was, however, a more serious offense to help to relieve a woman
in childbirth than it was to help an animal in distress. The reason
for this is simple. The woman had been cursed by God-she was
“unclean.” The animal bore no such mark of disgrace. In fact, it
was a sacrilege, often punished with death, to alleviate the suffering
of a woman in childbirth on this “holy of holy” days.
The Biblical injunction, “Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your
habitations
upon the Sabbath
day, ” lRR has been the cause of myl-iad
deaths and untold misery. Women suffering the agony of childbirth
in cold roams
during
inclement
weather
and the winter
been denied the essential comfort of warmth.
season
have
Thousands have died,
136 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 597; Yad 1. c. xxv. 26; Shab. 128 b; B. M.
32 h; Ex. xxiii.
136 Exodus, Chapter 35, verse 3.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
306
millions have suffered to the end of their lives from illness contracted
as a result of this frightful and inhumane superstition, merely because the child happened to be born on the Sabbath. It is quite
probable that even today strictly orthodox Hebrews
still refuse to
light a fire on the Sabbath, regardless of the circumstances.f37
But that is not all. It was even an offense to relieve the pains
of childbirth on alzy day of the week. When Dr. James Y. Simpson,
in 1847, sought to use chloroform to ease the labor pains, the pulpit
thundered forth denunciations of this attempt as impious and “contrary to Holy Writ,” and that it would tend “to avoid one part of
the primeval curse upon woman.” 13* So fearful were the clergy at
even the thought of alleviating the pains of women in childbirth
that they pictured the most horrible disaster to the human race for
practising that which was “contrary to religion and the expressed
command of God.” Does not the Scripture say “in sorrow thou shalt
bring forth children”? One clergyman expressed the divine opposition in the following manner: “Chloroform is a decoy of Satan, apparently offering itself to bless women; but in the end it will harden
society and rob God of the deep, earnest cries which arise in time
of trouble for help.“13” Another divinely inspired representative
said : “The very suffering which a woman undergoes in labor is one
of the strongest elements in the love she bears for her offspring.”
I wonder how this divine accounted for the love of a father for his
children?
Could anything be more repellent than a system of religion that
137Because of this Commandment, weddings were also forbidden on the Sabbath.
Marital indulgences on the Sabbath were regarded as a profanation, and strict laws were
passed for its rigorous observance. (Jewish Encyclopediu,
Vol. 10, p. 593.) In the days
of Benjamin Franklin, the Puritans of our own country refused to christen a child born
on a Sunday, because a child born on the Sabbath must have been conceived on the
Sabbath and no such desecration should be made of the Lord’s Day ! Benjamin Franklin
was born on a Sunday, and the unholy child was a problem to the Sabbatarians of his
time. What the world needs today is a few more such desecrations, if they mean the
births of more Benjamin Franklins. The fanaticism’of the Hebrew Sabbath is matched
only by that of the Christian observance.
13s White, Warfare of Science wit/z Theology,
Vol. 2, p. 63.
130Ibid., p. 108.
THE’ FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
307
so paralyzes the mind to the suffering of a woman in childbirth? In
1591, a lady of rank, Eufame Macalyane, sought the assistance of
Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the time of the birth of her
two
sons.
Agnes
Sampson was tried before King James, condemned
and burned alive on Castle Hill in Edinburgh.140 How far removed
were these religionists from the savages of Chukchi, who religiously
seclude women during childbirth and do not allow any assistance
to be rendered her except in cases of the utmost necessity, when an
old woman is permitted to attend? I41
The discovery of anesthesia is one of the greatest of all of man’s
accomplishments. In all the fields of man’s achievements, this one
remains pre-eminent. What greater blessing is there than to help
women through the travail and anguish of childbirth by a painobliterating method? Yet this discovery, this merciful potion, was declared by the clergy and by the highest church authorities
to be a
defiance of the Bible Deity!
Is it. any wonder that Shakespeare observed “that we do cry when
we come to this great stage of fools”?
CHRISTIANITY
AND THE SABBATH
In this analysis of the Fourth
Commandment, we make no dis-
tinction between the Sabbath of the Hebrews and the “Lord’s Day”
of the Christians.
Both days have the same significance as far as this
study is concerned, and the fear attaching to the observance of the
one is identical with the restriction placed upon the other. The
essence and principle of the Jewish and the Christian Sabbath are
identical, says Dean Farrar.142
When Christianity transferred the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, it did not in any way change the taboo associated with its observance; in many respects it intensified the fanaticism. Although
Christians called it the “Lord’s Day” instead of the Sabbath, the
140 White, Warfare
of Science with
Theology,
l*l Briffault,
op. cit., Vol. 1,
373.
142 The Voice from Sinai,
150.
p.
p.
Vol.
2, p. 62.
308
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
word “Sabbath” is still applied to Sunday, despite the fact that there
is no Biblical authority whatever for the observance of the first day
of the week. That this is but another instance of the Church’s long
list of deceptive
practices
is well attested
to by the long and bitter
controversy that has raged among the different Christian sects regarding Sunday as the Sabbath.
The following statement, issued by the Seventh Day Adventists,
tells in a degree of the conflict among the “warring Christian sects”:
“We believe that the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at the
end of the creation of the world in six literal days; that it is a
memorial of creation, and a sign of re-creation, or redemption; that
it is a vital part of the moral law, the Ten Commandments;
that
it is essentially a spiritual institution;
that God intended it to be
observed in all ages by all men ; that Christ and His apostles
always, both before and after the crucifixion, observed the seventhday Sabbath and therefore it is the rest day of all Christians.
“We believe that the first day of the week, commonly called
Sunday,
was
dedicated
by
ancient
paganism
to
the
worship
of
the
sun; that as the Christian church fell away from the true doctrine
in the early centuries, the seventh-day Sabbath was gradually displaced by the pagan holiday, Sunday, which, with other pagan
institutions, was eventually incorporated into the ecclesiastical law
of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church,
and
by
her
transmitted
to
the
re-
formed churches; that because it is based on pagan custom and
church tradition only, and is nowhere countenanced in the Bible,
Christians are in error in observing it as the weekly rest day.”
This comment by John Frith,
teresting and important: 143
quoted
by Dr. Hardwickc,
is in-
“We are as superstitious about Sunday as they [the Jews] are
about their Saturday, yea, we are much more mad; for the Jews
have
the
word
of God
for
their
day,
since
it is the
seventh
day,
and
they are commanded to keep it sacred; but we have not the word
for us, but rather against us.”
I43
London,
W.
W.
p. 35.
Hardwicke,
M.D.,
Sunday and
the Sabbath
Question, Watts
& Co.,
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
309
That this controversy is still going on can be gathered from an
incident which occurred several years ago.144 The Rev. William M.
Ivy, Methodist clergyman, offered $1,000 to the Rev. M. S. Banfield,
Seventh Day Adventist, if the latter could prove by the Bible that
Sunday was the Sabbath day. The wager was accepted and a debate
held before a Methodist congregation of six hundred. The Rev. Mr.
Ivy used the King James Version to show that Sunday, and not Saturday, was the day to be kept holy, and the congregation voted for
him. The Rev. Mr. Banfield, however, refused to pay, saying that
he was not yet convinced, whereupon the Rev. Mr. Ivy brought suit!
Regardless of the day, the taboo still exists, which shows how
easy it is to impose a superstition, how deeply ingrained it can become,
and how difficult it is to eradicate. Not only have the Christians
appropriated the Sabbath of the Hebrews, the observance of which
was to be a sign between the latter and their God, but they have
even intensified the restrictions and made the day more intolerable,
impossible as that may seem.
This day was first instituted in the year 321 by Constantine, who
spoke of Sunday as “the venerable day of the sun.” The Pagans
celebrated it as a festival in the religious rites of Mithraism, a sunworshiping religion. Unable to suppress these pagan celebrations,
the early Christians embraced these holidays, gave them Christian
significance, and merged them into the religion of Christianity.146
That the early Church Fathers were strenuously opposed to the
observance of the Sabbath, and that the early Christians tried to abolish it, is evident from the testimony of the Church itself. Martin
Luther was so incensed at its observance as a religious function that
he admonished his followers to violate it. John Knox opposed it, as
did John Calvin, the latter even threatening to change the weekly
day of rest to Thursday, so as to make a dist.inctly separate day of
observance from that of the Romanists.146
New York Post, Mar. 19, 1927.
140 Arthur Weigall, The Paganism
pp. 235, 238.
148Hardwicke, op. cit., p. 35.
144
in
Our
Christianity,
Putnam,
New
York,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
310
All wanted a “sacred” day, however, and they got it. They got
it at the point of the sword, and with the bullet, the bars of the
prison, and the fires of the stake. It was not until the eighth century
that the Church
enacted
restrictive
laws
for the observance
of
this day.l*? The day began at midnight and ended the following
midnight; it was the first and not the seventh day. Both labor
and enjoyment were prohibited. It was made a day of worship and
prayer, and attendance at church was compulsory.
Under the prohibitions imposed by Christianity, it was almost impossible to move on Sunday without being guilty of some violation of
the Sabbath. If anyone were bold enough to agitate against these
frightful impositions, he felt the power of Christian authority. In
1661, in London, a Baptist minister was hanged, drawn and quartered,
his heart torn out, his quarters affixed to the gates of the city, and
his head stuck
on top of a pole and set up opposite
his meeting
house.
His crime was speaking against Sabbath observance.148
Children were prohibited from playing or even laughing. It was
considered a crime to kiss one’s wife or children on that day. It is
stated that Charles I was publicly rebuked for laughing on Sunday
in Scotland.i40 Anyone caught whistling had to do penance for disturbing the Sabbath. Traveling was forbidden. Some went so far
as to suspend work on both Saturday and Monday because they were
so close to Sunday. It was a sin to visit a friend, water the garden,
shave, walk in the meadows, sit in the doorway to enjoy the weather,
or even sleep on this sacred day that God had prescribed as a day
of rest! Bathing, considcrcd pleasant and wholesome, was therefore prohibited on Sunday.
So fanatical
was the attitude
regarding
the Sabbath
that. on Sun-
day Christians were not even supposed to think of benefiting others.
All their thoughts had to be reserved for the Lord. It was sinful to
enjoy one’s dinner, for that was pleasure. To think of one’s health,
147 Charles, op. cit., p. 146.
14s Hardwicke, op. cit., p. 25.
149 Ibid.,
pp. 24,
25.
THE
FOTJRTH
COMMANDMENT
311
to make oneself comfortable, was contrary to the great object of life,
which was to be in a state of constant affliction. Whatever one liked
to do was sinful, for merely liking it made it wrong. The primary
purpose of the Sabbath was to destroy all human pleasure. It not
only accomplished this, but destroyed human affection and dulled the
sensibilities. It was considered a sin to help a vessel in distress, for
if the ship and the crew perished, that was God’s will1 Those caught
aiding a ship were forced to do penance1 Iso
It was Hippolyte Taine who said that Sunday in London presented
the aspect of an immense and well-ordered cemetery, and Stendhal
declared that the Sabbath in England and Scotland destroys “the
seventh part of possible happiness,” x1
The Christian has been thoroughly contaminated with this Sabbath superstition; he believes that if it rains on a church outing it
is a punishment
for some sin.
It never
occurs
to him
that perhaps
some farmer might be praying for rain to save his parched crops, or
that rain is a natural occurrence. In 1908, a relief party in Cape
Smith, which was organized one Saturday to go to the rescue of
some people stranded in a blizzard, refused to start until early Monday morning.152 That the taboos attached to these days are more
important than human life is one of the strange insanities of religion.
In England, the Sabbath laws enacted two hundred years ago,
though not enforced, are still on the statute books. These laws prohibit meeting for any sports or pastimes whatsoever. Carriers and
drivers are forbidden to travel on Sunday. Killing or selling meat is
prohibited.
Wvrking
or exercising
is forbidden.
Stringent laws regarding the Sabbath were enacted in our own
New
England
in Puritan
days.
(N o wonder
these laws
were
called
Blue-they were enough to change the color of anything. They were,
however, called “blue laws” because they were written on blue paper.)
The prohibition against working on the Sabbath was strictly en160 Buckle, History
of Civilization
in England,
Vol. 3, pp. 265, 276.
161 McLaren, The Christian’s
Sunday,
p. 11.
152 Bonner, Christianizing
the Heathen, p. 155.
312
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
forced. A public flogging was the penalty for violation. No food
could be cooked, no beds were to be made, cutting hair and shaving
were prohibited. A mother could not kiss her child on the Sabbath.
Riding on this holy day or walking
in the garden was prohibited.
Even a sick relative or friend could not be visited if it were necessary
to ride to his house. The only thing permitted was to walk “reverently to and from church.”
One man was fined for being about on the Sabbath; his excuse
that he was running to save a man from drowning did not help him.
As late as 1831 a lady was arrested within sight of her father’s house
and fined for unnecessary travel on a Sunday. To violate these provisions of the Sabbath observance in a manner calculated to “defy”
the Lord was punishable z&t/z de&.
A charge of non-attendance at church was brought against William
Bladgen of New Haven in 1647. He pleaded that he had fallen into
the water late on Saturday, and since he could not light a fire on
Sunday to dry his clothes, he had lain in bed to keep warm while his
only suit of garments was drying. His excuse was not accepted, and
he was sentenced to be “publicly whipped.”
When Captain Kemble returned to Boston in 1656 after a three
years’
journey,
kissed him.
day, he was
his wife
met him on the doorstep,
For this “vulgar”
kept
in the public
mentioning:
“The
and
display of human affection on Sunstocks
for two
An incident recorded in the Cohmbian
1789, is worth
and embraced
President
hours.163
Cent&et of December,
[George
Washington],
on
his return to New York from his late tour through Connecticut, having missed his way on Saturday, was obliged to ride a few miles on
Sunday morning in order to gain the town at which he had proposed
to attend divine service. Before he arrived, however, he was met by
a tithing man, who, commanding him to stop, demanded the occasion
of his riding; and it was not until the President had informed him of
every circumstance and promised to go no further than the town
168 The B&e Laws of Connecticut, Truth Seeker Co., New York, p. 247.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
313
intended that the tithing man would permit him to proceed on his
journey.” 164
In 1658, James Watt was publicly reproved “for writing a note
about common business on the Lord’s Day, at least in the evening
somewhat too soon.” In 1646, Aquila Chase, of Newbury, and his
wife were fined for gathering peas from their own garden on the
Sabbath. In 1772, William Estes, of Wareham, acknowledged that
he was guilty of raking hay on the Sabbath, and was fined ten shillings.
In 1774, another citizen of Wareham was fined for “pulling apples
on the Sabbath.” A Dunstable soldier, for “wetting a piece of old
hat to put in his shoe” to protect his feet, was fined forty shillings.166
Sleeping in church was one of the most common of the many violations of the Sabbath, and the ministers employed many devices
to see that members of the congregation remained awake during their
sermons. One amusing incident occurred in Maine. The clergyman,
observing a parishioner asleep, bided his time, and then suddenly
shouted at the top of his voice, “Fire! Fire! Fire!”
The sleeping
man, instinctively jumping to his feet, startled and blinking, asked,
“Where?”
The reverend gentleman replied, “In hell, for sleeping
sinners.”
lgB
Another
minister,
in Brunswick,
Maine,
had a different
method. He would call the name of the man asleep, and tell him
pointedly
to awake
and remain
“Wake up, Mr. X,”
“Mind
your
so.
On one occasion
he shouted,
and the napping churchgoer shouted back,
own husincss,
and go on with
your
sermon.”
A New Haven man was severely whipped and fined for declaring
that he received no profit from the minister’s sermons. In Windham,
in 1729, a most unregenerate citizen was guilty of “vile and slanderous expressions” when he declared that “I would rather hear my dog
bark than Mr. Bellamy preach.” In 1631, Phillip Ratcliffe, for
“speaking against the church,” was whipped and had his ears cut
off. An extremely wicked man in Hartford who had the temerity to
The Blue Laws
m Ibid., pp. 6, 7.
us8 Ibid., p. 71,
I54
of
Conmcticut,
p. 75.
314
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
say that (‘he hoped to meet some of the members of the church in
Hell before long, and he did not question that he would,” was put in
the pillory and severely whipped.157
Even as late as 1840, a rich old lady provoked a nine-day discussion by providing herself with a cushion to sit on to relieve her
aching back caused by the hard, straight-back
benches.
In the law books of that period is recorded this case: “His Majesty’s tithing man entered complaint
against Jona and Susan Smith,
that on the Lord’s Day during Divine Service they did smile.”
The petty insults and embarrassments,
to say nothing of the beatings and whippings inflicted on “sinners” of that time by the fanatical
Sabbatarians,
seem incredible.
So fanatical did the Puritan Christian become in the observance
of the Sabbath that in order to be certain that he would not violate a
single minute of the precious day, he began to observe it from sundown on Saturday until Sunday night.
Superstition
filled the air,
and the shghtest infraction
of the rules and regulations
intensified
the fear.
An incident is recorded of a man who was hired by the day to
finish a job and who worked an hour after sundown on Satur-day.
The next day his little child was left alone for a while. She fell into
an uncovered well in the cellar of the house and was drowned.
It
is said that the father freely, ‘(in open congregation,
did acknowledge
it the righteous hand of God for his prnfming
his holy day.”
Imagine believing that a God would kill a child in retaliatioa
for her
father’s working on the Sabbath!
As late as 1855, shops in Hartford,
Connecticut,
were not open
on Saturday evening. However, there lived at that time some people
with both a sense of humor and a bit of courage, and here and there
a poet with a little reason would write: I58
“And let it be enacted further still
That all ocr people strict observe our will;
Blue Laws of Connecticut,
pp. 245, 258.
IS8 Alice Morse Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New
157 The
England,
pp. 245, 258.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
315
Five days and a half shall men, and women, too,
Attend their business and their birth pursue,
But after that no man without a fine
Shall walk the streets or at a tavern dine;
One day and halt ‘tis respite to rest
From toilsome labor and a tempting feast.
Henceforth let none on peril of their lives
Attempt a journey or embrace their wives;
No barber, foreign or domestic-bred,
Shall e’er presume to dress a lady’s head;
No shop shall sell (half the preceding day)
A yard of ribband or an ounce of tea.”
And there is still heard this rhymed warning:
“Better a child had ne’er been born
Than cut her nails on a Sunday morn I ”
And:
“Sunday
shaver,
Sunday
shorn,
Better hadst thou ne’er been born!”
How fanatical human beings could become over their observance
of this Commandment is shown by Carl Sandburg in discussing
“Stonewall”
Jacksun.
“Stonewall’s reverence for the Sabbath went so far that he
wouldn’t mail a letter to his wife on Sunday, or open one from her
that arrived that day. But, ‘with the blessing of an ever-kind
Providence,’ he would ‘fight, slay and deliver doom to the enemy if
on the Sabbath the enemy looked ready for punishment.‘”
Let us not be too ready to smile at the gross superstition
of the
people in years past regarding the observance of this utterly stupid
and silly day.
Right
in our own time
WC: find this insane determi-
nation to stifle all human activity in fear of the wrath of a mythical
deity.
I69 Sandburg,
Abraham
Lincotn:
The
War
Years,
Vol. 1, p. 528.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
316
The stringency of the Sabbath laws in this country is described
by Herbert Asbury.leo
“When I was a boy in Farmington,
Sunday was a day of dread-
ful gloom; over everything
hung an atmosphere
of morbid fear and
dejection.
In the morning the whole town donned its Sunday
suit, almost always black and funereal and depressing,and therefore
becoming to religious practice, and trudged sorrowfully and solemnly
to Sunday school and to church, there to wail doleful hymns and
hear an unlearned man . . . beseechthe Lord upon the universal
prayer theme of ‘gimme.’ Then the village marched, in mournful
cadence, back home for Sunday dinner.” After removing their
Sabbath raiment until after supper, “the family clutched its Bibles
and wandered forth despairingly to evening service.
“We could not play games on Sunday; card playing was an
invention of the Devil and could not be played on any day, but on
Sunday the children were not allowed to play such gamesas Lotto,
Old Maid
and Authors.
“The Lord did not approve of Sunday-night suppers, and so
we could not have them. In the homesof the godly, there was only
a cold snack for the evening meal. It was considered sinful to
light a fire in the cookstove after twelve o’clock.
“Dancing
on Sunday
was considered
the Sin of Sins.
“Sunday newspapers were not considered religious.”
Ingersoll said: “Sabbaths used to be prisons.
Every
Sunday
wa
a Bastille. Every Christian was a kind of turnkey and everyone was
a prisoner-was
a convict.
In that dungeon a smile was a crime.
It
was thought wrong for a child to laugh upon this holy day. Think
of that! ” 161
On July 27, 1927, Governor John G. Richards of South Carolina
made a statement expressing his determination to “close up South
Carolina tight on Sundays.” He said: “I regard the great national
sin today, the want of a proper observance of the Sabbath. Much
of the present-day lawlessness can be traced to the fact that people
are neglecting religion in order that they may make a sporting
event
*m Herbert
lE1 Ingersoll,
Asbury,
Works,
up from
Vol. 1,
Methodism,
p. 380.
p.
36.
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
317
of Sunday. Normal conditions can be restored by regard for religious requirements of the Sabbath.” The Governor admits that at
present, with blue laws enforced, there is still much lawlessness in
the State, but he thinks this can be remedied when everything is
closed down on the Sabbath day.162
Is Governor Richards very far removed intellectually from the
primitive savage who observed the appearance of the new moon by
putting bags over the heads of the chickens and dogs so they would
not disturb the peace and quiet of the day that all so feared?
Ocean Grove, New Jersey, a summer resort near New York, still
observes the Sabbath-Sunday by-laws passed over 100 years ago. On
Sunday, July 31, 1927, 163 these conditions prevailed: No automobile was permitted on the streets; no cars could pass through the
city from midnight Saturday until midnight Sunday; parking in front
of one’s own home was prohibited; no man, woman or child was
permitted to bathe in the surf; a messenger could not deliver a telegram on his bicycle, but had to walk a mile from Asbury Park, or
get off his bicycle and wheel it into Ocean Grove. A newspaper published a photograph of William Young, a messenger boy, wheeling his
bicycle to deliver a rush telegram. No ice cream could be purchased;
if one wanted a plate of ice cream, one had to go to a restaurant owned
by the Sunday
Associcttion
and order
a whole
men1 costing
a dollar.
Sunday newspapers were taboo. Even special-delivery letters could
not be delivered. Dentists were not permitted to treat patients, and
all drugstores were closed.
The delicious dish of ice cream covered with syrup now known
as a “sundae” is an invention to circumvent the law passed in many
States prohibiting the sale of ice-cream sodas on Sunday as a desecration of the Sabbath. Soda dispensers circumvented the law by
serving ice cream, which was considered a food, covered with syrup,
as a Sabbath substitute for ice-cream sodas, and so the “sundae”
came into existence!
162 New
1~ New
York
York
Sun.
Evening
Journal,
Aug. 1, 1927.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
318
So fanatical can the supporters of these Sabbath laws become that
murder is sometimes perpetrated to prevent the Sabbath from being
“violated.” On November 9, 1930, Richard Hannah, 18, was shot to
death and his brother George, 22, was wounded while they were resisting arrest for violating the blue law prohibiting Sunday hunting
in Chardon, Ohio.lB4
One man murdered a woman but refrained from giving himself
up to the police because the act was committed on the Sabbath: la6
“Joseph Borys, sixty-two, walked into a police station today
and told the desk sergeant that he had battered a woman to death
with an ax Sunday, but had waited twenty-four hours to report it‘because Sunday is a day of rest.’ The skeptical officer ordered
the confessed slayer held in jail while patrolmen were sent to investigate. They found the body of Mrs. Francis Piotrowski, fortynine, lying beside a bed. Her head was crushed.
“Borys explained his wife had urged him to surrender immediately, but he insisted: ‘No, Sunday is a day of rest. I’ll go
tomorrow.’ ”
What a parody on morals! A religion that perverts the brain
to such an extent that a greater restraint is exercised to prevent the
violation of the Sabbath than the commission of a murder!
On December 2, 1927, members of the City Council of Lawrenceville, Illinois, planned to introduce an ordinance prohibiting housewives from preparing dinner on Sunday and to prevent physicians
from attending the sick.ls6
On May
2, 1927, an artist
was
arrested
in Baltimore,
Maryland,
for painting a picture on Sunday.lsr
East
Orange,
New
Jersey,
prohibits
the showing
of moving
pic-
tures on Sunday, but it is permitted in Orange, New Jersey. A
theatre on the border line between the two cities divided the theatre
164 American
Freeman,
166 New York Post,
IBE New York Evening
1wNew
York Evening
Jan. 15, 1931.
Jan. 17, 1939.
World,
Dec. 2, 1927.
Post, May 5, 1927.
THE
FOURTH
319
COMMANDMENT
with a rope, and special ushers were hired to see that no one sat on
the side of the house which was in East Orange1 168
On December
12, 1926, in Irvington,
New Jersey, ninety-five
people were fined for violating the Sabbath law. These arch criminals were guilty of selling cigars, toothpaste, gasoline, shoe polish,
ice cream and tin whistles.laQ
When attempts were made to impose additional
restrictions upon
the activities of the people of New York State on the ground that
the desecration of the Sabbath was contributing
to lawlessness, Senator Benjamin
Antin protested vigorously.
His letter, sent to the
Lord’s Day Alliance, is a hopeful sign that not all our legislators
are cowed by these religious fanatics.
He wrote:
“As one of the legislators of this State who shall have an opportunity to vote on any measures you advocate, I hasten to assure
you that I shall fight
these with
all my strength
and power.
“You speak of the increase of criminal statistics. We deplore
these as much as you do. But any psychiatrist will tell you that
the answer is not to be found in more blue laws.
“Today all thinking men stand in awe before the staggering
results
of prohibition,
which
has exalted
the
bootlegger
to the
estate of wealth, murdered drinkers with poisoned rum, and produced a disregard and even a contempt for law which shocks us.
Shall we add to this the bootlegging of gasoline, books, movies,
cards, dancing and piano playing?
“We b&eve
Interesting,
168 New
16Q New
to the Hebrew
York
York
to enjoy
their
days
of the Rev. H. L. Bowlby,
the “crime wave” some years ago and the “general
of society to the “violation
[which Christians constantly
cording
his children
however, is the statement
who attributed
breakdown”
that God intended
We believe that the day of rest should be a day of re-
on earth.
laxation.”
of the fourth
commandment
violate when they observe Sunday ac-
calendar]
Evening
Joumd,
Oct.
Sun, Dec. 13, 1936.
in the nation-wide
5,
1930.
desecration
of
320
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
the Sabbath.” He regards this as the most “serious contributing
cause for the present alarming conditions.” I’0
When we take into consideration the fact that both Ruth Snyder
and Judd Gray taught Sunday school; that William Hickman was
a regular Sunday-school attendant and conscientious in his studies for
the ministry; that the Diamond boys were known for their strict
observance of their Sabbath and regularly attended the synagogue
on Saturdays; that a young girl in Los Angeles deliberately murdered
her mother because she refused to permit her to go on a picnic sponsored by the Sunday school from which she had just returned; that
when Earl Peacock,171who killed his wife and set fire to her body,
was arrested, he wore a medal which he received for six years of
perfect Sunday school attendance; that a choir boy, while attending
Sunday school, robbed twenty-one poor boxes and appropriated the
entire contents, $190, for his own use; and that a minister, while
delivering his regular Sunday morning sermon, flirted with his pretty
choir singer until infatuation became so great that he eloped with
the young woman immediately after the service, leaving his wife
and children destitute, then I am inclined to agree with the reverend
gentleman that the “influence of the Sabbath” is the most “serious
contributing cause for the present alarming conditions.”
The observance or non-observance of the Sabbath, whether it be
Saturday or Sunday, or any other day of the week, has absolutely
nothing to do either with committing or preventing crime. The prevalence of this misunderstanding is responsible for the confusion concerning religion and morality.
It is the duty of every sensible man and woman to violate the
insane provisions for observing the Sabbath and break the taboos
associated with it.
This day is utterly meaningless; it was born of superstitious fear
and ignorance and has been the source of unnecessary misery to the
York
Times, Aug. 3, 192’1.
1’1 These people were found guilty, and some were
prison and some were executed for their crimes.
lm New
sentencedto
long terms
in
THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT
321
human race. If there is a God and he wanted to curse the human
race, he could not more effectively have vented his malediction than
by the creation of a Sabbath day.
With Ingersoll, we say: “Let us throw away these superstitions
and take the higher and nobler ground, that every day should be
rendered sacred by some loving act, by increasing the happiness of
man, giving birth to noble thoughts, putting in the path of toil some
flower of joy, helping the unfortunate, lifting the fallen, dispelling
gloom, destroying prejudice, defending the helpless and filling homes
with light and love.” What a profitable exchange would take place1
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
Bank of Wisdom
The Bank of Wisdom reproduces the best of scholarly,
Philosophical, Scientific, Religious and Freethought books
produced by the great thinkers and doers throughout human
history. It is our duty and our pleasure to do this necessary work.
The Bank of wisdom is always looking for lost, suppressed,
and unusual old books, sets, pamphlets, magazines, manuscripts
and other information that needs to be preserved and reproduced
for future generations. If you have such old works please contact
the Bank of Wisdom, we would be interested in obtaining this
information either by buying or borrowing the book(s), or in
obtaining a good clear copy of all pages.
Help us help your children find a better tomorrow.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of Wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
www.bankofwisdom.com
The
Fifth
Commandment
“Honor
thy father and thy mother:
that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
PARENTS AS VICE-REGENTS
OF GOD
T
HE PROVISIONS of this Commandment bear a close relationship to those of the Second Commandment in which
the Hebrew Deity threatens to punish “unto the third and
fourth generation” the children of those parents who “serve other
gods” in violation of the injunction to “have no other gods before
me.” The “honor” demanded in this Commandment was the strict
conformity of the child to the religion of the parent, based upon the
superstitious belief in sympathetic magic.
To the Biblical Hebrew, the land upon which he lived and from
which he derived subsistence was the most precious thing in the
world and could therefore only be a gift from the God he worshiped.
To retain this possession, nothing must be done to arouse the anger
of this jealous Deity, and therefore children were warned to honor
their parents by imitating them in the observance of (‘my statutes
and my commandments.”
The words “the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” had
deep sigrlificance
for the Hebrews because their land was the binding
tie between them and their Deity. l To be removed from their homeland meant to be deserted by their God. The Bible is replete witi
many such references of their concern lest some act should provoke
the 10’~sof this valuable bequest to themT2
I quote Deuteronomy, Chapter 26, verse 15:
15
Look
down
from
thy
holy
habitation,
from heaven, and bless thy people Israel,and
the land which thou hast given us, as thou
swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth
with milk and honey.
l Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 660.
~Leviticus,
Ckopter
20,
vee~es
l-9.
For
a further
analysis
of
the
relationship
of
sympathetic magic between parents and children, see Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osirb, PP.
236-248.
32.5
326
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Another Biblical quotation substantiating the above is from the
Second Book
of Samuel,
Chapter
7, verse 23:
23 And what one nation in the earth is like
thy people, even like Israel, whom God went
to redeem for a people to himself, and to
make him a name, and to do for you great
things and terrible, for thy land, before thy
people, which thou redeemedst to thee from
Egypt, from the nations and their gods?
The above verses refer directly to the occupancy of the land as
part of the inheritance o’f the Children of Israel from their God, and
to the necessity of holding it inviolate as “thy holy habitation, from
heaven.” The fear that a child might commit some taboo act which
would provoke the wrath of the Bible Deity against the parents was
the reason for the provisions of this Commandment.
The readiness with which Abraham was willing to sacrifice his
son Isaac, and the proximity of this Commandment to the third,
caused Philo Judaeus to place it in the category that dealt with questions of reverence and duty to God, as he coIntended the parents were
“the visible gods.” Many clergymen today include this Commandment with the previous four as L&g indicative of our “duty to God.”
In early Greek writings there are numerous passages which put
filial duties on a par with duties toward the deities.
Aristotle speaks
of “the affection of children to their parents is like that of men towards
the gods.” There is a Slavonian maxim that says: “A father is
like an earthly God to his son.” Indeed significant in revealing the
primitive and underlying motive of this Commandment is the following Biblical injunction from Leviticus, Chapter 19, verse 32:
32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head,
and honor the face of the old man, and fear
thy God: I am the Lord.
Much weight is placed upon the following passage because of its
association with the Sabbath. It is claimed that the provisions of
this Commandment
are identical
with
the reasons for keeping
the
Sabbath, both being in the category of taboos that, if violated, would
THE FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
327
bring down upon the perpetrators fearful punishment from this
wrathful God. I quote Leviticus, Chapter 19, verse 3:
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and
his father,
Lord your
and keep
God.
my
sabbaths:
I atn the
There is a close association here of the fear of parents with the
fear of God, and it is indicative of their vice-regency in relation to
this Commandment.
The demand for conformity can best be illustrated by the following quotation giving the penalty for parental disobedience, particularly in the matter of unbelief, as well as for planting the seed of
Israel in outside tribes, in violation of this Commandment. I quote
Deuteronomy,
Chapter
13, verses 6 to 11:
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or
thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy
bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own
soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go
and
scrvc
other
gods,
which
thou
hast
not
known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which
are round about you, niah unto thee, or far
off from thee, from the one end of the earth
even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
hearken
unto
him;
neither
shall
thine
eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt
thou conceal him:
0
Rut
thou
shalt
surely
kill
him;
thine
hand
shall be first upon him to put him to death,
and afterward the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones,
that he die; because he hath sought to thrust
thee away from the Lord thy God, which
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from
the
11
house
of bondage.
And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and
shall do no more any such wickedness as this
is amona you.
The great crime involved is enticing one to serve other gods“the gods uf the people which are round about you . . .>’ To honor
one’s parents meant conforming strictly to the tribal religious belief,
328
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
and particularly promoting tribal unity. Disobedience in this respect
was considered the worst possible offense because of the fear that not
only the members of the household, but the rest of the tribe, would
suffer
from
the wrath
of their
God.
The import of this quotation to the Commandment lies in the
fact that adhering to the belief in the God of the parents was the
most important duty of the child. For merely trying to entice someone away from that belief, “thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall
be first upon him to put him to death . . .” and “thou shalt stone
him with stones, that he die . . . because he hath sought to thrust
thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land
of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” Verse 11 is an additional
warning in support of this Commandment not to commit acts to provoke this Bible Deity to anger.
The Catechism
of the Council
of Trent
substantiates
my premise:
“If we did not honor and reverence our parents, whom we do love
next to God, and whom we have almost continuously before our eyes,
how can we honor or reverence God, the supreme and best of parents,
whom we cannot see?”
The following from Ephesians, Chapter 6, verses 1 to 3, deserves
very careful consideration as it shows this thought carried over into
the New Testament:
1 Children.
obey your Darents
in the Lord:
for this is right.
2 Honour
thy father
and mother;
which
is
the first commandment
with promise;
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou
mayest live long on the earth.
The above quotation also repeats the phrase found in the Deuteronomy version of the Commandments, i.e., “that it may be well
with thee,” as further evidence of a reward for obeying parents as the
representatives of the Lord.
Martin
Luther,
who
is considered
somewhat
of an authority
upon
this question, said : “ ‘Honor thy parents’ does not refer to fellow
THE FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
329
men, but to vice-regents of God. Therefore, as God is to be served
both with honor and fear, his representatives are to be so, too.”
To honor one’s parents meant also to guard the purity of the seed
of the tribe.
The Children of Israel were threatened with being deprived of their land if they gave away any of their “seed unto
Molech.” I quote Leviticus, Chapter 20, verses 2 and 2:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of
Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of
Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in
Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the
people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Here again is the strict injunction to maintain the solidarity of
the tribe:
3 And I will set my face against that man,
and will cut him off from among his people;
because he hath given of his seed unto Molcch, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane
my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any
ways hide their eyes from the man, when he
giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him
not: s
In addition, the slightest departure from the strict rule of maintaining tribal purity was condemned as “profaning” the tribal god:
5 Then I will set my face against that man,
and against his family, and will cut him off,
and all that go a whoring after him, to
commit whoredom with Molech, from among
their people.
6 And the soul that turneth after such as
have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to
go a whoring after them, I will even set my
face against that soul, and will cut him off
from among his people.
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye
holy: for I am the Lord your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do
them: I am the Lord which sanctify you.
3 Leviticus,
Chapter
20, verses
34.
330
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
9 For every one that curseth his father or
his mother shall be surely put to death: he
hath cursed his father or his mother; his hlood
shall be upon him.4
To fanatically religious parents the greatest disgrace, the deepest
humiliation a child could possibly inflict, is to marry a person of a
different religious faith. To many this is a crime of such enormity
that there is no forgiveness; according to the Bible, it constitutes a
violation of this Commandment because the child “bath cursed his
father or his mother” and committed “whoredom with Molech.” This
so-called act of dishonor has caused untold misery in the world. It
has aroused the most violent bitterness and hatred. It has broken
up homes and estranged families. And this Commandment has contributed largely to intensifying this condition.
Even though a child marries out: whuse faith permits him to accept
this Commandment as part of the Decalogue, that does not in the least
mitigate
the enormity
of the crime
or lcsscn the hatred aroused.
I
have seen a Catholic mother weep as though her heart would break
bccausc her so’n was to marry a girl of the Protestant
faith and the
marriage ceremony was to be performed in a Protestant church.
have
seen a Protestant
I
mother disown and disinherit her son because
he married a Catholic girl and the ceremony was performed by a
priest. It was not until there was a death in the family that she permitted him and his wife and children to enter her house. Even today
I have known orthodox Hebrew parents to, mourn as dead a child who
married outside of their faith. Some even go to the extent of performing the funeral ceremony as required by the ancient tribal law, to
express their grief, as well as their condemnation of this filial breach.”
In contrast to the hatred and bigotry caused and intensified by the
BibIe and rehgious systems in generaI, here is what the infidel IngersolI
said regarding parental affection :
Leviticus,
Chapter
20,
verses 5-9.
sA typical case was rerorded in the New York Herald
4
Tribune,
Oct. 18, 1931.
THE
FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
“When your child commits a wrong, take it in your arms; let it
feel your heart beat against its heart; let the child know that you
really and truly and sincerely love it. Yet some Christians, good
Christians, when a child commits a fault, drive it from the door
and say; ‘Never
do you darken
this house again.’
Think
of that1
And then these same people will get down on their knees and ask
God to take care of the child they have driven from home. I
will never ask God to take care of my children unless I am doing
my level best in that same direction.
Call me Atheist, call me
infidel, call me what you will, I intend so to treat my children that
they can come to my grave and truthfully say: ‘He who sleeps here
never gave us a moment of pain. From his lips, now dust, never
came to us an unkind word.’ ” 8
At the conclusion of his address, of which this quotation is a part,
a prominent United States Senator sought him out and said: “Colonel,
you have converted me. For years I have been estranged from my
only daughter because she did not marry to please me, but now I shall
go to her tonight and beg her forgiveness for allowing a selfish pride to
keep her from my arms and heart! ”
The Biblical Hebrew felt that only by compelling their children to
adhere to their belief and observe the other taboos and rituals asso-
ciated with their religio,n, the disaster of losing their land could be
averted.
I quote Deuteronomy,
Chapter
26 Behold,
I set before
ing and a curse;
11, verses 26 to 29:
you
this
day
a bless-
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments
of the Lord
your
God,
which
I commmd
you
this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn
aside out of the way which I command you
this day, to go after other gods, which ye
have not known.
29
thy
And
it shall
cume
to pass, when
the Lord
God hath brought thee in unto the land
whither thou goest to possess it, that thou
shalt
eIngersoll,
Rut
the
blessing
upon
mount
and the curse upon mount Ebal.
WOYRS,Vol. 1, p. 324,
Gerizim,
332
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The constant repetition of a curse to be inflicted for disobeying this
Commandment,
and a blessing to be conferred for obedience, emphasized the necessity of conforming to its edicts. Its place in the Decalogue has no relationship
whatever toI the modern understanding
of
filial devotion, respect and affection.
The “honor”
to parents demanded in this Commandment
was for the sole purpose of maintaining
the solidarity of the tribe and the continuous “blessing” of the Bible
Deity on all the Children of Israel who remain steadfast to his laws
and statutes.
In Deuteronomy,
Chapter 29, verses 18 to 29, is emphasized the
warning against following other gods. It is imposed on parents by the
Bible Deity, and reveals another reason why it was their duty to
demand that their children “honor” them:
18 Lest there should he among you man, or
woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth
away
this
day
from
the
Lord
our
God,
to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest
there should be among you a root that beareth
gall
2nd
wormwood;
19 And it come to pass, when he heareth
the words of this curse, that he bless himself
in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though
1 walk in the imagination of mine heart, to
add drunkenness to thirst:
20 The Lord will not spare him, but then the
anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke
against that man, and all the curses that are
written in this book shall lie upon him, and
the Lord shall blot out his name from under
heaven.
21 And the Lord shall separate him unto
evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according
to all the curses of the covenant that are
written in this book of the law:
22 So that the generation to come of your
children
that
shall
rise up after
you,
and
the
stranger that shall come from a far land, shall
say, when they see the plagues of that land,
and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid
upon it;
23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, tlzat it is not
sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth
therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, which the
THE FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
333
Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:
24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore
hath the Lord done thus unto this land?
what meaneth the heat of this great anger?
The curse was forever an effective warning to the Children of Israel
to obey their God:
25 Then men shall say, Because they have
forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of
their fathers, which he made with them when
he brought them forth out of the land of
Egypt:
26 For they went and served other gods, and
worshipped them, gods whom they knew not,
and whom he had not given unto them:
27 And the anger of the Lord was kindled
against this land, to bring upon it all the
curses that are written in this book.
The reason for this threat is repeated in the words “because they have
forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers . . .”
28 And the Lord rooted them out of their
land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into nnothcr
land,
as it is this day.
29 The secret things belong unto the Lord
our God: but those things which are revealed
belong unto us and to our children for ever,
that we may do all the words of this law.
Here again is the threat of losing the land for disobedience.
Do’ we need more evidence to prove that this Commandment was
formulated solely for the purpose of intensifying
the.solidarity
of the
tribe, as a mode of propitiation to the Bible Deity that the Israelites
might continue to’ occupy the land which they believed their God had
given them?
There still exists a strong conviction among the Hebrews that a
father possesses a mystic power through his blessings or curses.
Westermarck and other leading anthropologists support the contention
that this Commandment, with its element of reward for honoring
parents, was o,riginally due to the prevalence of the belief that the
parents were “vice-regents of God.” 7
r Westermarck, Mods,
Vol. 1, p. 627.
334
THE
THE
ELEMENT
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
OF SYMPATHETIC
FILIAL
OBEDIENCE
MAGIC
IN
TRIBAL
The superstitious belief that parents possess the power of God on
earth is found in nearly all primitive
societies. Long before Moses is
supposed to have lived, an Egyptian sage had written that “a son who
attends to the words of his father will grow old in consequence.” 8
Among the Moslems, parental disobedience is placed on a par with
idolatry and murder; and some of the southern Slavs maintain that if
a son does not fulfill the last will of his father, the soul of the father
will curse him from the grave.
The Koreans believe that the richest rewards and the brightest
heavens await the filial child, whereas curses and disgrace in this life
and hell in the world hereafter are the penalties of the disobedient and
neglectful child. A man who strikes his father is generally beheaded.9
In ancient Egypt, the notion prevailed that a son who accepted the
word of his father would attain old age on that account.1°
In the
Precepts of Ptahhotep we read: “How good it is when a son receives
that which his father says. He shall reach advanced age thereby.” I1
Among the Nan&
in Central
in any serious matter,
mantle.
This
Africa,
if a son refuses
the father solemnly
is equivalent
to a serious
strikes
curse,
to obey his father
the son with his fur
and is supposed
to be
fatal to the son unless he obtains forgiveness, which he can do only by
sacrificing a goat before his fat.her.12 In Greece, the belief prevailed
that a child who struck his parent would be accursed.
In India, a
child considered guilty o’f parental disrespect could only be purified
with water taken from a sacred lake or river. Disobedience had to be
purged with foods that were taboo- food that had been licked by dogs
or pigs, or defiled by crows or impure men-l3
This superstition
was
s Quoted by Farrar, The Voirr! nf .SieG, p. 180.
9 Westermarck, A4ouals,
Vol. 1, p. 513.
10 Ibid., pp. 624, 625.
11Hastings, Encyclofiaedia,
Vol. 9. p. 47%
1s Westermarck, op. tit., Vol. 1, p. 622.
13 Ibid., pp. 624, 625,
THE FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
335
carried even further among the Hindus. In their sacred books we find
evidence that even the oldest were sacred to the younger children. It
says: “The feet of the elder brothers and sisters must be embraced,
according to the order of their seniority.”
So strict did the Chinese become in their obedience to parental
authority’ and so early did they instruct their children in this reverence
and awe, that it became the basis of their creed-the worship of
ancestors. Confucianism has been briefly described as “an expansion
of the root idea of filial devotion.” In Korea and Japan, the authority
of the father is equally great. It is said that a Japanese maiden, at
the command of her father, will enter a brothel without a murmur and
become a prostitute for life. l4 In ancient Chaldea, a son or a daughter
could be given as a hostage for a debt. Among the early Hebrews, a
father could sell his child to relieve his own distress, or offer the child
to a creditor as a pledge. He often sold his daughter to be a servant
or concubine.
Fea,r of parents, and paying strict obedience to, their demands, were
almost universal in early times, and prevail in primitive societies today.
The lower the scale of intellectual development’ the greater the fear
and the stricter the compliance. Eskimo and North American Indian
children are described as being very obedient to their parents. Disobedience is practically unknown, and often a word or even a look
from a parent is enough to enforce discipline. The son of a Central
Asiatic
Turk,
when yo’ung, behaves as if he were his fa.ther’s slave.
Among the Ossetes, the young men never sit in the presence of their
fathers
or speak
in loud
voices.
Parents
in the
Barea
and
Kunama
tribes are highly respected’ and a child would never dare to contradict
them or oppose their commands, no matter how unjust. The son of a
Kaiir who is disrespectful to his father is subject to the contempt of
the tribe and is sometimes even banished.16
A noted historian’ Leighton Wilson, says that among the Mpongwe
veneration for age is carried to greater lengths than among any other
14 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 608.
16Zbid.,
Vol.
1, pp. 600, 601.
336
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
people. The young are instructed in reverence, and they never enter
the presence of their elders without taking off their hats and assuming a
crouching gait.16
Even today, beating children as a punishment is still considered a
parent’s inalienable right. The law today will interfere only if the
chastisement becomes too brutal. It is not uncommon even now for
a mother to tell a child that has just received. a whipping from its
father that it has been punished by God for some disobedience.
Henry Sloane Coffin, associate professor in the Union Theological
Seminary of New York, in discussing this Commandment, ha,d the
honesty to say: “To what extent can we apply a Commandment, devised for tribesmen among whom sons and daughters grew up to, follow
the callings and repeat almost exactly the careers of their ancestors,
to conditions where the lives of children are so totally unlike those in
which their parents were reared?” I7
This Commandment belongs in the same category as the four
previous ones in admonishing “our duty to God.” It does not prescribe
moral conduct; it does, however, specify a superstitious religious duty,
the performance of which would produce the results desired by sympathetic magic. The pledge of “prolonged days” and the occupation of
the Promised Land for obedience to parents makes this Commandment
an integral part of the primitive culture of the Hebrew tribal code and,
as such, occupies an appropriate place in the Decalogue of superstitious taboos.
FAITHFULNESS
AND FAILURE
The tenderest relationship in life is that between parent and child.
To remember the tenderness, care and watchfulness of parents and to
repay them in so,me measure for their unselfish devotion is not only
one of the great pleasures of life, but also one of the greatest privileges.
The man who recalls the loving kiss of a mother or the affectionate
embrace of a father can never be completely without some consolation.
I6 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 604.
I7 Coffin, The Ten Commandments, p. 98,
THE
FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
337
The child who mistreats his parents, who is ungrateful for their efforts
in his behalf, who is indifferent to their welfare, will probably, when
he or she becomes a parent, feel a pang for his callous indifference,
for which there is no comfort.
What does this Commandment
teach us concerning this relationship? What is meant by the words, “Honor thy father and thy
mother”?
In what did honor consist? Why was it necessary to, honor
parents in order “that thy days may be long upon the land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee”?
Must affection for parents, must consideration for their welfare, must respect and duty toward them be
determined by the consideration of a reward? Are these attachments
of the heart for sale at a price? Must we be bribed to perform a duty
that should be our first and greatest privilege?
Must we give honor to
our parents only upon the expressed condition that our “days may be
long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee”?
What baser bargain could there be? Cannot affection, consideration and filial duty be put upon a higher plane than that of a commercial product?
What do you think of a son or a daughter who looks
for value received in performing
a duty toward parents?
To permit
the promise of long life to influence respect and devotion to parents
commercializes
the tenderest of relationships.
It reduces our deepest
emotions to the level of barter.
The man or woman who shows devotion and affection to his or her
parents mcrcly for the love of them is certainly manifesting
a greater
and more commendable
degree of virtue than one who exhibits these
at.ta.chment.s fnr the reward t.ha.t. is promised.
A high standard of morality is not built on rewards and punishments. Virtue, we are told, is its own reward. A good deed is performed because it is better to do good without reward than to withhold
We do good because it is good to
services for lack of compensation.
do good.
The Greek and Roman philosophers could have taught us more in
this respect than this Commandment.
The Stoics said: “No deeds are
more laudable than those which are done without ostentation.”
And
338
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Seneca said: “He who wishes his virtue to be blazed abroad is not
And Persius said: “I do not shrink
laboring for virtue, but for fame.”
from praise, but I refuse to make it the end and term of right.”
And
Pliny
said:
“That
which
is beautiful
is beautiful
in itself;
the praise
of man adds nothing to its quality.”
And the younger Pliny said of
one of his friends that “he sought the reward of virtue in itself, and
not in the praise of men.”
Peregrinus, the Cynic, said: “The wise man
will not sin, though both gods and men should overlook the deed, for it
is not through fear of punishment
or of shame that he abstains from
sin. It is from the desire and obligation
of what is just and good.”
Marcus Aurelius said: “To be paid for virtue is as if the eye demanded
a recompense for seeing, or the feet for walking.” I8
Can anyone say that this Commandment
is a precept that could
only emanate from a divine source -that
it required a special revelatinn to man? l3n the wrrds
nf t.his Commandment.
actually
inculcate
into the minds of our children that unselfish attitude toward parents
which we so highly ‘commend?
Does it teach unselfishness?
In this
world of insatiable greed, some contend that unselfishness alone is all
that is needed to solve many of the problems and help to bring peace
and understanding
to the human race. But does this Commandment
contribute one iota to that much-desired end? Or has it only intensified
those selfish traits which are the basis of so many of our baser acts?
What was the moral standard that the Bible God used in the
formulation
of
this
Co~~~~lllmandment?
Surely
the
words
“Love
thy
father and thy mother” would have been sufficient to’ stress those
affectionate attachments
which are universally
practised,
and it did
not require the thunder and lightning of Sinai to remind us of them.
Since the word “love” is used in the Bible in the phrase “Love thy
neighbo’r,” lg surely it is equally desirable to love o,ne’s parents as to
“honor” them.
1s Lecky, Morals, Vol. 1, p. 79.
IsThis phrase is generally attributed to Jesus, as an original thought and a new
dispensation, as expressed in Matthew, Chapter
19, verse 19, and Chapter
22, verse 39,
when as a matter of fact it is a purely tribal concept found in the Old Testament,
Leviticus,
Chapter
19, verse
18.
THE FIFTH
COMMANDMENT
339
Hono’r is not a term of endearment; it is a form of tribute. Love
and affection are the binding attachments of family life; honor is an
attribute exhibited as a public recognition for deeds and accomplishments
and high positions
of authority;
it does not necessarily
include
affection and devotion.
More filial devotion and respect for parents, more consideration
for their wants, mo’re regard for their welfare, can be learned from
King Lear than from these “inspired” words of this Commandment.
Bought love is false love. Love that depends upon a price, that
looks for a reward, that is put oa a commercial basis, is love that
should be spurned and condemned.
The love and affection in family life is just as stroag and just as
fervent among human beings who never heard of this Commandment
as it is among those who, parrot-like, call it a “divine revelation.”
The love attachment.
exhibited
in the animal
and bird kingdo,ms
is in
many respects equal, and often superior, to that manifested by members of the human family.
Why was the word “honor” used in this Commandment instead of
the word “love”? There was a valid reason for this. “Honor” is the
word intended. This Commandment was not formulated to inculcate
love and affection between parents and children. Its distinct purpose
was to impress upon the child the importance of exhibiting to parents
the honor acco.rded to God and his representatives, and to make sure
that the children of the Children of Israel would keep their God’s
“statutes and his commandments unto the thousandths of generations.”
The solidarity
of the ChZdren of Israel
“u~ouz
the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee” was the reason for its inclusion in the Decalogue.
The dutiful attachment
of child to parent was never even remotely
associated with it.
If this Commandment has any significance whatever, it should
demonstrate its power at the appropria,te time. There have been
countless children who have “honored” their parents, who have sacrificed themselves for their welfare, and who nevertheless suffered hardship and did not live long. There have been hundreds of thousands of
340
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
children who have behaved wretchedly to their parents, and yet have
enjoyed the best of the world’s goods. There are children who waste
and squander enough in oae year to give their parents all the comfort
and protection they need for the rest of their lives, and yet these children live long and seem to enjoy life. A false edict is not only valueless, but in addition creates a negative influence.
Even as a Commandment intended solely and exclusively for the
Hebrews, subsequent events have definitely and irrevocably proved it
to be false. On the whole, Jewish children have always been faithful
and dutiful to their parents. They have the reputation of performing
their filial duty with scrupulous fidelity. Yet the most orthodox and
most fervent religious believer must admit that the Jews did not live
long in the land that they thought their God had given them as an
inheritance for keeping his statutes and his Commandments. In fact,
judging from authentic historical reco’rds, the Jews lived but a short
time in their native land. They were not dispersed from that land
because they were disobedient or failed to observe the Commandments
or other edicts of their God. On the contrary, it was because the
Children of Israel were too scrupulous in their observance of the Decalogue that they no longer po8ssessthe land of their forefathers. The
loss of their land was due not to the breach but to the observance of the
Commundments.
The sons and daughters of Israel have “honored” their parents as
provided by this Commmdment, but the Hebrew Deity has not kept
faith with them. Their days have not been prolonged “upon the land”
of their fathers; they are sca.tterd
river t-he face of the earth!
The
promise of their God was not fulfilled. The Hebrew people themselves
are the best example of the falsity of this Commandment and the
failure of their God.
The
Sixth
Commandment
“‘Thou
shalt not kill.”
KILLING
AND SELF-PRESERVATION
M
ANY theologians contend that the five previous Commandments are supposed to deal with man’s relation to God, and
the remaining five, beginning with this one, with man’s relation to man. Assuming this premise to be correct, would that account
for an important difference that distinguishes the first half from the
second-the element of reward and punishment?
The Second Commandment states that God was to visit the
“iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate him, and show mercy unto the thousands
of them that love him.”
The Third Commandment warns that the Lord would “not hold
him guiltless who taketh his name in vain.”
In the Fourth Commandment, the Lord “blessed the Sabbath and
hallowed” it.
For the observance of the Fifth Commandment, “thy days would
be long upon the land that thy God giveth thee.”
In this Commandment there is no stipulation of reward for its
observance, or punishment for its violation. What is one to assume
from this difference? Is it that the Commandments dealing with our
supposed relation to God, as biblically recorded, are more important
than the ones dealing with man’s relationship to man? Is one half of
the Decalogue mure binding than the other half?
Consistency is one of the prime requisites of any code of living.
Any inconsistency, particuIa.rly in a moral code, invalidates whatever
value it might otherwise have. The Ten Commandments are no exception to this rule. Tn exempt the Decalogue would be to take from it
the claim of infallibility.
If no reward is offered for the observance of this Commandment
343
THE
344
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
and no punishment is to be inflicted for its violation, why was it made
one of the Commandments?
Why was it prescribed, and what is its
meaning?
Was it intended to be a moral precept or a taboo? Has it
any ethical
or moral
value for our own time?
Can it be observed?
Or was this injunction not to kill based on a belief in animism and the
fear of blood contamination,
as we discovered the previous Commandments to be based on animism and sympathetic magic?
It is universaIIy
maintained
that there is nothing more vaIuabIe
than life. The law of self-preservation
prevails not only among the
so-called civilized races, but also among the primitive.
The highest
authorities
tell us “no known tribe, however low and ferocious, has
ever admitted that men may kill one another indiscriminately.”
l The
same condition exists even in the animal world and, from the most
careful observation,
among all the lower forms of life. To make a
person pay the supreme penalty for any wrongdoing is to deprive him
of his life. To kill IS to commit an irreparabIe deed. Since this rule
is universal, why was it necessary to, repeat it in the Commandments?
As some form of killing takes place every moment of the day, does
this Commandment
apply to human beings only, or to all forms of life?
At this very moment myriad forms of life are being killed that myriad
forms of life may live. There are some instances where conditions are
such as to permit only the alternative
of killing or being killed.
To
tell us not to kill, when the fundamental
law of life is self-preservation,
is to force us into a conflict and contradiction;
the stronger motive
must inevitably prevail even though that stronger motive-the
preservation
of one’s own life-is
contrary
to the explicit
and unqualified
edict of this Commandment,
Man kills and will continue to kill those
things
which
he feels to be a menace
to his existence.
The instinct to kill cannot be eradicated by merely repeating the
words of this Commandment.
What kind of moral ruler of the universe was this Bible God who gave rules of life that are contrary to
and in violation of the very principles upon which Iife itself is based?
So far experience has not only made it necessary for him to kill, but
1 Quoted by Westermarck, Morals,
Vol. 1, p. 331.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
345
has taught him, as the first law of self-preservation, that he must
sometimes kill. At the present time, man’s ignorance and fears make
him kill needlessly and indiscriminately.
Therefore, “Thou shalt not kill,” unless qualified, becomes a meaningless Commandment and an indefinite precept. Because it is subject
to many interpretations, it cannot help but prove of little or no value.
What one word suggests to one person may have an altogether different
meaning to another. “Thou shalt not kill” may mean to one that he
should not kill a human being; to another it may mean that he should
not kill an animal for food. Some people advocate the killing of a few
to save the lives of many.
If lightning, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes and other death-dealing
manifestations of nature are “acts o,f God,” as they have been legally
classified, then the Bible God himself is guilty of taking the lives of
hundreds
of millions
of defenseless
men, women
and children,
as well
as other forms of life.
Vegetarians
are
cnnst.a.ntly
qmting
this
Commandment
and sub-
stantiating it with the words of Isaiah: “He that killeth an ox is as if
he slew a man.” 2
“Thou shalt not kill” may mean to one child that he should not
kill anything that lives; to another it would seem ridiculous not to use
his rifle to kill rabbits and birds. Many a churchgoer who has repeated
this Commandment over and over again engages in the sport of killing
wild animals. Apparently he does not consider that wild animals
come within the scope of this Commandment. In fact, the killing of
wild animals is regarded by many as a great sport. Little do they
realize the pain and suffering that follow such indiscriminate and
thoughtless killing.
According to the Christians, if Jesus had not been killed, they
would have been deprived of salvation. In other words, through the
violation of this Commandment they claim the human race was saved.
We are told that Jesus said;
2Zsaiah,
Chapter 10, verse 3.
THE
346
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” *
I cite the above not as an event that actually took place, or which has
any significance or value, but to show how utterly impossible it is to
make so all-embracing
a command as this one without qualifications
as to its meaning, because Jesus also said:
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet
none of you keep&h the law? lXrhy go ye
about to kill me?“4
To tell us not to kill, without defining the meaning of the
“kill,”
is to tell us to do something impo’ssible of performance.
only cannot man survive unless he kills, but no form of life can
without killing.
We must kill to live, and in turn we are killed
something else may live. Death is just as much the law of life
living; nothing dies of itself. To be killed is to pay the penalty
living.
How true are these words of Henri Fabre:
word
Not
exist
that
as is
for
“At the banquet of life each in turn is a guest and a dish.”
If the purpose of this Commandment
had any influence?
Or does the instinct
this
edict?
is to prevent killing,
of self-preservation
has it
nullify
5
IS KILLING
EVER
JUSTIFIED?
A peremptory Commandment
of “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not”
is impossible of fulfillment.
Each and every act must be subject to
8 Matthew, Ckapter 16, verse 21; Chapter 26, verse 28; also,
31; Chapter 9, verse 31.
4
John,
Cha+v
7, vwse
Mark,
Ckapter 8, verse
19.
6The question was asked in a newspaper editorial some time ago whether a man
who had killed another could be President of the United States. “Can a hangman ever
be President?”
was
the
question.
The
amazing
answer
is that
not
only
can
a nxm
who
has killed a human being be President, but one actually was. The killing was not
done in self-defense, but merely because he was paid to do it! It seems that in 1872,
when
Grover
Cleveland
was
sheriff
of
Buffalo,
New
York,
two
men
were
sentenced
to
death for murder, and rather than delegate the task of execution to someone else, he
sprang the trap that killed the men ,-New York Evening Journal, Apr. 19, 1931.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
347
the conditions surrounding
it. What may be applicable in one case
would not apply in another.
To follo,w indiscriminately
a certain
dogmatic and inflexible precept would not only prove futile, but might
result in serious consequences, which would be worse than the condition sought to be prevented. This was demonstrated
by the Iconoclasts
who wrought havoc by blindly following the provisions of the Second
Commandment,
and the Sabbatarians
who adhered literally
to the
provisions of the Fourth Commandment.
A Commandment
that read “Thou shalt be good always” could not
be applicable to all people at all times. To show the same degree of
goodness or kindness to one who has befriended you as to one who has
injured you would be to insult your benefactor by failing to differentiate between a friend and an enemy.
Even a Commandment
that read “Thou shalt smile always” could
not be observed under all circumstances.
Suppose
you
entered
a house
where the loss of a dear one was being mourned.
Would you greet the
members of the household with a smile?
If you did, would it not be
natural for them to assume that you were callous and indifferent to
their suffering?
Would not your smile be taken as an insult by those
who had been visited by misfortune or death?
Understanding
of a situation must always govern our actions. Any
moral code that fails to take into account the variations of human
conduct and provide for contingencies cannot help but prove to be a
faulty system,
A proper moral code must make provision for time
The preacher of Ecclesiastes (Chapter
and place and circumstance.
3, verses 1 to 4) knew this when he said:
1 To every
thing
Lhere
is a season,
and a.
time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a
time
to plant,
and a time to pluck LID that
which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time
to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a
time to mourn, and a time to dance.
348
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Does this Commandment distinguish between killing that is deliberate and killing that has some basis of justification? Is the man
who kills in self-defense just as guilty as the one who kills in cold
blood? What of the person who is provoked to kill? Is he to be held
to the same accountability as the deliloerate murderer? Is a justifiable,
excusable or accidental killing to be put in the same category as
deliberate murder? In nearly all societies, killing in self-defense is
considered justifiable homicide; in primitive societies, killing for food
and in defense of property was also so considered.
In Exodus, Chapter 21, verses 20 and 21, we read:
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his
maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand;
he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding,
if he continue a day or
two, he shall not be punished: for he is his
money.
In other words, if a slave is severely beaten so that he lives but two
days, yet dies on the third day from the injuries received, the master
and the owner shall not be held for his death!
How can this Commandment be considered all-conclusive regarding the taking of life, when ther-e still rings in our ears the bloodthirsty
and murderous injunction, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”?
Man’s own efforts in the field of law show ;t far greater undcrstanding of his nature than this Commandment, even when it is considered
in its broadest possible aspect. In law there m-e different degrees of
homicide. Killing in self-defense is considered justifiable. Killing
under certain provocations is not so severely condemned as when other
motives are involved. For instance, killing an intruder or thief is held
justifiable homicide,
A woman is held justified if she has killed a man who attempted to
ravish her. Even today it is difficult to convict a man of murder who
kills another caught in an adulterous act with his wife. Among the
Moslems, the man who does not kill the adulterer is shunned by society
as being unworthy of friends and a disgrace to his fa,mily.O
e Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, pp. 290-291.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
349
Among the Wakamba, “a thief entering a village at night can be
killed.” In Uganda there is no penalty for killing a thief who enters
an enclosure at night. ’ An ancient Norwegian law permitted the slaying of a thief caught in the act, and according to a Javanese law, if a
thief is caught in the act, it is lawful to put him to death.
For years there has been agitation by enlightened people for recognition of the fact that there are times when killing becomes an act of
mercy. Humanitarians have been pleading for years that children
born with irremediable mental and physical defects should be permitted
to pass out of life in the quickest and least painful way. They hold
that it is cruel and unjust to permit such children to live in this world
of terrific strife, where all the faculties are necessary in order to meet
the exigencies of life. These pitiful creatures become a burden not
only to themselves but to others. Life for them is a perpetual tragedy.
Some years ago the most virulent abuse and vituperation were
heaped on the head of a famous Chicago physician, Dr. H. D. Haiselden, for pleading for the right to chloroform the miserably misshapen
and distorted body of a child that he had delivered.* The child was
doomed to imbecility, blind in one eye, crippled in limb, the helpless
prey of physical and mental distortion; yet, this humanitarian doctor
was hounded to death by clergymen who insisted that the child “had
come directly
from the hand of God,” and that since God sent the
child here in that condition, it should be permitted to live and super as
God intended that it should! 9 If a child comes “directly
from the
hand of God,” should it not be sent here free from the defects that
would make Its life a burden to itself and others? And what kind of
sadistic God is it that would so frightfully afflict a human being?
Despite the fact that the law does not differentiate between a
“merciful” killing and a deliberate murder, those who commit the
7 Westermarck, MO&C, Vol. 1, pp. 288-289.
8New York Times, Nov. 16, 17, 1917.
9 The subject of “mercy killing” is gaining
year.
In
fart,
therp
is nlrmdy
in
existence
in
in interest and importance
almost
every
civilized
country
year after
a Eutha-
nasia Society, whose purpose it is to advocate the merciful killing of the incurably helpless, the deformed and other hopeless “misfits of life.”
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
350
former are rarely convicted when brought to trial. A grand jury,
some time ago, refused even to indict a father for killing his two-yearold son who had been born with an inflamed brain and who was
doomed to a life of imbecility and agonizing suffering.lO
A jury brought in a verdict of not guilty against a son for killing
his mother who was suffering indescribable agony from an incurable
cancer. She had pleaded with him time and again to relieve her of
her misery. Unable to endure his mother’s hopeless condition, he
acceded to her entreaties and ended her life. Despite the judge’s
opinion that “it was for God to consider when your mother should have
died,” the jury thought the son justified and acquitted him.ll
After killing her hopelessly invalid son, whom she had nursed for
over thirty years, a mother wrote this note before she committed
suicide : “This is done in the name of mercy. Every night my son
got on his knees and begged me not to leave him alone. He was so
terrified that it wa,s horrible. I, his mother, could not permit this.
The law should relieve such helpless sufferers. The burden should not
be upon me.” l2
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, noted poet, lecturer and writer, and one
of the greatest
women
of her time,
preferred
to take
her own
life
rather than to endure the sufferings and miseries of cancer. She said
that
“justifiable
suicide”
was
the simplest
of human
rights.
In the
note which she left, she said: “Human life consists in mutual service.
No grief, pain, misfortune or ‘broken heart’ is excuse for cutting off
one’s life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness
is over, when one is assured of an unavoidable and imminent death, it
is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in
place of a slow and horrible one. Public opinion is changing on this
subject. The time is approaching when we shall consider it abhorrent
to our civilization to allow a human being to lie in prolonged agony
which we should mercifully
end in any other creature.
Believing this
10 New
York
Timm,
Jan.
16, 1932.
11 New York World-Telegram, Nov. 4, 1929.
32New York Times, Aug. 8, 1940.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
351
choice to be of social service in promoting wiser views on this question,
I have preferred chloroform to cancer.” l3
Even the district attorney had to admit that it was a “sad case”
when the facts were presented to him concerning the killing of an
imbecile son by a distracted father. After his “act of mercy” had been
discovered and a physician tried to revive the boy, the father cried: “I
hope you don’t revive him. He is better off dead.” When the full
story was told of the dread with which both the mother and father
feared a violent outbreak by their imbecilic son, the jury promptly
acquitted him.14
These are but a few of the hundreds of such cases that take place
year after year.
Are these acts in violation of this Commandment? Or should they
be placed in the category of justifiable killing? Is it not obvious from
the meager facts already related here that this Commandment could
not possibly be applied unequivocally as a prohibition of killing in the
strictest sense of the word?
RELIGIOUS
DELUSION
AND HOMICIDAL
MANIA
How are those people who are victims of religious homicidal mania
to be considered?
Killing
is no less killing
when
done as “God’s
will.”
Those who kill under the influence of religious delusion, “in the name
of God,” have not cvcn the cxcusc
of extenuating
circumstances.
Their
only explanation is that they have Biblical sanction to support their
murderous deeds.
Countless children have been murdered under the delusion of
performing a human sacrifice as an appeasement of the Bible God.
In Spandau, Germany, a father cut the throat of his son. When he
surrendered, he said: “I am Abraham. My mission is fulfilled. I have
sacrificed my son.” lE
I9 New York
Tinm,
Au-. 20, 1935’.
14 Ibid.,
Jan. 13, 1939.
16 London
Freethinker,
Jan. 18, 1931.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
3.52
After hearing “voices” and seeing “visions of heaven,” Clair
Young brutally killed his nineteen-month-old baby girl. When he was
apprehended, he cried : “I had to do it to save my soul. I’m a very
religious man. In the eyes of the Lord, I was to sacrifice something
in order to go to heaven.” lo
“As a test of his faith and acting under divine command,” Antonio
Lopez Malo, of Madrid, Spain, brutally stabbed his twenty-two-monthold daughter to death with a kitchen knife “after the fashion of Abraham.” When the monstrous deed had been committed, the family
gathered around the dead child for prayer.17
Acting as a “messenger of Go’d,” thirty-two-year-old Oskar Hestness strangled his only two children, boys ten and four years of age.
His only excuse was that he had had a “vision of God” ordering him
to “choke the devil out of the boys.” Hestness said his wife knew
what he was doing, “but she knew that it had to be done because God
had told me to.” I8
Responding to what she said was a “command of God,” Mrs.
Herbert Kennedy drowned her eight-year-old daughter. “God told
me to do it,” she said.lg
Crazed by religion, Walter Bin&am
01 West Chester,
Pennsylvania, murdered his two children of eleven and three years old under
the delusion that “God sent a command in a spirit that told me to do
it. Why shouldn’t I obey the commands o’f God?” was his only
excuse.2o
A farmer, whose mind physicians said was affected by intense
religious fervor, killed his wife, their two children, a boarder and himself in their home near Blue Mountain, Mississippi.21
Age is no respecter of religious fanaticism.
There has just come
to public attention the brutal strangling to death of a mother of
le New
I7 New
IsNew
IsNew
2o New
21 New
York
York
York
York
York
York
Daily Mirror, June 22, 193%
Times, Aug. 5, 1926.
World-Telegram, Jan. 23, 1934.
American, Feb. 15, 1933.
Times,
May
7, 1931.
Herald Tribune, Apr.
17, 1931.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
353
eighty-seven years by her religiously deluded daughter of sixtyfour years. when apprehended she said: “I just killed mother
because she was possessed of the devil and the Lord told me to kill
her.” 22
An eighty-year-old
religionist,
living near Johannesburg,
South
Africa, killed his son in the belief that by so doing he would bring rain
to his parched community.
Accordingly he cut the throat of his son,
put the blood into cattle horns and dissected the body for “rain
medicine.”
When apprehended, this religious fanatic said: “I loved
my son, but believed that if I sacrificed him I would bring plenty of
rain and food for my people, and we would not need to work again.” 22’
A few years ago the country was shocked by the brutal murder of
A sixty-year-old
man,
a ten-year-old girl in White Plains, New York.
known to be deeply religious, wa,s arrested for the murder.
He confessed that he had been commanded by God to sacrifice a virgin so
that she could not live to become a harlot.
He successfully carried
out the mission entrusted to him for which he said he had received the
approval of Christ.
He was electrocuted at Sing Sing prison for the
murder of this child.23
Wilfred Pichette, a religious fanatic who bought “the power of
Christ” from a gypsy band, confessed with his wife to killing their
nineteen-year-old
maid.
Pichette said that “divine power” drove him
to hammer Marion Doyle to death with a flatiron.
“I was going to
drive the evil spirits out of the house,” he gave as his reason for committing the murder.24
A twelve-year-old
girl, the daughter of Christian Scientists, died
after an eight weeks’ illness during which the parents refused to call a
physician.25
The parents of another child, Hilda Freer, allowed her to die rather
than permit the use of diphtheria antitoxin.
They “trusted in prayer
22 New York
22a New
22 Truth
24 New
25 New
York
Scckcr,
York
York
Times, Mar. 18, 1944.
Times, May 27, 1944.
June, 1935.
World-Telegram,
Oct. 24, 1938.
World,
Jan. 21, 1930.
354
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
to save her,” the doctor who’ was called in testified.26 The father was
arrested and held for trial on a charge of manslaughter.
Newspapers and the courts, as well as our insane asylums, are
continually crowded with cases similar to’ the ones mentioned above.
These crimes have occurred throughout the ages and continue without
abatement. It would require volumes to detail them.27 Should not
the book which inspired these people to commit these insane religious
murders be condemned as an accessory? Should a book exercising
such a vicious influence be held without blame? In face of these facts,
the conclusion is inevitable that religions based on the Bible as a divine
message from God have provoked far more killings and murders than
they have prevented.
IRRESPONSIBLE
AND ACCIDENTAL
KILLING
Should a person who has no comprehension of morality be condemned for his actions? Only by the most painstaking effort can a
normal child be taught to differentiate between right and wrong conduct. Since that is so, is it not utterly impossible to inculcate a moral
sense in the insane, the idiot, or those of retarded mentality? This is
a fact recognized even in primitive society.
The North American Potawatomis regard those who,m they call
“foolish” as not having an understanding of crime. The Iroquois
believe that a person who is not in his right senses is not to be reprehended, or at least not to be punished. Among the West African
Fjort,
fools
and
idiots
are not personally
rcsponsiblc
for their
actions.
Crimes committed by lunatics in the Wadshagge tribe are judged more
leniently than others.28
What about those who, are insane-those who are unable not only
to control their actions, but are absolutely ignorant and unconscious of
what they are doing?
sR New
York
Amcr-ican,
z7 Ellis, The Criminal,
s8 Westermarck, Morals,
Nov.
9, 1931.
pp. 187-189.
Vol. 1, pp. 271,
273.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
355
What about children?
Does this Commandment
demand of them
the same discretion and ability to control their acts as is demanded of
adults?
Must the punishment
meted out to them be of the same
severity as administered
to their elders?
One of the blackest pages in the history of man deals with the
execution of children five and six years of age for misdeeds.
Even
today, under the law, a child of seven can be held accountable for his
acts. In England, as late as 1748, a boy of ten was convicted of firstdegree murder, and the judges before whom he was tried demanded
execution of the sentence.2R
It was Seneca who said: “Why do we bear with the delirium of a
sick man, or the ravings of a madman, or the impudent
blows of a
child?
Because, of course, they evidently do not know what they are
doing. . . . Would anyone think himself in his right mind if he were
to return kicks to a mule or bites to a dog?”
Under the influence of this Commandment,
animals and even
They were solemnly
insects were held responsible for killing people.
tried by “due process of law” before legal tribunals,
with religious
approval.
Judgment of guilt was solemnly pronounced, and sentence
carried out with all the ceremonies attendant upon an official killing!30
In 1457, in the town of Bourgogne, a mother pig and six little
pigs were tried for murder.
The mother pig was found guilty a,nd
sentenced to death by hanging.
The sentence was duly executed.
The six little pigs were acquitted.
The sympathy of the court was
with them, because they would have to bear for the rest of their lives
the shame of being the offspring of a criminal mnther!
In addition to all species of animals, insects and vermin that ha.ve
been tried and convicted for murder, we find that stones, statues and
other inanimate objects were held to strict accountability
for causing
death-a
survival of the belief in animism.
A Greek writer recounts how a bronze statue was found guilty of
murder for killing a man by falling upon him.
The statue was duly
29 Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, pp. 267, 268.
30 Ibid.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
356
tried in court, found guilty of the murder, and cast into the sea. Another instance is recorded of a small boy who, while playing under a
bronze ox, struck his head against it, cracked his skull, and died from
the injury. The proper procedure was to bring the statue into court
for trial; but, since it was guilty of only involuntary homicide, a
ceremony of purification was carried on at the statue.
Even among the Hebrews, according to the Mosaic law, there is a
provision exempting from punishment certain acts of homicide. Deuteronomy,
Chapter
19, verses 4 to 6: 31
4 And this is the case of the slayer, which
shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso
killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he
hated not in time past,
5 As when a man go&h into the wood with
his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand
fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down
the tree, and the head slippeth from the
h&e, and light&h upon his ndghbour, that
he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities,
and live:
6 Lest the avenzer of the blood pm-hue the
slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake
him, because the way is long, and slay him;
whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
There are many instances where the killer of another is “not worthy
of death, inasmuch as he hated him not” when committing the deed.
If this Biblical reference makes such an exception, is it not also probable that there are many such acts that are “not worthy of death” and
that might prove an exception to the peremptory words of this Commandment ?
Should the accidental killing of a little girl by her brother, who
shot her with a gun he did not know was loaded, be included in the
provisions of this Commandment? 32
In an attempt to kill himself, a man fired a pistol, the shot went
wild, and instead he killed his mother-in-law. Was this deed worthy
81 See also Deuteronomy,
Cha$tsv
3, ‘IWJTC 19: “The revenger of the blood himsell
shall slay the murderer: when he meet&h him he shall slay him.”
a2 New York American,
Feb. 21, 1931.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
3.57
of death? 33 Or should it be placed in the category of accidental
killing?
In Temuco, Chile, a priest, unable to overtake a thief who had just
stolen a crucifix, shot and killed the man as he sought to escape.34
Under what degree of guilt should the priest who committed
this
murder be classified?
His crime is difficult to understand.
He was
not only trained to observe this Commandment
not to kill, but he also
Should a
was taught that the crucifix possessed miraculous powers.
Catholic priest kill a Catholic believer because he steals a crucifix?
The priest should have been pleased with the theft.
If the crucifix
possessed the power the Church claims for it, its possession by the
thief might have made him an honest man-and
that should be “punishment” enough for a thief!
But the truth is that the priest knew
the crucifix had no such miraculous
powers, and he shot the thief
because he had stnlen an “implement
of trade,” a piece of property
by which he makes profit.
Just as there are people suffering from mental
and physical diseases
which cause them to commit all kinds of acts, so there are men and
women who are victims o’f homicidal
mania who cannot control their
impulse to kill.
These people are impelled to commit their crimes by
forces utterly beyond their control and often feel the greatest remorse
after the deed has been perpetrated.
Such people and their crimes
are constantly coming to public notice.
How are these people’s acts
to be judged in relation to this Commandment?
One such criminal boasted that he had killed nine people beginning
with a girl only ten years o’f age.35 The only defense of a barman
charged with having thrown a girl before an onrushing train was that
“a sudden impulse came over me and 1 wanted to push someone under
the train.” 36
A bride of one week was stabbed to death and decapitated by her
33 New
34 New
35 New
881bid.,
York
York
York
Feb.
Times, July 18, 1932.
American,
Apr. 17, 1933.
World-Telegram,
Apr. 14, 1931.
17, 1939.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
358
husband, who confessed that an overpowering “urge to kill” came over
him as he saw his young wife lying in bed.37
From Rome came the report that a priest connected with the
Catholic Institute of Pius IX confessed that he had murdered a
thirteen-year-old student as he lay in bed “in a moment of unconsciousness.” 38
Henry Hagert, age eighteen, killed Charles and James Collins,
twins, “just for the heck of it.” 3Q
Louis R. Payne could only give an irresistible impulse as his
explanation for killing his mother and brother. He said he was unable
to restrain his actions.40
James McCullough, giving vent to what he described as an “uncontrollable desire to kill somebody,” murdered his fellow worker.
He could offer no other excuse for his deed.41
In an address before the Michigan Medical Society, Dr. Foster
Kennedy, of Cornell University, one of the most noted neurologists of
our time, stated that the impulse to kill was a natural instinct. He
said : “The sudden impulse to slay is more often felt by ordinary
persons than they confess to anyone but their doctor. Only sanity and
reason keep most of us from obeying that. impulse.” 43
Killing as an atavistic impulse deserves far more consideration
than has been given to’ it. It may reveal the cause of murder when
other “motives” cannot be discovered.
How are these wholly irresponsible acts to be judged in relation to
this commandment?
8’New
Yvrk
Thes,
Nov.
5, 1939.
a* New York World-Telegram, Mar.
39 New York Times, Aug. 14, 1943.
4o Naw
York
Times,
June
21, 1932.
5, 1934.
Ibid., Mar. 27, 1937.
42New York Journal-American,
41
Oct.
1, 1937.
THE SIXTH
THE FREQUENCY
COMMANDMENT
OF MURDER AND THE
OF SUICIDE
359
PREVALENCE
One would imagine murder to be the most irregular and variable
o,f offenses. Yet we can determine the number of murders that will
occur within a given year with almost the same accuracy as the trivial
matter of the number of letters that will be misdirected. Statistics
show that approximately the same number of murders as were committed last year will be repeated this year-unless, of course, some
great fundamental change takes place in our social and economic life.
Acts committed this very day will be responsible for murders committed “tomorrow.” To prevent murder, therefore, it is necessary to
do something more constructive than merely repeating a meaningless
precept about not killing. The important thing is to remove the causes
that provoke people to kill, whether they are due to environmental conditions, conflict in love matters, or the pressure of economics.
This Commandment has not had the slightest effect in diminishing
the number of murders. Despite the dea,th penalty, murders continue
to be perpetrated with unfailing regularity. In other words, the reasons
which impel one person to kill another are stronger than the forces
that are working to restrain him. Once he is bent on murder and
emotionally immune to reason, the threat of death, much less this
Commandment, is not strong enough to overcome the obsession to kill.
Dr. Walter A. Lundcn, criminology professor at the University of
Pittsburgh, made an extensive research into 2,500 murders. He found
that not only were murders committed with amazing regularity year
after year, but especially on certain da,ys and at certain times of the
year. He discovered that murders were committed more frequently
on Saturdays than on other days of the week, and that on the Fourth
of July and Labor Day, and during the Christmas season, when there
are family gatherings, a larger number of emotional killings occurred.
Motives ranged from triangle slayings to arguments over the Ten
Commandments ! 43
43
New York Sun, Aug.
20, 1941.
360
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
If, when a person was about to kill, his hand became temporarily
paralyzed so as to stay his act, then this Commandment
would be
valuable as a warning signal.
But the fact is that most people are
easily provoked to anger, and the urge to kill-a
vestigial primitive
instinct-when
it becomes an all-consuming
passion, completely dominates the mind to the exclusion of all other thoughts.
The Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin, in discussing this Commandment,
says that it is “almost an element of humor” to preach against murder
to members of “the present congregation.”
44 He made the statement
in the belief that this Commandment
prohibits murder, and that members of a modern congregation are incapable of committing
homicide.
However, if a member of the Rev. Mr. Coffin’s congregation were to
find himself in circumstances provocative
of murder, he would, like
others, be prompted by the strongest impulses within him. He would
kill under the stimulation
of patriotism,
blighted love, revenge or selfdefense, just like any other person.
What better illustration
of this truth than the incident which
occurred when Judge Ben Lindsey was in the Cathedral o,f St. John,
during Bishop Manning’s
sermon, which was an attack on him.
When Judge Lindsey arose to defend himself against the unjustifiable
charges, the congregation
almost in unison cried, “Kill
him!
Kill
him! ” 4s How easily the members of the church were aroused to kill
by the mere provocation
of having the remarks of their pastor challenged by one against whom his denunciation
was directed ! The
occasion would not have been so humorous, Reverend Mr. Coffin, if
the police had not rescued Judge Lindsey from the murderous passion
of this congregation.
Not only are murders committed
by members of congregations,
but by clergymen themselves.
The Rev. Walter Dworecki, pastor of the Camden Polish Baptist
Church, promised $100 to a youth to entice and murder his own
eighteen-year-old
daughter, solely for the purpose of collecting the
44 Coffin,
The Ten Commandments,
New York Times, Dec. 8, 1930.
45
p.
113.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
361
insurance which he had placed on her life.40 If the Rev. Mr. Coffin
says that it is almost an element of humor to preach against murder to
members of his congregation, how does he account for this minister,
who
pretended
that
the
words
of this
Commandment
were
a divine
message, and yet was able, callously and brutally, to cause his own
daughter’s murder for a mercenary return? The State of New Jersey
made this heartless clergyman pay with his life for this foul deed.
Another minister killed a colleague because he was jealous of his
success at a revival meeting.47 The Rev. J. Frank Norris, pastor of
the First Baptist Church of Texas, killed a man who had come to his
study in the church as an emissary of good will. There were no
extenuating circumstances except religious hate. Mr. Norris was considered one of the most outspoken protagonists of the Bible, preaching
that it is the exact word of God.4s How, then, did he justify his act?
And
another.
yet
there
are
some
people
who
would
rather
die
than
kill
Randolph Godfrey Phillips, in refusing to bear arms, said
that he would
“rather
die than
kill
a man.
. . .” 4Q
Is the person who takes his own life guilty of violating this Commandment
7
What
we
find
prevalent
as the
basic
law
concerning
murder is equally true in relation to suicide. Suicides take place year
after year with almost unchanging regularity and among all ages and
classes. The youngest will generally be about five years old, and the
oldest approaching the century mark. There will be bankers, brokers,
clergymen, stock clerks, etc. The motives which prompted these
suicides were the same as those which caused others before them to
take their own lives.
The Catholic Church considers self-destruction a mortal sin because of this Commandment, and yet faithful Catholic priests, as well
46New
Times? Aug. 28, 1939.
Apr. 6, 1931.
4sA veritable encyclopedia could be compiled of the crimes committed by ministers
of religion. The reader is referred, for a small collection, to Crimes of Preachers,
by
Franklin Steiner.
49New
York Times, Mar. 19, 1943.
47Ibid.,
York
THE
362
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
as devout laymen, have committed suicide when faced with intolerable
situations.
Not until man is made with a mentality
strong enough to’ withstand all the rebuffs of life, and is capable of meeting the varying
situations which are bound to occur in our social order, will he be able
to refrain from self-destruction
in the face of overpowering circumstances which make death preferable to life.
MOSES
KILLS
A MAN
More important
sometimes than the precepts of a moral code is
the example set by the one who promulgates
them. If the originator
of the code does not follow his own precepts, he not only invalidates
their worth, but very often diminishes
greatly the possibility
of its
benefiting others.
Certainly, if anyone should have known how these Commandments
were to be observed, it was the one who was selected to deliver them
to the children of men. Perhaps in the study of the character of
Moses, “the great lawgiver,” we may find the true meaning of the
words and the proper action to be followed in the fulfillment
of this
Commandment.
That this Commandment
was not a prohibition
against killing or
murder, is proved by the Bible itself, because the man whom the Bible
selected to deliver the Tablets of Stone (containing
the Ten Commandments)
to the Children of Israel was himself a murdererf
He
killed not in self-defense, not under the emotional
stress caused by
suffering a great personal wrong, but deliberately
and with calculation.
After Moses had been saved by the daughter of Pharaoh, she
nurtured him as her own child. We find him now fully grown in the
land of Pharaoh and we begin the Biblical narrative with the very
first act of Moses after he became a grown man, “full forty years
old.” 5o
so Exodus,
Chapter
2, verse
11.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
363
11 And it came to pass in those days, when
Moses was grown, that he went out unto his
brethren, and looked on their burdens: and
he spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one
of his brethren.
How Moses knew that the Hebrew was “one of his brethren,” the
Bible does not tell us. But what did Moses do when he spied an
Egyptian smiting a Hebrew?
Did this divinely protected and favored
child seek to separate them?
Did he tell them that it was wrong to
fight? Did he tell them that the stronger should protect the weaker?
Did he tell them that it was more manly to try to settle their disputes
by reason and not resort to brute force? Did he offer to arbitrate
their differences and render a decision fair to both? The Bible tells
us that he did none of these things. It does say, however, in Exodus,
Chapter 2, verse 12:
12
And
he looked
this
way
and
that
way,
and when he saw that tkere was no man, he
slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
Without even making an effort to determine whether the Egyptian
was justified in smiting the Hebrew, Moses “looked this way and that
way, and when he saw that theye ZeraSno man, he slew the Egyptian,
and hid him in the sand.”
For deliberate, unmitigated
murder this act of Moses is difficult to
parallel.
First he made sure that no one saw him; secondly, he summarily killed the man, and, thirdly, to cover the cvidcncc of his deed,
he buried him in the sand so as to avoid detection and punishment.
All this only because he saw this man striking a fdlnw Hebrew. There
was no other provocation.
Even according to the laws that Moses
himself promulgated,
he should have been judged guilty and punished.
What an example from the man whom God selected to give to, the
people a Commandment,
“Thou shalt not kill”!
Moses remained in
61 Exodus, Chapter
21, verse 14: “But if a man come presumptuously upon his
bor, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from
mine altar, that he may
Leviticus,
Chapter
24, verse 17: “And he that kill&h any man shall surely be
death.”
neighdie.”
put to
THE
364
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
hiding for two days, evidently with the hope that by so doing all
suspicion of his crime would be dispelled.
I quote EXODUS, Chapter 2,
verse 13:
13
And
when
he
went
out
the
second
day,
behold,
two men of the Hebrews
strove
together:
and he said to him that did the wrong,
Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow?
The question of Moses indicates that he sought to interfere in the
quarrel : “Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow?” he asked.
Judging
from his answer, it becomes doubly evident that Moses had absolutely
no justification
for the murder he perpetrated.
I quote Exodus,
Chapter 2, verse 14:
14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and
a judge over us? intendest
thou to kill me,
as thou killedst
the Egyptian?
And Moses
feared,
and
said,
Surely
this
thing
is known.
Even his fellow Hebrew condemned his act against the Egyptian,
and as he had seen him deliberately
kill one man without justifiable
cause, he not unreasonably
feared for his own life. “Intendest
thou
to kill me, as thou killedst
the Egyptian?”
Faced with the knowledge
he asked.
that his crime was known, Moses feared
the consequences.
He became frightened
and did what murderers
almost invariably
do: he fled from the scene in the hope of escaping.
The narrative continues in Exodus, Chapter 2, verse 15:
15 Now when Pharaoh
heard this thing, he
sought
to slay Moses.
But Moses fled from
the face of Pharaoh,
and dwelt in the land
of Midian:
and he sat down by a well.
Pharaoh intended to make
of the Egyptian.
Certainly
Moses. The latter had killed
another; Pharaoh intended to
But Moses
fled into
another
and “sat down by a well,”
Moses pay with his life for the murder
Pharaoh had more justification
than
a man merely because he was striRing
execute Moses for killing another man.
land out of the jurisdiction
evidently
contemplating
of Pharaoh,
his deed and
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
meditating
upon his act. He was not apprehended,
ished for this murder.
In view of these facts, we must again ask, What
words, “Thou shalt not kill”?
If this Commandment
against killing human beings, why was one who had
selected to impart it to the people of the earth?
THE
CLERGY,
THIS
COMMANDMENT,
365
nor was he punis meant by the
is an injunction
violated it been
AND
WAR
Has this Commandment
had any effect in reducing human slaughter? Have the men who proclaimed
this Commandment
as a divine
precept been instrumental
in preventing wars?
Dean Farrar says that “the primary aim of this Commandment
is
to inculcate reverence for human life.” ii3 Yet he immediately
follows
this statement with “though this Commandment
is God’s eternal interdict against unjust and ambitious wars, it is a falsehood in the extreme
to say that it brands with criminality
a war of justice or necessary
self-defense.”
It is regrettable that the inspired Dean did not explain
the difference between “unjust and ambitious”
wars and those of
“justice and self-defense.”
He continues, “nor need I enter into the
plain right of society to inflict capital punishment.”
If the primary
aim of this Commandment
is to inculcate reverence for human lift, by
what method of reasoning did Dean Farrar come to his conclusions?
The Rev, G. Campbell Morgan agrees with l3ean Farrar rnncerning wars of “justice and self-defense,” and from him we get a glimpse
of the strangely “inspired”
reasoning of a religiously warped mind.63
The reverend gentleman says: “The only justifiable
wars in human
history have been those undertaken immediately
and directly in obedience to a definitely express Divine Command
. . . in such cases God
chose to make man, instead of plagues or famine, the agent of his
With this explanation, every instigator of war can justify
judgment.”
his slaughter.
Why should God send plagues and famine or provoke
52 The
53 The
Voice from Sinai,
Ten Commandments,
p. 198.
p. 69.
366
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
wars to kill people when he so definitely tells us that we should not
kill?
If there are too many people in the world, why does not Godsince he is presumed to be all-knowing
and all-powerful-regulate
the
production of life so as to prevent overpopulation?
But let us continue with the reverend gentleman’s
remarks.
To
cap the climax, he says: “The history of the ancient people proves that
when wars were undertaken
only under these conditions the loss of
life was almost entirely upon the side of tho’se against whom God sent
his hosts. When, as is often the case, God’s people entered the war
upon their own initiative,
they were routed with slaughter.”
The
reverend gentleman distinguishes
between righteous and unrighteous
wars merely by learning which ones were victorious and which ones
were failures!
However, historical facts show that the victor generally
suffers as much as the conquered.
And, finally, the Rev. Mr. Morgan
makes the most amazing of all amazing statements:
“The whole history of the Hebrew people proves the Sixth Commandment
was of
abiding importance.”
Similar quotations from the books of clergymen could be continued
ad i&&urn.
David Lloyd George, England’s colorful Prime Minister
during the first World War, said: “The last war was made by monarchs, statesmen, warriors, who were all Christians, every one of them.
It was not the pagan, the atheist, the infidel.
It was Christian ministers’ kings and Christian emperors.” 54
The Rev. Frederick
David Niedermeyer
66 sees the “call for
renewed attention to the Sixth Commandment,
because our Monday
newspapers nearly every week record many persons killed on the
preceding day, and accidents are so frequent that they have ceased to
be news.”
This Commandment,
he says, “condemns
the so-called
sport of prize fighting”
and at the same time “sanctions intelligent
insistence upon a safe observance of the Fourth of July.”
He says
that “capital punishment
is a recognized penalty”
and that “such
54 George Whitehead,
EENiedermeyer,
The
Evolution
of Morality,
p. 168.
Ten Commandments
Today,
pp. 17, 96.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
367
punishment
does not violate this ordinance . . . neither does this
He also makes this enlightinjunction forbid killing in self-defense.”
ening statement:
“When God said, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill,’ He did not
forbid the taking of animal life, so the persons who find objection
against eating meat and the sports of hunting and fishing lack Scriptural foundation for their positions” because “much of animal life was
divinely decreed for food.”
If the reverend gentleman would be kind enough to specify the
animals that were provided for human food so that we could determine
which ones not to kill, it might help us to understand his statement
However,
and save many animals that are now ruthlessly destroyed.
he is certain that “it gives the foundation
for the work of mosquito
extermination,
and calls for the destruction of rats and other vermin
carriers.”
He also believes that it is not a prohibition
against killing
fleas !
The Rev. Mr. Niedermeyer
makes the startling statement that “to
take life” is not murder, and that “neither
capital punishment
nor
war can be wholly dispensed with till murderous assaults on the individual and on the nation come to an end.” He goes so far as to condemn those who would abolish capital punishment
as brutal murder,
and war as wholesale slaughter, as “individuals
whose minds have
undergone a moral perversion.”
In a further and labored elaboration,
the Rev. Mr. Niedermeyer
goes into minute detail regarding the liquor traffic in England, and the
benefits to be derived from the “establishment
of the Society of
Registered Plumbers”!
However, “the ultimate and dominant reason
for obedience to the Sixth Commandment
is that man may have the
maximum opportunity
for knowing Christ and serving Him.”
The then Archbishop of York, during a debate on the attitude of
the Church of England toward the &aLh
perdLy,
de&red
LhaL
although he favored the abolition
of hanging, the penalty should be
inflicted
idiotic,
because
it was
the law.
there is special sentiment
“For
against
some reason,
hanging
which
women,”
I think
he said.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
368
“I wish Englishwomen
would rise in protest.
It is a horrible insult to
them and they ought to resent it with ferocity.” 56
To advocate execution for a crime is, in my opinion, no different
morally from being the actual executioner.
And so we place the Archbishop of York in an even worse position than that of Grover Cleveland. It was the public duty of Cleveland to perform the act of
slaying as provided by law; while the Archbishop urges such execution and even protests the exemption of women from such a penalty.
The Rev. Walter F. McMillin,
of Philadelphia,
said to a congregation of ministers:
“Capital punishment was instituted by God. We have found
in the Bible that God instituted capital punishment, that the crime
in connection with which it is to be administered is murder, and
that God requires the perpetuity of the institution.
Murder is to
be punished by the death of the murderer, and the institution to
whom is given the prerogative of capital punishment is the organized State.” 67
The advocacy of capital punishment
as a means of self-preservation because the murderer might kill you as well as another person, is
quite different from trying to justify it by Biblical sanction.
The Rev. J, C. Ma,sse tells us that “this Commandment
ushers us
into the immediate
presence of a Holy God. It reveals to discerning
eyes the awfulness of that God of whom Paul wrote, ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,’ for ‘Our God is a
consuming fire.’ ” He tells us that “Satan, the author of sin, is declared by the Lord Jesus to be the murderer from the beginning.”
He maintains that this Commandment
“does not prohibit capital punishment for certain crimes” and that “God explicitly requires the death
penalty for men who violate the Sabbath day.” Nor does this Commandment prohibit war. For “the holy nation under t.he immediate
government of God was required to go to war.” He also thinks that it
is a prohibition
against giving a permit to carry a pistol1
58 New
57 Ibid.,
York
Aug.
Times, Feb.
25, 1929.
9, 1933.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
369
R. H. Charles, who does admit that the Decalogue is better understood when considered as a religious development
rather than as an
ethical or legal code, is so positive that this Commandment
is a
prohibition
against the taking of human life when applied to deliberate
killing only, that he has reinterpreted
it to read, “Thou Shalt Do NO
Murder.”
“Hence the ultimate
religious ground which justifies the
sentence of death on the murderer is not the so-called sacredness of
human life, but the fact that man is made in the image of God.”
He
believes, as did the previously
mentioned
prelates, that those who
oppose war and capital punishment
“are moral perverts and degenerates; they have lost the capacity for righteous indignation.”
58
The Rev. James M. Gillis, widely recognized as an authoritative
Catholic spokesman, states : “There is, or at least there may be, such
a thing as just warfare, the conditions of which have been laid down
by Christian morals.
These conditions have been recognized by Catholic theologians back to St. Augustine, 1500 years ago.”
“In a just war,” says the Rev. John La Farge, associate editor of
the Catholic weekly, America, “killing
is not necessarily murder.”
But since no nation goes to war-not
even Hitler’s Germany-without
considering its cause a “just” one, we can see how little support for
the cause of peace among nations is to be expected from the clergy.
This Commandment
ing war.
tributcd
In Christian
to soldiers
has nut had the slightest
nations
during
by the hundreds
iuflueuce
war, Bibles
of thousands-not,
in diminish-
are generally
dis-
however,
for
the purpose of stopping the war. It is done to influence God to be
with them in hst.tle, that they may kill the enemy soldiers before they
medal of honor is usually given
are killed by them. A distinguished
to the soldier who kills the greatest number in battle.
That the
enemy soldiers also carry Bibles for the same purpose, and also receive medals for the number of soldiers they kill, makes doubly evident the utter uselessness of this Commandment
as a preventive of
war.
As late as the sixteenth century it is said that children were bap58 Charles,
The
Decdogue,
pp.
195-196.
370
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
tized by immersion; but the right arms of the males were carefully
held above water in order that, not having been dipped in the sacred
stream, they might strike a more deadly blow.6Q How far removed
are we from such a state when a priest in our own day blesses the
pistol of an assassin that its bullet may be successful in finding its
mark! The Rev. Aurelio Jimenez Palcios was held for trial in connection with the Obregon assassination in Mexico, in 1928. It was
charged that he hea,rd a confession from the assassin, Jose de Leon
Toral, and blessed Toral’s pistol before that youth killed Presidentelect Alvaro Obregon.60
In order that religion might carry on its holy wars in its mad determination to exterminate the heretic and unbeliever, penance was
prescribed for those who, had shed blood on the battlefield.Ol Since
religious believers were convinced that God sanctioned war, could
there be a holier one than for the salvation of lost souls? Fighting
against infidels and heretics took rank with fasting, penitential discipline, visits to shrines, and almsgiving.s” Nor must we forget the
command of the Abbot Arnold in his mad, religious zeal to wipe out
the heretics: “Slay all; the Lord will know his own.”
War was looked upon as a judgment of God, and victory as a
sign of his special favor. Pope Adrian IV says that a war commenccd under the auspices of religion cannot but be fortunate.e3
Jeremy Taylor said: “Kings are in the place of God, who strikes
whole nations, and towns and villa,ges; and war is the rod of God
in the hands of princes.” How simple it is to justify a war when the
divine right of kings is believed “to, work out the noble purpnses of
God.” We are further assured that there is nothing among men
“like the smell of gunpowder for making a nation perceive the fragrance of divinity in truth.” 64
6g Lecky,
Movals,
Vol. 2, p. 106.
60 New York Times, Sept. 20, 1932.
01 Westermarck,
Morals,
Vol. 1, p. 348.
62 Ihid.,
Vol. 1, p. 351.
e8 Ibid., p. 358.
t~4 Ibid., p. 360.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
371
War, “when God sends it,” says a Christian authority, “is a means
of grace and of national renovation”;
it is “a solemn duty in which
usually only the best Christians and most trustworthy
men should
be commissioned
to hold the sword.” G6
According to Proudhon, “it [war] is the most sublime phenomenon
of our moral life, a divine revelation more divine than the Gospel
itself”!
And the warlike people are the religious people.Gs
That this attitude has not changed in the slightest is evidenced by
the statement of the late Arthur Cardinal Hinsley,
Archbishop
of
Westminster.
He said: “There are persons who tell us that all war
is unjust and utterly opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and
that the Church forbids us to take part in warfare of any kind.
This
is a false conclusion.” 67
The Rev. Dr. John H. McComb,
of the Presbyterian
Church in
New’ York, is even more emphatic in his justification
of war. He
said: “Pacifism has not a leg to stand on in the light of the Scripture. God permitted Israel to defend herself time and again against
her enemies, and aided her to do so successfully.
If the Jews had
not taken up arms again and again in self-defense, they would have
been destroyed by their enemies.” O*
Of all his monumental
contributions
to the history o,f hum&n conduct in society, none is more valuable than Lecky’s summation
of
the wars provoked by religion:
‘5 looking back, with our present experience, we are drive11
to the melancholy conclusion that, instead of diminishing the number of wars, ecrleniastical influence has actually and very seriously
increased it. The military fanaticism evolved by the indulgences
of the popes, by exhortations of the pulpit, by the religious importance attached to the relics of Jerusalem, and by the prevailing
hatred of the misbelievers, has scarcely ever been equalled in its
intensity,
and it has caused the effusions of oceans of blood, and
6jFor a more
Abrams, Preachers
6G Wcstcrmarck,
detailed record of the approval of war by the clergy, see Ray H.
Present Arms;
also G. Bedborough, Arms and the Clergy.
op.
cit.,
Vol.
1, p. 360.
Sept. 1, 1941.
68Ibid., Dec. 15, 1941.
e7 New
York
Times,
372
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
has been productive of incalculable misery in the world.
The religious orders which arose united the character of the priest with
that of the warrior, and when, at the hour of sunset, the soldier
knelt down to pray before his cross, that cross was the handle of
his
sword.”
GD
Not only has this
diminishing
wars, but
instituted by religion
of God. With what
Commandment
!
Commandment
had absolutely no influence in
no greater wars have been waged than those
itself in defense of the faith and for the glory
hypocritical
pretense do clergymen utter this
BLOOD
TABOO
This Commandment
is no more a prohibition
against murder than
the previous Commandment
was meant to inculcate filial respect, or
the Fourth Commandment
was meant to provide for a day of rest.
It is an ancient taboo that has been carried down through the centuries by a people who have maintained
their primitive
culture, fears
and superstitions.
Like the five previous Commandments,
it was
formulated
exclusively
fol- the Hebrews,
and was a taboo based on
the superstitious
belief in animism against spilling blood because of
The confusion
concerning
its meaning
the fear of blood pollution.
today is due to the fact that it has been restated in language with a
modern connotation,
either designedly or through ignorance, which
gives it an altogether
different meaning from what the Commandment originally
intended to prohibit.
This Commandment
was based upon the ancient belief that blood
was life and that the spirit of the slain would return and seek revenge.
This belief prevailed among the Hebrews from the earliest times and
was also prevalent among the other Semitic and primitive
races. Beyond that it had no significance
whatsoever,
and was never intended
to have any. It was devoid of any moral implication.
No better
proof
could
6g Lecky,
bc adduced
Morals,
Vol.
of the underlying
2, pp. 106-10'1.
motive
of this
Command-
THE
SIXTH
ment than the following
35, verses 33 and 34:
from
COMMANDMENT
the Bible
373
itself--Numbers,
Chapter
33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein
ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and
the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that
is shed therein, but by the blood of him that
shed it.
34 Defile not therefore the land which ye
shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord
dwell among the children of Israel.
Extremely
significant as proof of the belief in blood pollution
is
the statement in the above verse that “the land cannot be cleansed
of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed
it.”
This is the basis of blood atonement and was responsible for
this Commandment
being made part of the Decalogue of a superstitious and primitive
people.
The necessity for expiation or atoneillerrt is indicative
of its arrcierrt ori@i.
We also find this primitive
belief in animism expressed in Gertesis,
Chapter 4, verses 8 to 13:
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother:
and it came to pass, when they were in the
field, that Cain rose up against Abel his
brother, and slew him,
9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is
Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not:
Am I my brother’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the
voice
of
thy
brother’s
blood
crieth
unto
me
from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth,
which hath opened her mouth to receive thy
brother’s blood from thy hand.
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not
henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a
fugitive and a vagabuud shalt Lbou be iu the
earth.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
tc
. . .
ground.”
yielding
The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the
And this blood will pollute the earth and prevent it from
fruit.
Verses 14 and 15, following, also state that Cain is
374
THE
to be haunted throughout
has been shed.70
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
his life by the spirit of the one whose blood
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day
from the face of the earth; and from thy
face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive
and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall
come to pass, t/z& every one that findeth me
shall slay me.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore
whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be
taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set
a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him
should kill him.
So deeply ingrained was the superstition
that the spirit of life
was in the blood that there is a specific warning to the Children of
Israel against “eating” blood in Deuteronomy,
Chapter 12, verse 23:
23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood:
for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not
eat the life with the flesh.
There is a similar provision emphasizing
blood in Genesis, Chapter 9, verse 4:
the taboo against
eating
4 But flesh with the life thereof, ukic!~ is
the blood ~herrul, shall ye not eat.
This is the reason why orthodox Jews even today will eat only
‘Lkosher” ‘I1 meat. To be “kosher,” the animal or fowl must be killed
and prepared for cooking in such a way that no blood remains in its
body. All meat must be soaked in water fur at least half an hour,
salted and kept on a board for another half hour, so as to make certain that every drop of blood is cxtrscted.
Otherwise the prohibition,
“Thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh” would be violated.
This accounts for the fact that porterhnuse
and tenderloin
steaks
and similar portions of the animal are not eaten by the orthodox.
Before this meat could be eaten, all blood vessels would have to be
70 For details of the prevalence of this belief among primitives, see “The Mark of
Cain” in Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, p. 33.
71’l’he word “kosher” does not in any sense mean hygienic. It &x5 not mean clean
in the modern sense of the word. It is purely a religious term and denotes a ritual
ceremony.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
375
removed to make it ritually edible, A propitiative prayer is always
said at the slaughter of animals or fowl to avoid the sin of shedding
blood. There is some progress even in this custom because the
ancient
Israelites,
in order
to conform
strictly
to this
ritual
per-
formance, had to bring the live animal or fowl to the temple. There
it was slaughtered by the priest, who then performed a sacrificial ceremony by dashing the blood against the altar.r2
This superstitious ‘custom, based on the primitive belief in animism, is but another instance of the utter ignorance of the Biblical
Hebrews regarding hygienic matters and the nutritional value of food.
According to a strict interpretation of a belief in blood contamination, blood transfusions would be forbidden, and as a result hundreds
of thousands of lives that are now saved would be sacrificed to this
superstition.
This
animistic
belief
also carried
with
it the fear of revenge,
in
the belief that blood was life and possessed the spirit of God as revealed in Genesis, Chapter 9, verses 5 and 6:
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I
require: at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand
of every man’s brother will I require the life
of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blued, by man shall
his blood be shed: for in the image of God
made he man.
Even in the story of Joseph, we find this same precaution against
blood pollution on the theory that blood will have its revenge. Genesis, Chapter
37, verses 21 and 22:
And Reuben heard
it, and he delivered
him out of their hands; and said, Let us not
kill him.
22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no
blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the
wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that
he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver
21
him
to
his
father
again.
72 Idelsohn, Ceremonies of Israel, p. 67. See also Friedlander,
Israel, pp. 67, 69.
Lazes and Customs of
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
376
“Shed no blood” was the precautionary advice of Reuben, for fear
that by doing so “he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him
to his father again.”
The following
definition
from the Neze, Standard
Bible
Dictionary
also throws important light on the meaning of blood pollution and
the reason for this Commandment: “The important meaning attached
to blood in the Oriental world was determined by the notion that the
life principle either was the blood itself or had its residence in the
blood.” 73 It is not difficult to understand how such a notion might
originate when one considers that after the blood has run out of the
body, life is extinguished in both man and the lower animals.
Even in the Psalms there is a prayer asking that we be spared
the penalty of the guilt of blood. Psalms 51, verse 14:
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness,
thuu
God
of
my
salvation;
0 God,
arm! my
tongue
shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
“Bloodguiltiness” did not refer to killing, but to the contamination of blood without proper expiation. The use of the word “bloodguiltiness” reveals in itself the prevalence of the fear of blood pol-
lution.
Like all other superstitious peoples under the influence of
taboos, the Hebrews were always provided
with methods of atone-
ment and expiation. They carried their superstitions to fanatical
lengths, recording them in minute detail, and formulating their fears
and taboos into a system of belief which became the dominant factor
in their lives. This is plainly indicated in Leviticus, Chapter 4, verses
I to 12:
1
And
the Tmrd
spabe
rmtn
Mnn~q,
saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,
If a soul shall sin through ignorance against
any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done,
and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according
to the sin of the pcoplc; then Ict him
bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a
73 New
Standard
Bible
Dictionary,
p. 110.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
377
young bullock without blemish unto the Lord
for a sin offering.
4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation
before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon
the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before
the Lord.
5 And the priest that is anointed shall take
of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the
tabernacle of the congregation:
6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the
blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times
before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.
7 And the priest shall put sonte of the blood
upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense
before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle
of the congregation; and shall pour all the
blood of the bullock at the bottom of the
altar of the burnt offering, which is at the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
8 And he shall take off from it all the fat
of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat
that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that
is upon the inwards.
9 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is
upon them, which b by the flnnks, and the
caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall
he take away,
10 As it was taken off from the bullock of
the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest
shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt
offering.
11
And the skin of the bullock, and all his
flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and
his inwards, and his dung,
12
l?wn
the
whnle
hullnrk
shall
he
carry
forth without the camp unto a clean place,
where the ashes are poured out, and burn
him on the wood with fire: where the ashes
are poured out shall he be burnt.
The fear of blood pollution and the necessity of expiation for
are also shown in Samuel I, Chapter 14, verses 31 to 33:
31 And they smote the Philistines that day
from Michmash to Aijalon: and the people
were very faint.
32 And the people flew upon the spoil, and
took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew
tkem on the ground: and the people did eat
them with the blood.
i4
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
378
33 Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the
people sin against the Lord, in that they eat
with the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day.
This phase of animism prompted Saul to tell his warriors to abstain from food after engaging in battle.
However, that had nothing
to do with the matter of disobeying Saul and “sinning”
against the
Lord. Their transgression had to be expiated, and of what did this
ceremony of purification
consist? The “sinner” had to “roll a great
stone unto me this day,” in the belief that this useless exertion of
one’s strength would expiate the violation of the taboo.74
Throughout the Bible there are numerous passages to prove the
prevalence of the belief in blood pollution.75
This Commandment
is
a survival of this animistic belief, and it prevails among many people
of primitive
culture even today.
Some Esthonians will not taste blood because they believe that
it contains the animal’s soul, which would enter the body of the
person.
Marco Polo tells us that persons caught in the streets of Cambaluc
(Peking)
at unseasonable
hours were arrested
and, if found
guilty of a misdemeanor, were beaten with a stick, Under this punishment
victims
sometimes
died, but it was used to eschew bloodshed,
for according to their Baosis it is an evil thing to shed man’s blood.
In West Sussex, people still believe that the ground on which
human blood has been shed is accursed and will remain barren forever.
Among the Latuka of Central Africa, the earth on which a drop
of blood has fallen at childbirth is carefully scraped up with an
“To expiate sins and for consecration purposes, the Hebrews would take the blood
of a lamb and put it on the tin of the right ear, and on the thumb of the right hand,
and on the great toe of the right foot. (Leviticus, Chapter 8, verses 23 and 24; also
Chapter 14, verses 13 to 2.5.)
76See II Samuel, Chafiter 3, verses 27. 28: ChaPter 14, verse 11; Chapter 23,
verse 17; I Kings, Chapter 2, verses 31-33; II Kin#gs, Chapter 16, verse 33; Xl Kings,
Chapter 24, verse 4; II Chronicles, Chapter 29, verses 22-25.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
379
iron shovel, put in a pot along with the water used in washing the
mother, and buried outside the house on the left-hand side.
In West Africa, a drop of blood which has fallen on the ground
must be carefully covered up, rubbed and stamped into the soil.
The natives of New Guinea are careful to burn any sticks, leaves
or rags stained with their blood.76
As already mentioned, fear of blood revenge formed an additional basis for this Commandment. According to early beliefs, the
soul of a murdered man finds no rest until his death has been
avenged.77 Even in primitive societies, where it is considered a
meritorious act to kill an enemy, i.e., a member of another tribe, a
ceremony of purification for shedding blood must take place.
The Ponka Indians believe that a murderer is surrounded by
ghosts that keep up a constant whistling; that he can never satisfy
his hunger, though he eat much food; and that he must not be allowed to roam at large lest high winds arise.
Among the Omahas, a murderer was obliged to pitch his tent about
a quarter of a mile from the rest of the tribe when they were going
on a hunt, lest the ghost of his victim should raise a high wind which
might cause damqc. They also believed that the spirits of those
who had been killed reappeared after death, their errand being “to
solicit vengeance nn the perpetrators of the deed.”
Among the North American Indians, it was found that “as they
reckon they are become impure by shedding human blood,” they
observe a fast of three days. After a battle they ran through their
village and made hideous noises for the purpose of preventing the
ghosts of the departed combatants from entering the village. Among
the Natchez, “those who for the first time have made a prisoner or
taken off a scalp, must, for a month, abstain from seeing their wives
o’r from eating flesh,” or the souls of those whom they killed, or burnt,
would effect their death, or they would never gain any advantage
over their enemies.
78Frazer, The Golden
I7 Westermarck, Mot&,
Bough,
pp. 229,
Vol. 1, p. 312.
230.
380
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The Kafirs and Bechuanas practise various ceremonies of purification after their fights. The Basutos say: “Human blood is heavy;
it prevents him who has shed it from running away.” They consider
it necessary that on returning
from battle “the warriors should rid
themselves, as soon as possible, of the blood they have shed, or the
shades of their victims would pursue them incessantly and disturb
their slumbers”;
hence, they go in full armor to the nearest stream;
the moment they enter the water, a diviner, placed higher up, throws
some purifying substance into the current.
Among the Bantu Kavirondo,
“when a man has killed an enemy
in warfare, he shaves his head on his return home, and his friends
rub ‘medicine’
(generally the dung of goats) over his body to prevent
the spirit of the deceased from worrying the man by whom he has
been slain.”
Among the Ja-luo, a warrior who has slain an enemy
not only shaves his hair but, after entering the village, prepares a
big feast to propitiate
the ghost of the man he has killed.
According to the laws of Manu, a person who has unintentionally killed
a Brahman
for twelve years;
self thrice
headlong
shall make
a hut in the forest
in order to remove
into
a blazing
his guilt,
fire, or walk
and dwell
he must throw
against
in i’
him-
the stream
the whole length of the river Sarasvati, or shave off all his hair.
The ancient Greeks believed that one who had suffered a violent
end was angry with the one who had caused his death.
The bloodguilty individual,
as though infected with a miasma, shunned all contact and conversation with other people, and avoided entering their
dwellings.‘*
The legend of the matricide
Orestes, how he roamed
from place to place pursued by the Furies of his murdered mother,
and how none would sit at meat with him, or take him in until he
had been purified, reflects faithfully
the real Greek dread of being
haunted by the angry ghosts of the slain.70
The Jbala of North Morocco, though they no longer believe in
ghosts, are still convinced that a person who has shed blood is in
78 Westermarck,
op. cit., p. 376.
7gFrazer,
op. cit., pp. 214, 21.5, 216.
THE
SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
381
some degree unclean for the rest of his life. They believe that poison
oozes from beneath his nails; hence, anybody who drinks the water
in which he has washed his hands will fall dangerously
ill.
The
ignorant savage, unable to account for the ill effects of drinking impure water, attributes
it to an evil influence, which results in the
multitude
of prohibitions
and taboos that are universally
a part of
all religious systems.
In Central Africa, after killing a slave, the master is afraid of
Chilope.
This means that he will become emaciated, lose his eyesight, and ultimately
die a miserable death.
He therefore goes to
his chief and gives him a certain fee (in cloth, or slaves, or such
legal tender), and says, “Get me a charm [Zusai] , because I have
slain a man.”
When he has used this charm, which may be either
drunk or administered
in a bath, the danger is supposed to pass away.
In Chinese books there are numerous
stories about persons
haunted by the souls of their victims on their deathbeds, and in most
of these cases the ghosts state expressly that they are avenging themselves with the special authorization
of Hcavcn.80
The people of Paloo in Central Celebes take the heads of their
enemies in war and afterwards propitiate
the souls of the slain in
the temple.
Among the tribes at the mouth of the Sanigela River in New
Guinea, “a man who has taken life is considered impure until he
has undergone certain ceremonies; as soon as possible after the deed,
he cleanses himself and his weapon. . , . After elaborate ceremonies,
a hunt is organized and a kangaroo is selected from the game captured.
It is cut open and the spleen and the liver rubbed over the
back of the man. He then walks solemnly down to the nearest water
and, standing straddle-legged
in it, washes himsell.
. . . The lollowing day, at early dawn, he dashes out of his house, fully armed,
and calls aloud the name of the victim.
Having satisfied himself
that he has thoroughly
scared the ghost of the dead man, he returns
to his house. . . . A day later his purification
is finished.”
80 Westermarck, op. cit., pp. 378, 379.
382
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The Yabim of New Guinea believe that the spirit of a mcrdered
man pursues his murderer and seeks to do him mischief. Hence
they try to drive away the spirit with shouts and beatings of drums.
According to Yakut beliefs, a person who is murdered becomes
a yore, that is, his ghost never comes to rest. The Cheremises imagine that the spirits of persons who have died violent deaths cause
illness, especially fever and ague. The Burnese believe that persons
who meet a violent death become gnats and haunt the place where
they were killed.
In Warend, Sweden, the people maintain that the unsatisfied ghost
of a murdered man visits his relatives at night and disturbs their
rest, and it was an ancient custom among them that, if the murderer
was not known, the victim’s nearest relation, before the knell began,
went forward to the corpse and asked the dead man himself to
avenge his murder.*l
Among the Bageshu of East Africa, a man who has killed another
smears his chest, his right arm and his head with the entrails of a
sheep. When a Nandi of East Africa has killed a member of another tribe, he paints one side of his body, spear and sword red, and
the other side white. For four days he is considered unclean. He
finally purifies himself by taking a strong purge of a segetet tree
and by drinking goat’s milk mixed with blood.
In the Pelew Islands, those who have been out fighting for the
first time, and who have touched the slam, are shut up in a large
council house and become taboo. After three days they go together
to bathe as near as possible to the spot where the battle took place.
It is a common rule among many tribes and peoples that royal
blood should not be shed at any time, and when members of the
royal family are to be put to death a mode of execution is selected
which avoids the spilling of blood.s2
In New Zealand, anything on which a drop of a high chief’s blood
chances to fall becomes taboo or sacred.
81 Westermarck, op. cit., pp. 480-482.
82Frazer, op. cit., pp. 239, 241.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
383
When Kublai Khan defeated his uncle, Nayan, who had rebelled
against him, he caused Nayan to be put to death by being wrapped
in a carpet and tossed to and fro till he died, “because he would
not have the blood of his line imperial spilt upon the ground or
exposed in the eye of Heaven and before the Sun.” It was considered highly improper for the blood of a great Khan to be spilt
on the ground.83 This taboo was carried over to early Christianity
when heretics were burned at the stake in order to avoid the taboo
of spilling blood. The Christian doctrine was that “the hands which
had to distribute the blood of the Lamb were not to be polluted
with the blood of those for whose salvation it was shed” I
Another very significant passage which has an important bearing
on the origin and meaning of this Commandment is the one that
deals with the establishment of a sanctuary for those who have
killed accidentally, that they may escape the revenge of the deceased
and save the land from the curse of blood pollution. I quote Deuteronomy, Chapter 19, verses 1 to 9:
1 When the Lord thy God hath cut off the
nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth
thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest
in their cities, and in their houses;
2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in
the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy
God giveth thee to possess it.
3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord
thy
God
giveth
thee
to
inherit,
into
three
parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
4 And this is the case of the slayer, which
shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso
kill&h his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated
not in time past;
5 As when a man goeth into the wood with
his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand
fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down
the tree, and the head slippeth from the
hplvip,
and
lighteth
upon
his
neighbor,
that
he
die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and
live:
6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the
slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake
ss Frazer, op. cit., p 228.
THE
384
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
him, because the way is long, and slay him;
whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou
shalt separate three cities for thee.
8 And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy
coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and
give thee all the land which he promised to
give unto thy fathers;
9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee
this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to
walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add
three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deuteronomy,
Chapter 19, verse 10, reveals the reason:
10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy
land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee
fou an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
These cities of sanctuary were provided so that blood shed within
the confines of the tribe might be expiated, and thereby prevent the
curse of blood pollution from falling upon the whole tribe. In nearly
all primitive
societies, the shedding of human blood is prohibited
and sanctuary provided for those who must be purified.
In some Indian nations there were several peaceable towns, which
were called “old beloved, ancient, holy or white towns”; they seem
formerly to have been “towns of refuge,” for within the memory
of the oldest inhabitant
human blood was never shed in them. Those
who were to be punished had to leave and were put to death elsewhere. The Aricaras of Missouri have in the center of their largest
village
a sacred
lodge
any account whatsoever
called
the
“medicine
to be spilled
within
lodge,”
as no blood
is on
it, not even that of an
enemy.
In Athens, the prosecution
for homicide began with debarring
the criminal from all sanctuaries and assemblies consecrated by religious observance.
In ancient Greece, purification
was an essential
preliminary
to an acceptable sacrifice.
In many parts of Morocco, a man who has slain another person
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
385
is never afterwards allowed to kill the sacrificial sheep at the “great
feast.” 84
The Druids of Gaul never went to war, it is said, because they
wanted
to keep
themselves
free
from
blood
pollution;
the
human
sacrifices that they made to their gods were burnt, so as to avoid
spilling blood.*”
The following passage also reveals the taboo regarding the shedding of blood. I quote Z Chronicles, Chapter 28, verses 2 and 3:
2 Then David
the king stood up upon his
feet, and said, Hear
me, my brethren,
and
my people:
As for me, I had in mine heart
to build
a house of rest for the ark of the
covenant
of the Lord, and for the footstool
of
our God, and had made ready
for the building:
3 But God said unto me, Thou
shalt not
build
a house for my name,
because
thou
~UJL been a man of will, and bast shed blood.
David could not build a temple to the Lord because it would
have been a violation of this Commandment, and, according to Biblical tradition, the building of the temple was left to Solomon, David’s
sons6
The early Hebrew priests refrained from shedding blood, except
for
sacrificial
purposes,
tory prayer.
wise
refrain
and
then
only
when
accompanied
by expia-
The “holy” men of the North American Indians likefrom
shedding
blood.*’
It was inevitable that this superstition would develop into a strict
religious rite. The “uncleanness” resulting from the shedding of
blood was transformed into spiritual impurity, which required some
form of ritual expiation.
It is not uncommon today to hear people say that the spirit of
the slain person will haunt his murderer to his grave. Such is the
tenacity of a superstition.
84 Westermarck,
=:la.,
op. cit.,
p. 380.
p. 380.
88 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
a7 Ibid., p. 381.
Vol.
12,
p. 96.
386
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Thus we find that the origin of the Commandment, “Thou shalt
not kill,” had its basis in the superstition of blood contamination
based on the primitive belief in animism, and was never even remotely intended as a precept of moral suasion.
THE ANIMISTIC
BELIEF
IN BLOOD POLLUTION
How can this Commandment be construed as a prohibition against
killing for moral reasons when the Lord gives the Children of Israel
the rules and methods of warfare? Not only does the Bible God
command the Israelites to kill, but he urges them to practise deception as a prelude to’ wholesale slaughter.
I quote Deuteronomy,
Chapter 20, verses 10 to 18:
10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to
fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer
of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be,
that all the people that f~ found therein shall
be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve
thee.
171 And if it will make no peace with thee,
but will make war against thee, then thou
shalt besiege it:
13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shah smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and
the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all
the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;
and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies,
which the Lord thy God- hath given thee.
1.5 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities
zetltich are very far off from thee, which are
not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which
the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that
breath&h:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them;
namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the
Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all
their abominations, which they have done
unto their gods; so should ye sin against the
Lord your God.
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
387
Small wonder the Bible God is called the God of War: “The
Lord is a man of war.” 88 What a mockery it is to include in the
Decalogue a Commandment against the taking of human life!
That
the Hebrews
themselves,
after
receiving
this Commandment
from Sinai, waged war on neighboring tribes is additional proof that
this Commandment was not formulated as a moral prohibition against
killing. I quote Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 1 to 13:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto
thy people.
3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying,
Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and
let them go against the Midianites,
and
avenge the Lord of Midian.
4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all
the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe,
twelve thousand armed for war.
6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the
son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with
the holy instruments, and the trumpets to
blow in his hand.
7 And they warred against the Midianites,
as the Lord commanded Moses; and they
slew
all
the
malts.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely,
Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and
Reba. five kings of Midian: Balaam also the
son df Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the
women of Miciian captives, and their little
ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle,
and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10
And they burnt
all
their
cities
wherein
they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with
fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the
prey, botk of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the
prey, and the spoil, unto Moses and Eleazar
the priest, and unto the congregation of the
88 Exodus, Chapter 15, verse 3.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
388
children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains
of Moab, which UY.Tby Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and
all the princes of the congregation, went forth
to meet them without the camp.
“And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded
and they slew all the males.” I repeat verse 7 to prove two
very significant points : First, if this commandment was a prohibition
against killing, the Bible God himself violated his own precept; secondly, the Israelites violated the Commandment in obeying the command of their God.
The Children of Israel were avenged. All the males of Midian
were slain! They burnt all the cities1 Destroyed all their goodly
castles with fire! They took all the women of Midian captive! They
took all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods1 What
Moses;
a vengeance!
This was “the spoil”
of war that
they brought
to
Moses, as the Lord commanded him that they should do. And how
did Moses express to them his appreciation of their triumph and their
victory? The Bible can tell it best in its own words in Numbers,
Chapter
31, verses 14 to 16:
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers
of the host, z&h the captains over thousands,
and captains over hundreds, which came from
the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye
saved
16
all
the
women
alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel,
through the counsel of Balaam, to commit
trespass against the Lord in the matter of
Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
What made Moses wroth with the officers of Israel? Had they
failed to accomplish all that was demanded and expected? Did the
soldiers fail to kill enough? In addition to slaying all the males,
should they have slain all the females also? Yes, the females too
should have been slain. Having failed to kill the females, what was
to be done with them? The “inspired” brain of Moses solves the
THE SIXTH
COMMANDMENT
problem, and the solution is revealed in Numbers,
380
Chapter
31, verses
17 and 18:
17 Now therefore kill every male
little ones, and kill every woman
known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children,
not known a man by lying with
alive for yourselves.
among the
that hath
that have
him, keep
In all history there is no command more revolting to human sensibilities. It is the most damnable that ever fell from human lips.
“Kill every male among the little ones,” Moses tells them. And yet
that is not enough! Every mother must die also! And so he commands that they “kilt every woman that hath known man by lying
with him.”
But “all the women children [that is, the young girls],
that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Could anything be more inhumane than the ravishing of
children by brutal soldiers who had but recently killed their parents?
From what has already been quoted, it becomes evident that this
Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” has no bearing on, no connection with, a prohibition against killing and murder as such. It
was a command formulated solely because of the fear that the spirit or
soul of the victim would return to haunt or take revenge on the one
who had killed him. This is conclusively proved by the following testimony from Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 19 and 20:
19 And do ye abide without
the camp seven
days: whosoever hath killed any person, and
whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both
yourselves and your captives on the third
day, and on the seventh day.
20 And purify all your raiment, and all that
is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair,
and all things made of wood.
And the following quotation from Numbers,
gives the final evidence:
Ch@ter
21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men
of war which went to the battle, This is the
ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses.
31, verse 21,
390
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The superstitious fear of blood itself, for the shedding of which
purification was necessary, was the underlying reason for this Commandment, for the Bible is the authority that “this is the ordinance
It was applicable
of the law which the Lord commanded
Moses.”
only to “whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath
touched any slain.”
There was no divine injunction against killing
the Midianites and slaying their kings; there was no wrong committed in burning their cities and destroying their castles. There was
no sin involved in slaying the mothers and ravishing the young girls;
purification was demanded because of the stain of blood that might
still be on the body, the garments or the weapons.
The crime of murder needed no purification, nor did that of
spoliation or rape. Acts of murder, rape or theft needed no atonement. There was no stain on the character for all this. But the
fear that there might be a stain of blood on the garments, or on the
goat’s hair of the raiment, or imbedded in some weapon of warthis “contamination” required the seven days of purification!
It was the fear that the blood of those killed might be carried
within the camp and their spirit wreak vengeance on the tribe, that
made purification necessary. That is why the stain of blood had
to be purged “by fire” and “purified with the waters of separation.”
I quote Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 22 to 24:
22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass,
the iron, the tin, and the lead,
23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye
shall make it go through the fire, and it shall
be clean: nevertheless
it shall
be purified
with
the water of separation: and all that abideth
not the fire ye shall make go through the
water.
24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the
seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.
Just as the Kafirs and the Bechuanas still practise various ceremonies after their fights to avoid the stigma of the stain of blood, so
did the Hebrews. As the Basutos still consider it essential to purify
THE SIXTH
391
COMMANDMENT
themselves of the blood of those they have killed, so did the Israelites.
Only the ceremonies were different.
Another significant Biblical passage indicating the ancient belief
that blood spilt within the camp would bring retaliation
unless proper
expiation were made, is recorded
1 to 9: *O
in Deuteronomy,
Chapter
21, verses
1 If ooze be found slain in the land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying
in the field, and it be not known who hath
slain him:
2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come
forth, and they shall measure unto the cities
which are round about him that is slain:
3 And it shall be, that the city which is next
unto the slain man, even the elders of that
city shall take a heifer, which hath not been
wrought with, and which hath not drawn in
the yoke;
4 And the elders of that city shall bring
down the heifer
unto
a rough
valley,
which
is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off
the heifer’s neck there in the valley.
5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall
come near; for them the Lord thy God hath
chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in
the name of the Lord; and by their word shall
every controversy and every stroke be ttied:
6 And all the elders of that city, tkat are
next unto the slain man, shall wash their
hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the
valley:
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands
have not shed this blood, neither have our
eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, 0 Lord, unto thy people
Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay
not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s
charge. And the blood shall be forgiven
them.
9
SO shalt
thrill
prlt
away
the
guilt.
of
inno-
cent blood from among you, when. thou shalt
do that zehiclt is right in the sight of the
Lord.
It is to be noted that the discovery of the dead man became important because he had been slairt and there had been no proper
SoThe explanation caption in the Bible at the beginning of this chapter is significantly
stated as “The expiation of an uncertain murder.”
392
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
expiation for the blood which had been spilled. Since it was not
known who had committed the deed, it was necessary to purge the
place nearest to where the man was found. Was a search made for
the murderer
to administer
the proper punishment,
to demand an
equitable recompense for the loss of that man’s life to his family?
By no means. The expiation consisted in killing an innocent heifer
“which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in
the yoke. And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer
unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike
off the heifer’s neck there in the valley.” In addition, “. . . all the
elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their
hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley; and they shall
answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have
our eyes seen it.” Doubly significant becomes the fact that the
slain
man’s
nearest
kin
were
obliged
to take
part in the expiatory
ceremonies that they might not be victims of the revenging spirit
of the slain man’s blood.
And so’, as is the custom in all primitive
societies where the belief in animism prevails, the stain of blood had
to be removed by some form of expiation, thereby freeing the family
and the clan from contamination.
In some primitive
communities, expiation is effected by sprinkling
the perpetrator with the spurted blood of a slain suckling pig.OO The
ceremony of the ancient Hebrews differs only in method. The superstition is the same.
That killing the heifer and washing the hands of the elders had
absolutely no relationship to the murder of the man or to expiating
the crime could not be understood by the ignorant people of Biblical
times. Even one who had merely touched the body of a dead person
was unclean and had to be “purified,” for “this is the ordinance
of the law which the Lord hath commanded.” O1
I quote Numbers, Chapter 19, verses 11 to 13:
QOWestermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, p. 376.
*I Numbers, Chapter 19, verse 2.
THE SIXTH
393
COMMANDMENT
11 He that toucheth the dead body of any
man shall be unclean seven days.
12 He shall purify himself with it on the
third day, and on the seventh day he shall
be clean: but if he purify not himself the
third
day,
then
the
seventh
day
he
shall
rwt
be clean.
13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any
man that is dead, and purifieth not himself,
defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that
soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the
water of separation was not sprinkled upon
him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is
yet upon him.
So strong was the fear of blood pollution that if a man failed
to purify himself as provided in the previous verses of this chapter,
he “defileth the tabernacle of the Lord,” and his “soul shall be cut
off from Israel.”
Not only were the garments of all those who had slain in battle
to be purified, but anything that might retain the slightest possibility
of contamination--“this is the ordinance of the law which the Lord
hatk commanded.”
I quote Numbers,
Chapter
19, verses 14 and 15;
14 This
tent: all
is in the
15 And
covering
is the law, when a man dieth in a
that come into the tent, and all that
tent, shall be unclean seven days.
every open vessel, which hath no
bound upon it, is unclean.
The following verses reiterate the importance of purificationNumbers,
Chapter
19, verses 16 to 22:
16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain
with a sword in the open fields, or a dead
body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall
be unclean seven days.
17 And for an nclean person they shall take
of the ashes of t# e burnt heifer of purification
for
sin,
and
running
water
shall
hc put
thereto
in a vessel:
18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and
dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the
tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the
persons that were there, and upon him that
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or
a grave:
19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon
the unclean on the third day, and on the
394
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall
purify himself, and wash his clothes, and
bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at
even.
20
But the man that shall be unclean, and
shall
not
purify
himself,
that
soul
shall
be
cut
off from among the congregation, because he
hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the
water of separation hath not been sprinkled
upon him; he is unclean.
21 And it shall be a perpetual statute unto
them, that he that sprinkleth the water of
separation shall wash his clothes; and he that
toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
22 And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until even.
No better summary of the explanation
of the provisions
Commandment
can be given than by quoting again Numbers,
ter 3.5, verses 33 and 34:
of this
Chap-
33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye
are:
for
blood
iL
defiletb
Lhe
land;
and
Lhc
land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is
shed therein, but by the blood of him that
shd
it.
34 Defile not therefore the land which ye
shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord
dwell among the children of Israel.
That this Commandment
was applicable
only to the Hebrews is
additionally
substantiated
by the warning in verse 34, which states:
“Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell:
for I the Lnrd dwell among the children of Israel.”
This means, of course, that blooSd could be spilt or shed without
fear of contamination
in a land outside the tribe of the Israelites.
It makes it distinctly a provisional
edict.
It was fear of the sin of spilling blood and the resulting contamination, and not any humane, moral or ethical reason, that was responsible for the formulation
of this Commandment
as part of the
Decalogue of a primitive
people obsessed with the superstitious
belief in animism.
The
Seventh
Commandment
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
THE SIN OF SEX AND SOME ASPECTS OF ADULTERY
T
HIS is the Commandment we rarely mention,” say the
c1ergy.l Why? Because it deals with the forbidden subject of sex. Sex was made a taboo subject by the perverted
views of religion. In addition to the passions associated with sexual
activity, the mysterious mechanism for the reproduction of life has
awed the ignorant and been responsible for the weirdest superstitions.
The suppression of any form of happiness and the mortification of
the flesh have been the two basic requirements of nearly all religious systems. The earth is the place to suffer the pangs of hell
in order to experience the joys of heaven. Merely to be familiar
with the manifestations of the sexual impulse means being tainted
with the knowledge of sex. The individual who has once experienced
sexual gratification of any kind, no matter how remote from the intcntion of this Commandment, is, according to the clergy, placed
forever beyond the pale of the holy, the sanctified and the blessed.
I am constrained to continue to quote the “inspired”
words of
this same clergyman who says, “The time for the discussion of this
Commandment should be carefully chosen,” but “if anything is a
sin, it must be so named and declared.”
That is why for centuries the discussion of sex and sexual conduct
has been virtually prohibited and the most severe penalties inflicted
on those striving to throw some light on this subject, ignorance of
which has caused so much misery among mankind.
Sex was under such a taboo in Puritan America that, in order
“
to avoid
mentioning
INiedermeyer,
the parts
of the animals
The Ten Commandments
397
Today, p. 114.
used for food, new
THE
398
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
words were invented, such as “white meat” instead of ‘(breast of
chicken,” and “drum stick” and “second joint” for the leg.2
For inadvertently
omitting
the word “not” from this Commandment, a London publisher by the name of Moore was imprisoned
for
has been
two years.3 This is indicative of what severe punishment
imposed on men and women whose only crime was to discuss some
phase of sex. With such restrictions,
is it any wonder that sex has
been so clouded in mystery and ignorance?
As an illustration:
“The
person who was willing to break the Seventh Commandment
but
never on Sunday, because of early having been taught by the Fourth
Commandment
to keep the Sabbath day holy.” 4
It was an old superstition that a child born on a Sunday had been
conceived on a Sunday, and as sexual indulgence
on the Sabbath
was prohibited
by Christian law, such indulgence was considered an
offense to God. As a rule, children born on a Sunday were considered omens of sin and denied baptism, as in the case of Benjamin
Franklin, mentioned in a previous chapter.
The Rev. Frederick David Niedermeyer
expresses the inhibitions
regarding sex in the following statement:
“ . . . that our bodies, though ours, are also God’s, and that they
are to be the dwelling places of the Holy Spirit when we become
believers in Christ Jesus.”
To that extent, our bodies should not
be touched by another person “except for the conventional contacts approved by society and which can be made without embarrassment in the presence of witnesses, such as the shaking of
hands which is vastly different from a Eingering handclasp. . . .
This
Comnlandment
forbids
immodesty
in
dress.
It
also
forbids
insinuating words and gestures, and actions that have a questionable or undesirable meaning.”
He speaks of the danger of “petting parties,” and declares that “many violations of this Commandment are traceable to unsanctioned familiarities in parked automobiles.”
Yet
he confesses
that
“it
is difficult
thought when so many enticements
2 See
Dictionary
3 New York
4Niedermeyer,
Americalz
Language.
American,
Dec. 11, 1933.
op. cit., p. 118.
to be pure
in mind
and
assail us. . . . The stage, too,
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
399
offers many things that make it hard for men to keep their minds
free from thoughts and imaginings that defile.” 5
No wonder this clergyman
Seventh
Commandment
said that ‘Christ’s
is staggering”!
interpretation
of the
lookwith her
Jesus said, “Whosoever
eth on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery
already in his heart.” D
The Rev. J. A. Hayes, in discussing this Commandment,
states
that “promiscuous
fondling is dangerous.” ’ The Rev. J. C. Masse
says: 8
“The intimacies of life are no longer regarded as reason for blush
and embarrassment, and the young men and women discuss with
perfect freedom things which their mothers did not breathe aloud.
Added to this familiarity of conversation is the familiarity of contact. Young women are crowded into stores where behind counters
they are man-handled in narrow passages till they lose the sense of
personal purity in such contact. Our subways and street cars are
so crowded that in the jam many a girl is set upon all sides until
she loses any sense of personal propriety in her body. Then there
is the question of dress: the exposure, the suggestiveness and the
open familiarity with all parts of the body occasioned by bathing
suits and decollete dressing for so-called social functions.
The
modern dance with its close and familiar contact of body, its
sensuous motions, set to the strain of sensuous music.
In our
colleges, biology classes are now made open forums in coeducational
institutions, where boys and girls in their late teens sit to discuss
the origins of life, and in their laboratory work, together dissect
those organs upon which God has put honor and secrecy at the
same time, with the same open familiarity
that they give to the
dissection of a flower.”
The Rev. Mr.
of St. Vincent,
5 Niedermtyer,
Masse undoubtedly
would have us follow the custom
who, to avoid seeing his sexual organs, would undress
op.
cA.,
pp.
118-123.
a Rev. Niedermeyer should not take seriously the violation of this Commandment according to Jesus’ staggering interprelation, because if that were true, few men would be
free
of the
guilt
of having
lx&cm
7 Hayes, The Ten Commandments,
*Masse,
The Gospel in the Ten
tllia
Cu~u~nandu~enL.
p. 123.
Commandments,
pp.
114,
115.
400
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
in the dark. And that is not all.
He further says: “Caressing, kissing and hugging become familiar pastimes of many young men and
women who should be put in strait-jackets
until they learn some
sense of decency and find some sense of modesty.”
The Rev. G. Campbell Morgan tells us that “unfaithfulness
before marriage is as much adultery as unfaithfulness
after marriage.”
He also states:
“The adulterer is the enemy of the state, and as such, after
being divorced in the divorce court, should be imprisoned by the
criminal courts. The man or woman upon whose guilt the marriage
tie is broken, no Christian minister of any denomination has the
right to remarry. It is an act of treason to the state to allow such
persons to go free. They should be incarcerated in separation
from the other sex to the end of their days, and then they could
not wipe out the wrong they did the nation when by unchaste
action they struck a blow at the family. . . . The prevalent notion
that incompatibility
of temperament is sufficient for divorce is a
blow at the very throne of God. . . . Purity must refuse to give a
moment’s countenance in any form to such a doctrine of hell. The
command is a simple, unqualified, irrevocable negative. . . . A
sevenfold vice is this sin of unchaste conduct, being a sin against
the Individual,
the Family, the Nation, the Race, the Universe
and God.” -a
Does anyone need a better illustration
verting
influence
of the Bible
of the corrupting and per-
upon human
thought
and action
than
these perfidious words from the warped mentality of this reverend
gentleman?
Yet this same clergyman tells us that the profligate David was a
man after God’s own heart, and that the debauchee Solomon was a
character of exemplary virtue.
It is not surprising that the eminent historian, W. E. H. Lecky,
commented: “It was a favorite doctrine of the Christian father that
concupiscence,
or the sexual passion, was the ‘original
nature.” lo
9 The Ten Commandments,
lo Lecky, Morals,
Vol. 2,
pp. 78, 81, 82.
p.
18.
sin’ of human
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
401
The Rev. J. H. Powell, Jr., I1 has the honesty to say regarding this
Commandment that the death, penalty provided for its violation “is
not going to safeguard all the homes of the land either from adultery
or from all the loss of affection and the development of other attachments that will undermine the happiness of the home.12 With
reference to Jesus’ “staggering” interpretation of this Commandment, he says: “I presume none of us is pure in heart, and we know
within ourselves the burnings of wrong desire.“13
Nor must we omit an expression on the subject by the Reverend
James M. Gillis, C.S.P., whose opinions we have already encountered.
He puts together the only two parts of the Decalogue that deal with
sex, and says: “These two Commandments, ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,’ and ‘Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife,’ bring
us face to face with the ugly sin of lust, lust in the flesh and lust in
the
mind,
and
no man
who
respects
himself
and
his
audience
can
approach that subject without misgivings.” I4 Having professed the
vows of celibacy, any act or thought of sex is lust in the mind of
this Catholic theologian. He continues: “There is no happiness in sin,
any kind of sin, and the sin of impurity is the surest way of misery.”
Why should any act dealing with sex be condemned as silz Why
should a celibate priest brand the joys of the sexual embrace as the
%urest way to misery”? Since he himself lacks experience, how
can he speak with authority on this vital phase of life? In contradiction to his statement, I say that there are no sins of the flesh,
there is only ignorance. Ignorance is the cause of mankind’s misery.
This ecclesiast evidently received his sexual knowledge from the Bible.
Outside of this Commandment, the only references to sex in the Bible
deal with rape, incest, sodomy, whoremongering, sexual perversions
and other reprehensible deeds within the sexual realm, There is not
Olle erlliglllerlirlg
trulh
about
st!x witlh
its pages.
11 Minister of the Reformed Church, Bronxville, New York.
IQ Powell, Jr., The Terg Contmanbnrcr+ts,
p. 94.
13 Ibid., p. 99.
14 Catholic
World, Dec. 20, 1930.
402
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
“Men and women,” he says, “plunge into it [satisfaction
of the
sins of the flesh] seeking happiness and they achieve only anguish.”
I deny this. Such a statement is a libel on honest men and women.
There is more purity in the passionate embrace of lovers who have
vowed eternal devotion to each other than in all the systems of religion ever invented, and in the vows of purity of all the celibates
that ever lived. Devotion to one’s mate is a higher virtue than celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
This Catholic priest does admit, however, that he feels the urges
of sex. He confesses: “, . . We are drawn with a fierce attraction
and with what seems at times irresistible
force towards impurity,”
and admonishes : “Some persons may think that a, good man is one
who experiences no great temptation
and that a bad man is one who
has been cursed by the inheritance
of a particularly
passionate nature.
But they who, imagine such things can never have read the
lives of the saints.”
The concluding
statements of the Rev. Mr.
Gillis are too important
not to mention.
He says: “A god does not
go lusting about, a victim to the passions of the body.”
How nai’ve and contradictory!
Does he not preach that Mary,
the betrothed of Joseph, was begotten with child by the Holy Ghost? I6
By the violation
of the previous Commandment,
Christian
“salvation” was gained, and by the violation of this Commandment
Christianity was born. And did not an angel of the Lord come down to
visit Elizabeth,
the cousin of Mary, when it was discovered that
her husband Zachariah was old in years? The Bible itself furnishes
the evidence that she conceived and bore a son.ls In fact, from time
immemorial
the gods in song and fable have all too often lusted after
the daughters of men.
As we discovered that ministers of religion knew little about the
original meanings of the previous Commandments,
so we find them
equally ignorant about this one. To quote one is to quote them all.
1s Judging from the Biblical text, Joseph was fully aware of the nature of Mary’s act
and
“being
3 just
man
put her away privily.”
16 Luke,
Chapter
1.
and
not
Matthew,
willing
Chapter
to
make
1, verse
her
19;
a public
cxamplc,
also The Bible
was
minded
Unmasked,
to
p. 18.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
403
Each has repeated almost verbatim the meaningless wo,rds of the
others. This is particularly unfortunate because this Commandment
is supposed to deal with the most vital and compelling force of existence, proper knowledge of which would prevent much of the misery
and at least half the crimes which beset the human race. And how
often has sex ignorance been the major cause of an adulterous act!
The tragedies resulting from ignorance of sex are ten thousand times
more stark than the pen can describe.
Since sex plays so vital a part in life, why did not the Bible God,
in his “infinite” wisdom, give us more knowledge of proper sexual
conduct than is contained in the words “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? If, according to the clergy, God made adultery a crime, it
would have been just as easy for him-since he was all-powerfulto make adultery impossible. He could have made men and women of
such a nature that when mated by love no outside attraction could
possibly induce them to commit the sexual act with another person.
WHAT IS ADULTERY?
Before the meaning and purpose of this Commandment can be
understood, we must know what it is that must not be committed.
Is the sex act adulterous only when committed in violation of the
marriage vow, or does any promiscuous sexual relation come within
the scope of its meaning? Is Jesus’ definition of adultery to be followed, or must there be actual physical contact? Does prostitution
violate this Commandment? What about polygamy and polyandry?
Are these social customs prohibited by this Commandment? Are
those guilty of incest, sodomy and other sexual perversions violators
of this precept of the Decalogue? How are we to judge homosexuality, consanguinity and other unusual phases of sexual conduct?
Does the failure to be specific as to what adultery is invalidate this
Commandment, just as we found the failure to be definite a fault of
the previous ones?
Why is there no provision for punishment if this Commandment
404
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
is violated, or reward offered for its observance? Was it for the same
reason that no punishment or reward was provided for the observance
of the sixth? Was this Commandment imposed on the early Hebrews
because of certain taboos associated with sexual conduct, just as we
found the previous Commandment not to kill was a taboo because of
the fear of blood pollution? Is this Commandment, when strictly
interpreted, like the previous one, impossible of observance? Just
as the Sixth Commandment was contrary to the fundamental law of
life, is this one equally in conflict with the basic law governing the
instinct of self-preservation in the perpetuation of the race?
Unless we are acquainted with all phases of sexual conduct, how
are we to understand what to do and what to abstain from doing?
Without sex there can be no life, and as there are a multitude of
regulations concerning sexual expression, some approved and some
disapproved, depending on the time md place, how arc WC to dctermine which rules of sexual conduct to follow? Variations in sexual conduct are the result of the great disparity between the sex
mechanism of man and woman. As a result of this great difference,
woman has from time immemorial been forced to play, in the drama
of life, the wife, the mother, the virgin and the prostitute.
Is a man, because of his inability to procreate, exempt from the sexual restrictions imposed on his female partner? Can any rules governing sexual conduct be universally applied? Is it possible for one
rule to apply dogmatically to all irrespective of the variegated social
customs existing in different parts of the world? If not, then of what
value is this Commandment? And why was only adultery prohibited?
Why not all sexual manifestations that have proved detrimental?
Is adultery committed only when the marriage vow is violated?
If so, does it apply to both members of the union or only to one?
And if only one, which one-the husband or wife? And if the wife,
why is the husband exempt? And if there are exceptions to this
Commandment, why were they not stated? If this Commandment,
as generally accepted, means a sex act “in violation of the marriage
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
405
bed,” why were not other sex acts, often far more pernicious than
mere unfaithfulness, included?
Then again, how can this Commandment
be construed as a prohibition against adultery in the modern sense of the word, when the
Children of Israel practised polygamy
at the time this Commandment was formulated?
A law or precept specifically designed to govern conditions in a
particular type of society often cannot be utilized in an altogether dijferent type of society.
While conditions may provoke certain acts
which the Zaw was designed to prevent in one society, tkose conditions
may be completely
absent in anotker, thereby making tke law unNo
better
illustration
could be given to emphasize the innecessary.
applicability
of certain edicts than the fact that in a polygamous state
there is muck less occasion for committing
adultery than in the more
restrictive
state of monogamy.
Polygamy,
which was an accepted
custom in Biblical times, is now actually prohibited
by law in modern
society.
The authoritative New Standard Bible Dictionary states that “the
prohibition
of the Seventh Commandment is indeed general; but it
leaves open the question of what constitutes adultery for a man and
what for a woman.”
It was the doctrine of the Roman jurists that
adultery is a crime when committed by the wife, and the wife only,
because of the danger of introducing strange children to the husband.17
One of the greatest of the Christian fathers of the latter haIf of
the fourth century distinguished between adultery and fornication
committed by a married man, He decided that the sexual act with
a married woman was adultery, with an unmarried woman merely
fornication.18
People in different countries have different ideas regarding sexual
behavior, and so we find among the Creek Indians that it was conI7 New Standard Bible Dictionary, p, 5.55.
Is Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. 6, p, 400.
406
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
sidered adultery if a man took a pitcher of water off a woman’s head
and drank from it.lQ
The Roman Catholic Church condemns as adulterous the marriage
of a Catholic
with
a Protestant.
There
still
remains
in force,
aa es-
tablished by the Eastern Church of the Council at Trullo in the
seventh century, the nullity of marriages between Catholics and
heretics. The Greek Church also forbids the marriage of one of its
followers with a Roman Catholic.20 The Jewish law does not recognize the marriage of a Jew with a person of another belief. Tertullian branded as fornication the marriage of a Christian with a
pagan.
Cotton Mather rendered this infallible judgment:
“God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his
heart. . . . This law, so written in the heart, continued to be a
perfect r-ule of rightousness after the fall of man, and was delivered
by God on Mount Sinai.”
As a result, the Massachusetts courts in 1631 ordered that “if any
man shall have carnal copulation with another man’s wife, they
both shall be punished by death.”
This is supported
text in Leviticus, Chapter 20, verse 10:
by the Biblical
10 And the man that committeth adultery
with anotlzev man’s wife, evew Ize that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put
to death.
The criminal code of New York State defines adultery as “intercourse between two persons one of which is married.” As this law
is interpreted
by the highest legal authority
of the State, it excludes
from its provision the intercourse of two adults who are not married.
In other words, this law means that sexual relations between
unmarried people is not regarded as adultery or even as a crime.
It recognizes by its omission the irrepressible sexual instincts, and
two
19 Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. 6, p. 30.5.
20 Westermarck, Marriage, Vol. 2, p. 63.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
407
makes provision for the punishment for adultery, as so defined,
merely as a protection of the parties in the married union. This law,
however, does not exempt the man who is liable to the same prosecution as the woman. As a result, this law is rarely ever enforced,
and in the few cases which have come before the courts, the guilty
parties have been penalized only by a very small fine. Pope Boniface VIII made a unique comment when he said: “There is no more
harm in adultery than in rubbing one’s hands together.” 21
In some places there is no definite provision in law for the punishment of adulterers. In others, it ranges from a fine of five dollars
to a year’s imprisonment. An illustration is the law that prevails in
the town of Cardiff, which lies partly in Maryland and partly in
Pennsylvania. If a person commits adultery on one side of the
street, he may suffer the extreme punishment of a. fine of ten dollars.
On the other side of the street, within the boundary of the other
State, he is subject to a fine of five hundred dollars or incarceration
in jail for one year.22 Violators have been extremely sagacious in
avoiding the severer penalty.
Was Solomon guilty of adultery when he indulged in the sexual
embrace with more than seven hundred wives and three hundred
concubines? Or was Solomon like the Duke of Ferrara (Niccolo
D’Este), who had ninety-two illegitimate children, yet made a law
that marital infidelity should be punishable by death? 23
These men were not the only ones who indulged carnally with
other men’s wives. There have been other instances which make
Solomon’s affair puny by comparison,
The king of Benin had over
four thousand wives-although
he generously gave some away to
those of his male servants who had rendered him faithful service.
In Ashanti, the law limited the king to three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three wives. Both the kings of Mtessa and Uganda
and the king of Loango are said to have had over seven thousand
31Draper, Intellectual Development
of Europe,
Vol. 2, p, 88.
22Geoffrey May, Social Control
of Sex Expression,
p, 258.
23 New York American,
Jan. 6, 1933.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
408
wives2’ Mushidi, the king of Budkey in the Belgian Congo, was
the father of nine hundred and ten children. King Chulalongkorn,
Rama V, the old king of Siam, had three thousand wives and three
hundred and seventy children-one
hundred and thirty-four
sons and
two hundred and thirty-six daughters. John Dunn, the white king of
Sululand, married forty wives and was the father of one hundred and
twenty children, seventy of whom are said to be alive today. Abas
Mirza, Prince Royal of Persia, became the father of sixteen children
in a single night, and the following day six more of his wives gave
birth to his offspring. 26 Our own Brigham Young had nineteen wives
and fifty-six children.
Were these men guilty of adultery, and if so, why were they permitted to continue these violations with complete impunity?
Was Shakespeare right when he said:
“Adultery?
Thou shalt not die; die for adultery: No:
The wnrm goes to’t, and the small gilded fly
Does lecher in my sight.
Let copulation thrive; for Gloster’s bastard son
Was kinder to his father than my daughters
Got ‘tween the lawful sheets.” 26
BASTARDY
If adultery
is an act which
the Bible
God seeks
to prevent,
then
a child born of an adulterous union should in some way be distinguished from children born in the bonds of matrimony. But are
children born out of wedlock any different from children born in
wedlock? In further Biblical condemnation of adultery, we quote
from Deuteronomy,
Chapter 23, verse 2:
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation
of the Lord.
24Westermarck, Ma&age, Vol. 3, p. 51.
ZJNew York American, Dec. 4, 1933;Mar. 21, Dec. 9, 1934;NOV. 2’7,193.5.
26King Lea.r, Act 4, Scene6.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
409
As far as nature is concerned, a woman may have twenty children
by twenty different fathers, and a father may have a thousand children with as many different mothers. Nature is not concerned with
marriage-that
is purely a man-made institution; she is, however,
concerned with propagation, and propagation will continue regardless
of the marriage customs that prevail. Thousands of children are born
each year from the seed of men other than those they call father.
The courts are continually called on to determine the parentage of
children where a dispute of fatherhood arises. Long and bitter court
battles have resulted because of the suspicion of husbands regarding
the paternity of children. Shakespeare said, “It is a wise child that
knows its own father.”
At one time it was erroneously believed that the birth of twins was
conclusive evidence of adultery on the part of the wife, as no man
could be the father of two children born at the same time. Recently
such a case came to public attention, reviving this primitive belief.
Because his wife became the mother of twins, a Japanese, ironically in
the Child
Department
of Kyoto
Imperial
University
Hospital
in To-
kio, asked for a divorce on the ground that, according to ancient
Japanese belief, the birth of twins indicated adultery
on the part of
the wife.27 Very often, when twins were born, one had to be killed.28
If the Bible had given US the formula
by which
the true parentage
of a child could be determined, that surely would have done more
to prevent.
adultery
than this Commandment.
However,
the Bible
does contain a perfect and “infallible” formula to determine whether
a woman has committed adultery, in the Book of Numbers, Ckapter 5,
verses 11 to 31:
11
12
say
and
13
hid
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and
unto them, If any man’s wife go aside,
commit a trespass agninst him,
And a man lie with her carnally, and it be
from the eyes of her husband, and be kept
York
World-Telegram,
Dec. 22, 1933.
** Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, p. 395.
21 New
410
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the
manner;
14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon
him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she
be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come
upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and
she be not defiled:
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto
the priest, and he shall bring her offering for
her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley
meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put
frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of
jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and
set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in
an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in
the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall
take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before
the T.nrd,
and uncover
the woman’s
head,
and
put the offering of memorial in her hands,
which is the jealousy offering: and the priest
shall have in his hand the bitter water that
causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an
oath, and say unto the woman, If no man
have
l&l
wilh
Lice,
and if thou
hast not
gone
aside to uncleanness lrrith another instead of
thy husband, be thou free from this bitter
water that rauseth the curser
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another
instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman
with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall
say UIILU the woman,
The
Lord
make
thee
a
curse and an oath among thy people, when
the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy
belly
tn swell;
22 And this water tbat causeth the curse
shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly
to swell, and tlty thigh to rot. And the woman
shall say, Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in
a book, and he shall blot them out with the
bitter
water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink
the bitter water that causeth the curse: and
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
411
the water that causeth the curse shall enter
into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy
offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall
wave the offering before the Lord, and offer
it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take a handful of
the offering, even the memorial thereof, and
burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall
cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the
water, then it shall come to pass, that if she
be defiled, and have done trespass against her
husband, that the water that causeth the curse
shall enter into her, and become bitter, and
her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot:
and the woman shall be a curse among her
people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, hut
be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife
goeth aside to another instead of her husband,
and is defiled;
30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh
upon him, and he be jealous over his wife,
and shall set the woman before the Lord,
and the priest shall execute upon her all this
law.
31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.
This is the primitive “trial by ordeal.” It was believed that a
virtuous woman could surmount all obstacles and be immune to all
defilement, just as it was believed that an honest man could survive
the ordeal by fire, Could anything be more horrible than that such
a test should be imposed
faithfulness?
upon an innocent
woman
her
Could anything be more monstrous? Can anyone con-
ceive of anything
mwre devilish?
And yet this damnable
test is found in the Bible as an infallible method-an
for determining
to determine
femJe
sexual purity!
Think
the thousands of women who were brutally
of it!
and revolting
edict from GodThink
also of
forced to make this
humiliating,
disgusting am-l self-convicting
ordeal.
Because were a
woman as pure as the white of snow and as innocent as the day she
412
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
was born, she would be unable to survive such a test as this. Oh! How
religion perverts the human mind!
This Bible formula belongs with the “infallible”
test for determining witches which prevailed
as late as the eighteenth
century in
Innocent
women suspected of witchcraft
were
Colonial America.
thrown into a river; if they swam to shore and safety, that was positive
proof of their guilt, and they were therefore summarily
killed;
the
women who drowned were innocent I They also practised another
infallible method, no doubt fashioned on this “trial by ordeal.”
Suspected women were stripped of their clothes, strapped to a bed, and
sharp pointed needles were stuck into the most sensitive parts of their
bodies.
If they felt pain and shrieked for mercy, their cries were
audible confessions of their guilt!
Equally strong was the belief among superstitious
people that a
woman who lost her milk during the nursing period was guilty of
adultery, and such grounds were sufticient for divorce.2Q
Roman history records the custom of exposing a newborn infant
on a shield laid on the surface 01 a river when the father had cause
to doubt its legitimacy.
It was also the custom in primitive
times, when an infant’s Iegitimacy was doubted, to throw it into the water.
If it floated, that
proved its legitimacy;
if it sank, it was a bast.ard50
This may have
accounted for the original story of why Moses was put in the bulrushes, rather than the legend of Pharaoh’s wrath.
Moses was the
son of Amram, who had married his paternal aunt, which, according
to Hebrew law, was an incestuous union.
The Celts also have been known to use the water test to determine
the legitimacy
of children,
They left this important
matter to the
judgment of the river Rhine.
Infants would be thrown into the water,
20Mantegazza, Sexual Relations of Mankind,
pp. 193-204.
80The explorer Speke was told about a governor in the province of Unyoro in Central Africa who covered his children with bead ornaments and threw them into the
N’yanza to prove their identity as his own true offspring. If they sank, that was
conclusive to him that someone else was the father; if they floated, he would recover
them as his own.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
413
and if they were bastards, the pure and stern river drowned them;
but if they were trueborn, the waters gently wafted them into the
mother’s trembling
arms.31
Science has only recently made it possible to determine parentage
with some degree of accuracy by comparing the structure and composition of the father’s blood with that of the child.32
If each child born out of wedlock were distinguished
by some
mark of illegitimacy,
then this Commandment
would be a warning
Or if, when
to the woman, at least, to avoid extramarital
relations.
an adulterous act was about to be committed,
the woman suddenly
became “as cold as ice” and the man physically impotent,
then this
Commandment
would indeed have some value as a warning; but the
reverse is generally true-“forbidden
sweets” are often “the sweetest”
and clandestine sexual relations are usually the result of irresistible
passion.
H. L. Mencken is credited with the statement that many today
would take pride if they could claim illegitimate
kinship with George
Washington
or any other equally prominent
person of the past.
Judging from the men and women who have distinguished
themselves by singular achievements,
children born of adulterous unions
are no less favored than those born within the bonds of marriage.
Pericles, son of the great Pericles and the celebrated courtesan
Aspasia, was an able general.
Leonardo da Vinci ( 1452-151.5), one of the world’s most versatile
geniuses, was the illegitimate
son of a Florentine lawyer and a mother
of humble
station.
Giovanni
Boccaccio (13 13-1375),
celebrated
Italian writer and scholar, and author of the Decameron, was a love
31 Frazer, Folklore, p. 260.
saThe question of split paternity has interested biologists for some time. A thesis
in 1924 by Dr. Menetrier and Mme. Bertrand Fontaine, French scientists, held that
“identical twins,” those developed from the same cell, must have the same parents, but
that ‘<fraternal twins,” simultaneously developed from individual cells, might have
different fathers. From Cologne comes a case where a judge ordered a blood test to be
performed on twins. After it had been proved that the woman’s husband was the
father of only one child, the mother confessed to having had illicit relations with
another man.-New
York American, Mar. 19, 1935.
414
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
child. Charlemagne never denied his illegitimacy. Clement VII, an
illegitimate son, was Pope from 1524 to 1534, despite the previous
Biblical quotation which said that “a bastard shall not enter the
congregation of the Lord.” Erasmus, “the man who laid the eggs
that Luther hatched,” was the son of a Dutch parish priest and his
housekeeper servant.s3 Jean d’illembert (1717-1783), one of the
most brilliant mathematicians and writers of his time, famous for his
work on the great French Encyclopedia, was the illegitimate son of an
artillery officer and was picked up as an infant on a doorstep in Paris.
August Strindberg and Alexander Dumas fils were unlawfully begotten.
Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Hamilton were born from men
other than those to whom their mothers were married. James Smithson (176%1829), founder of the Smithsonian Institution, which is
“devoted to the increase and diffusion of learning among men,” was
born in France, the natural son of Hugh Smithson, first Duke of
Northumberland, and Mrs. Elizabeth Keate Macie.34
Booker T. Washington, great Negro educator, and George Washington Carver, Negro scientist whose achievements in the field of
food and plant chemistry are acclaimed the world over, did not know
who their fathers were.
Even the Bible records some notable instances of illegitimate
births. Solomon was a bastard, and his descendant, Jesus, was born
from seed other than his father’s. An “angel” of the Lord committed
adultery with Elizabeth, and John the Baptist was born.
Bastardy
or not,
one thing
is definite-that
responsible for the acts of its parents.
the union
of a man and a woman
the
child
is not
It is born as the result of
regardless
of the laws
regulating
such conduct. No child should have to bear the stigma of illegitimacy.
Illegitimacy
is a wmng,
not of nature,
hut of law and religion.
Was
not Shakespeare right when he said:
35Miriam Allen deFord, Love Children,
p. 111.
s4For additional names, see ibid.; also The Hidden
Lincoln by Emanuel
Hertz,
p. 63.
THE SEVENTH
<L
415
COMMANDMENT
bastard? wherefore base?
. . Why
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous and my shape as true,
As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who in the lusty stealth of nature take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got ‘tween asleep and wake? . . .
. . . I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!” 36
.
SACRED AND PROFANE PROGTITUTION
In endeavoring to determine what is meant by the word “adultery” as used in this Commandment, much might be taken for granted
as not coming within its scope, but no analysis would be complete if
it did not take
into
consideration
prostitution.
The transition from sacred to secular prostitution was so imperceptible
that
it is hardly
possible
to determine
when
the
former
ended and the latter began. The only marked difference was in the
deviation
of the revenue.
It
is notorious
that
the
Church
had
a
monopoly on prostitution for centuries and that it was one of the
most fruitful sources of its wealth. Havelock Ellis states that “the
origin of prostitution is to be found primarily in a religious custom. . . .” 36
St. Augustine said: “Suppress prostitution, and capricious lusts
will overthrow society.” 37 St. Jerome recognized prostitution and
argued that, “as Mary Magdalene had been saved, so might any
prostitute who repented. . . .” In 1431, at the Council of Basle, a
high Church
dignitary
presented
a discourse
Lear,
Act 1, Scene 2.
3~King
3s Havelock Ellis, Psychology
of Sex, Vol. 6, p. 299.
s7Dr. William W. Sanger, The Histovy
of Prostitutiolz,
on the subject
p. 91.
of prosti-
416
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
tution in which he implied that it was the only safeguard of good
morals.58
A brothel called the “Abbey” was instituted in the papal city of
Avignon under the patronage of Queen Joanna of Naples.
It was
regulated by strict rules after the model of religious houses, and none
but good Christians
were admitted.
Jews and Infidels were not
permitted to enter; so sacred an institution
was not to be “corrupted”
or “contaminated.”
To maintain its strictly religious air, it was closed
on Good Friday and Easter.
Its women were housed in cloister-like
buildings, adjoining
the churches, which are still commonly
spoken
of as “abbeys.”
What a commentary
on religion as a means of moral
uplift, when the prostitute
can ply her trade-but
not when it interferes with her religious duties!
Pope Julius II instituted a similar brothel in Rome, and the foundation prospered under the patronage of Leo X and Clement VII.
Part of the proceeds were devoted to providing
for the comfort of
the Holy Sisters of the Order of St. Mary Magdalene.3B
By the time
of the Reformation
it was estimated
that lhere were more than
100,000 prostitutes in London, mainly supported by ecclesiastics.40
When brothels were forbidden in the City of London, prostitution
was carried on close to the palaces of the high bishops, who not only
had jurisdiction
over but profited substantially
from them.
So notorious were these enterprises that the women inmates were called
“Winchester
Geese.” In Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Humphrey,
Duke
of Gloster, reproached the Bishop of Winchester
with “Thou that
giv’st whores indulgences to sin.” 41 In 1321, Edward II approved
the sale of a lupinar to a cardinal who, evidently
considered it a
profitable investment
for sacerdotal funds.42 In Antwerp, even today, it is stated on excellent authority,
the prostitutes of the regular
brothels proceed in a body on certain feast days to the churches,
$8 Sanger, History
of Prostitution,
89Briffault, The Mothers,
Vol. 3,
4QMay, Social Control
of Sexual
**Shakespeare, 1st Henry
VI, Act
*zBriffault, op. cit., p. 132.
p. 91.
pp 214, 216.
Expression,
1, Scene 3.
p. 127.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
417
carrying candles which they dedicate to the Holy Virgin, fervently
praying to her for the success of their affairs.43
In E,astern Islam, where there are more males than females, the
young
girls
who
remain
unmarried
and offer themselves
to men are
looked upon as public benefactors.44
Sacred prostitution was incumbent upon all women and existed
throughout Europe, Asia and Northern Africa. Religious prostitutes
were called “servants of God,” and even as late as the second century sacred prostitution was still an honorable practice for women of
good birth who felt the “call” to live the “divine life under the influence of divine inspiration.” 45
In India and elsewhere, women who failed to bear children by
their husbands visited the temples to perform fertility “rites.” They
remained overnight at the temples, where they were visited by priests
who
impersonated
the terrible
god.
They
retm-n&l
hnmc!
the
fnllnw-
ing day, firmly convinced that a miracle had occurred-that the god
had condescended to cohabit with them and that they would have a
child.46
The Eskimo women think themselves happy if one of their “holy”
men cohabits with them.
In Phoenician temples, women prostituted themselves for hire in
the belief that they thereby won the favor of the divinity. Among
the Amorites it was a law that “she who was about to marry should
sit in fornication
seven days
by the gate.”
In Lydia
all girls
were
obliged to act as prostitutes before marriage.
Cutting
off the hair
of girls
who
become
nuns probably
had its
origin in the custom which prevailed in Byblos, where the surrender
of a woman’s virginity to a “stranger” could be atoned for by shaving
off her hair. When girls become Catholic nuns, they are mystically
married to the Divine Bridegroom.47
4s Briffault,
op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 216.
44 Westermarck,
,46 Ellis,
op.
Mavringe,
LA.,
Vul.
6, pp.
48Briffault,
op. cit.,
b7 Ibid., p. 220.
p. 218.
Vol.
234,
1, p. 137.
235.
418
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
At the memorial shrine of Al-Uzza at Mecca, it is the practice
for women to offer themselves to the holy pilgrims. Children born
of such unions are looked on as divinely blessed.4s
Among the Yezidis, a semi-Christian sect in Armenia, the priests
who travel in itinerant groups select a “wife,” if only for a day or
two, at each place they stop at. The women who are chosen consider themselves lucky, because they are then regarded as having
become holy.
In Egypt, the “holy” men go about naked. Women who desire
to have children kneel before them. Not infrequently a priest will
seize a woman and cohabit with her in the public street. No resentment is felt; indeed, the victim considers it a’great blessing and
her companions congratulate her on having been selected by the
“representative of God.” In recent times, in Damascus, the activities of one of these “saints” were so outrageous that the pasha had
to put him in prison.49
Religious prostitution of the Babylonian type was supposed to
have been nothing but ordinary immorality practised under the cloak
of religion. It has been represented as an act by which the worshiper sacrificed her most precious possession to the deity.60
Among the Ewe-speaking people of the Slave Coa,st, the business
of the priestess 01 the god to whom she is dedicated is that of prostitution. The best-looking girls between the ages of ten and twelve
are put in an institution where they remain for three years, learning
the chants and dances peculiar to the worship of the gods and submitting themselves to the priests and the inmates of the male seminaries.61 Children born of such unions belong to the gods. In India,
dancing girls are attached to a great many temples. They feel
honored when the priests in charge select them for sexual enjoyment.
Among the Veddas, if an adult female cannot get anyone to marry
her, she may be dedicated to a free life in the name of Yellamma,
4* Briffault,
op. cit., p. 221.
4s Briffcult,
op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 228.
60 Westermarck,
op. cit., Vol. 1,
210.
61 Ibid.,
220.
p.
p.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
419
Among many Semitic tribes, girls were
“consecrated” to a goddess of prostitution such as Ishtar.53
If adultery is a sin, children should be prevented from being born
of an adulterous union, and women who have been guilty of promiscuity should not be permitted to attain superior positions in life.
Neither condition, however, prevails. On the contrary, the courtesans of Greece were noted for their intelligence and were by far
the most important women of their time. They exercised more influence on the thought of their day than have women in any other
age of the world. They were sought after not only for their physical
charms and beauty, but also for their advice in worldly matters. Their
salons sparkled with brilliant conversation, and social and political
problems were first discussed with them.
Aspasia, who was as famous for her brilliance as for her beauty,
was the passionate love of Pericles. She is said to have instructed
him in eloquence and to have composed some of his famous orations.
She was continually consulted on affairs of state, and Socrates, like
other philosophers, attended her assemblies.
Socrates himself admitted his indebtedness to a courtesan named
Diotimas. The gentle manners and disinterested affection of a courtesan named Bacchis were recalled and deeply mourned when her
death was announced.64
She was the mistress of the orator Hyperides, and her fidelity has become a legend of a woman’s devotion to
the man she loves.
Lais, whose matchless figure and lovely face had no equal except
it be her remarkable wit and encyclopedic information, was extremely
influential. She refused a fabulous sum from the orator Demosthenes
for a sexual embrace, but willingly gave her charms to the ragged
cynic Diogenes and the still more poverty-stricken philosopher Aristippus.
The courtesan Pythionice was sent by Alexander the Great to be
52 Westermarck,
op. cit., p. 221.
who is their patron
“xIbEd.,
64Lecky,
65 Sanger,
deity.62
p. 222.
Morals,
Vol. 2, pp. 120, 124.
op. cit., pp. 53, 58.
420
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the companion of his treasurer, Harpalus. She graced the palace and
ruled Babylon with unusual ability. At her death, she was buried
in a tomb that cost more than a king’s ransom.
Leontium,
whose
lover
was
the great
philosopher
Epicurus,
was
herself a woman of rare ability, and the author of several books. A
Milesian prostitute named Thargelia accompanied Xerxes on his invasion of Greece. Thargelia married the king of Thessaly.
The Empress Theodore was a notorious prostitute, yet is credited
with liberalizing the law of Justinian. Radadopis, who led the life
of a prostitute in Egypt, became one of the leading citizens of her
time, acquired wealth, and is even reputed to have had sufficient
money and intelligence to build a pyramid.56
RELIGIOUS
FESTIVALS
AND SEXUAL
PROMISCUITY
are survivals of the belief,
based upon sympathetic magic, that unrestrained sexual indulgence
Many
at harvest
of the religious
time
increases
festivals
the fertility
today
of the land.
During
the yam
festival, in Ashanti, the chief religious function of the year, the sexual
Sexual relations are freely
behavior of the people is unwstminwl.
indulged in by all attending, and no man is allowed to have intercourse
with his wife.57 In Morocco and North Africa, the most solemn religious feasts are made occasions for sexual license and prostitution.
During early Christian times, May Day was notoriously the occasion
for sexual license.
Alphonse de Liguori declared that in some parts of Italy the celebration in honor of the Holy Virgin was utterly profane. He warned
the participants to stay away from the sanctuaries during the festivals,
“for on such occasions,” he said, “the Devil
gains more profil
lhan
the Blessed Virgin derives honor from it.” In the same kind of celebration among the Portuguese of Brazil, the women celebrants have an
orgiastic dance in which they sing: “Eu cage fogol Donna Maria quer
lumber.”
58 Sanger, op. cit., p. 41.
57 Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. 3, p. 200.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
421
Among the North American Indians, sexual promiscuity
was part
of almost every religious ritual.
Young women vied for the honor of
The Patagonians
believe
having relations with the chief of the tribe.
that drought and famine can be relieved by having their women offer
themselves to the first strangers they meet.G8 The prevalence of this
custom to appease the anger of the gods has been definitely established
by anthropological
authorities.
It was probably because of this belief
that David’s wives were to be given to his neighbors for sexual enjoyment in order to atone for his many crimes. Nakedness and the exposure of the female body has also, been considered pleasing to the
gods. According to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Manichaeans regarded
rain as the effect of amatory excitement on the part of the Deity.5D
Among the Peruvians, festival celebrations are part of the religious
ceremony.
After severe fasts and abstinence, men and women are
assembled naked and at a given signal run a race and every man
cohabits with the woman he catches.OO
In Central America, among the Pipeles, on the night that seeds are
planted, certain persons are especially appointed to perform the sexual
act at the exact moment the seed is deposited in the ground.
Children
born of these unions arc regarded as possessing divine gifts and are
accounted great prophets.61
CELIBACY
Is not the denial of the natural functions of the body just as wrong
as their abuse? Is not one extreme just as contrary to nature as the
other?
If man possesses certain fundamental
and necessary desires,
are they not to be satisfied?
If, under the influence of religious fanaticism, the flesh is rnortilied
in an attempt to suppress the natural
functions of the body, is this not just as wrong as the unrestrained
indulgence of those functions?
Virginity
and chastity arc desirable
68Briffault,
op. cit., pp.
58 Ibid., pp. 205, 207.
130Ibid., p. 186.
6l Ibid., p. 196.
201, 202.
422
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
virtues at certain times and under certain conditions, but they become
perversions as substitutes for marriage.
Physically abnormal was the
man who said, “He that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that
giveth her not in marriage doeth better.” 62 The religious celibate
denounced sexual congress as a pollution of the soul and an affront to
God. Many believed that married people were incapable of salvation.
St. John Chrysostom
crystallized
the thought of the Christian
Fathers when he said: “Marriage
is good, but virginity
is better than
marriage.
If you would have my candid opinion on the matter, it is
that I consider virginity to be as high above marriage as the heavens
are above the earth.”
St. Thomas Aquinas said that virginity
alone
could make us equal to the angels.
These “inspired”
opinions were confirmed by the decrees of the
synods, and are embodied in the canon of the Council of Trent, in
which it is laid down that “whosoever saith that the marriage state is
to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is
not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy, than
to enter marriage, let him be anathema.” 63
The Church taught that when a woman marries, she should feel
the deepest sorrow for the loss of her virginity;
also that if anyone
felt the slightest passion in nudity with the opposite sex, he was a
depraved human being. “Every wnman,”
sdd
CkmPnt.
of Alexandria,
“ought to be filled with shame at the thought that she is a woman.”
He stoutly maintained
that marriage and fornication
were not the
same, but that the difference between marriage and adultery was so
Tertullian
said
fine that it resolved itself into a mere legal fiction.04
that a ‘(stain upon our chastity is accounted by us as more dreadful
than any punishment or any death.”
He recommended abstinence for
the sake of adding to the efficacy of prayer.
Both these early Church Fathers condemned married life, and considered it their duty to dissuade women from cohabiting with their
‘32Lea, History
of Sacevdotd
Celibacy,
p. 41.
Vol. 3, p. 375.
63 Briffault, The Mothers,
64 Lea, op. cit., p. 320.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
423
husbands. A woman who deserted her husband was an object of
admiration, Anyone guilty of sexual intercourse, whether married or
not, they thundered, could not enter heaven on the day of resurrection.
St. Ambrose
said that “married
people ought to blush
at the state
in
which they are living.” He maintained that the race was born in a
state of virginity and that to change that state was to deface the work
of the Creator! Both St. Ambrose and Tertullian declared that the
extinction of the human race was preferable to its propagation by
sexual congress! Bishop Gregory of Nyssa held that Adam and Eve
had been created sexless,and that the phrase “male and female created
He them” referred to a subsequent act necessitated by Adam’s disobedience. Had it not been for this disobedience, the propagation of
life would have been accomplished by some mode of vegetation! 65
St. Thomas Aquinas felt that marriage and the satisfaction of the
sexual desires were obstacles to the love of God. He believed that
salvation could be purchased by stifling human affections, The mortification of the flesh and suppression of the sexual impulse was thought
to appease an angry God.6s
The imposition of continence and mortification of the flesh was
merely another manifestation of the religious principle that suffering
is pleasing in the sight of God and that the more man suffers here, the
less he will endure hereafter. The joys of life were supposed to be
inventions of the Devil. Sin and sex became synonymous terms.
Gregory
VII
prescribed
continence
for priests
and “looked
with
abhor-
rence on the contamination of the holy sacerdotal character, even in its
lnwest
degree, by any sexual
connection.”
67
The mere thought that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children by her husband in the normal, natural way is repugnant to some
devout people.
To the early Christian Fathers everything except absolute virginity
was considered adultery; woman was regarded as “the tool of Satan.”
a5Briffault,
op.
66 Ibid., p. 375.
g7 Lea, op. cit.,
cit.,
Vol.
p. 95.
3, pp.
372,
373.
424
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Hermes, the Shepherd, denounced all pleasure in sexual intercourse,
the only excuse for which was propagation.
He advocated that husband and wife should live as brother and sister!
Justin Martyr
preached
“that
total
abstinence
is
a
higher
virtue
and
that
sexual
St, Basil would speak to a woman
activity is unnecessary to life.”
St. John of Lycopolis had not seen a
only under extreme necessity.
St. Gregory suffered a haunting remorse
woman for forty-eight years!
because he chanced to touch the necklace of his niece.6S
A young Roman girl made a pilgrimage
from Italy to Alexandria,
to look at the face and obtain the prayers of St. Arsenius, into whose
Quailing beneath his rebuff, she flung
presence she forced herself.
herself at his feet, imploring
him with tears to grant her only request
--to remember her and to pray for her. “Remember
you! ” cried the
indignant saint. “It shall be the prayer of my life that I may forget
you.” Oa The AbbC Isaac, seeing a footprint of a woman on the road,
became terribly
agitated until he destroyed it for fear that “if a
brother seeth it, he may lall.” ‘O
When Linnaeus made his great discoveries in botany, religious
people tried to suppress them on the ground that they were based on
the discovery of the sexes in plants and were therefore calculated to
cause immorality.”
When a virtue is made of filth, cleanliness has no charm.
When
ignorance and superstition are considered the highest virtue, knowledge
and intelligence
are condemned as heresies.
When celibacy is considered holy, marriage is condemned as a sin.
Under the delusion of this belief, an actual epidemic of religiously
insane ascetics was produced.
It would require an immense volume
to record all the hideously vicious things they did to themselves in
order to stifle their sexual desires. The following instances, though
184 ; also Lecky, Morals,
Vol. 2, p. 51.
Vol. 2, pp. 46, 48. Even the Catkolic Encyclopedia admits both
scholnrship
and impartiality
of Lccky
83 an historian.
See Vol.
8, p. 128.
7O Ellis,
Psychology of Ser, Vol. 6, p. 185.
?lLecky, Rationalism, Vol. 1, p. 16.
88Lea,
op. tit.,
BvLecky,
the
itfords,
p.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
425
only a mere fragment, will give some idea of the extent of the perverted
influence of religion.
St. Ammon had never seen himself naked. St. Besarion spent forty
days and forty
nights
in the middle
of thornbushes,
and for forty
years
never lay down when he slept. St. Marcian restricted himself to one
meal a day so that he would continually suffer the pangs of hunger.
A sect known as “grazers” never lived under a roof, but spent their
time on the mountainside, eating grass like the cattle.
Physical cleanliness was considered a pollution of the soul, and the
most sainted ascetic was the one who became the most hideous mass of
clotted filth. A virgin named Silva resolutely refused, on religious
principles, to wash any part of her body except her fingers. St.
Anthony was never guilty of washing his feet. St. Abraham for fifty
years rigidly refused to wash either his face or his feet. St. Poemen
consented to such an heretical act only when confronted hy an old man
who said that he had “learnt not to kill the body, but his passions.”
St. Euphraxia joined a convent of one hundred and thirty nuns who
never washed their feet and who shuddered at the mention of a bath.‘?
In order to live a life of chastity, men have been known to wear
enormous rings on their prepuces so as to make sexual congress impossible.73 The Christian sects of Skots, during the reign of Catherine
II and Alexander I of Russia, resorted to castration as their means of
assuring chastity. They destroyed the testicles with a hot iron, calling
the operation
a baptism
of fire.
If burning
the testicles
did not pruve
successful in completely destroying the passion of the flesh, the penis
itself was cut off. In women, the genitals were mutilated, and if that
was not sufficient, the nipples of the breasts, and sometimes the entire
breasts were amputated. To them, original sin did not consist in
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but in relations between the
sexes.74
There is in existence the confession of a member of the Carthusian
72Lecky,
Movals,
73 Mantegazza,
741bid.,
pp.
Vol.
2, pp.
Sexual Relations
106, 108.
4G, 4’7.
of Mankind,
p. 97.
THE
426
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Order in the monastery of Vallis Dei, near SCez in Normandy.
He
had every virtue, was earnest in his devotions, and practised mortification to an even greater degree than was prescribed by the severe rules
of the order. He rarely slept on the couch provided for each brother,
but passed his nights in prayer on the steps of the altar. In the hair
shirt he wore next to his skin, he cultivated
lice and maggots so
assiduously that they were often seen crawling over his face. He
scourged himself for every unhallowed wandering thought.
But still
the visions of sexual pleasures came to his mind.
With all this laceration, the flesh would still assert itself, and he was tormented with evil
desires which the sharp cords of the discipline failed to subdue. When
he was forced to make frequent visits on business to the neighboring
town, he never left the gate of his retreat without lamenting
and
expressing the fear that he should not return to it in the same virtuous
condition in which he left. Although he preserved his virginity to old
age, he nevertheless continually
accused himself of having committed
every sin possible to rnanT5 0 Galilean, thou didst not conquer!
To carry out his fanatical belief, St. Jerome stifled the longings of
the flesh as described in his own words:
“How often, when I was living in the desert and the solitude
that affords a savage dwelling place, parched by a burning sun, how
often did I fancy myself amid the pleasures of Rome!
I sought
solitude because I was filled with bitterness.
SackcIoth disfigured
my misshapenlimbs, and my skin had become by neglect as black
as an Ethiopian’s Tears and groans were every day my portion.
I, who from fear of hell had confined myself to that prison where
I had no other companions but scorpions and wild beasts, fancied
myself
amongst
bevies
of young
girls.
My
fact was pale and my
frame chilled with fasting; yet my mind was burning with the
cravings of desire, and the fires of lust flared up from my flesh that
was as that of a corpse. I do not blush to avow my abject misery.
. . . So long as we are borne down by this frail body; so long
as we have treason within this earthly vessel, so long as the flesh
T5 Lea, op. cit., p.
306.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
427
lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, there can
be no sure victory.” 78
Tempted by an evil spirit in the guise of a beautiful maiden, St.
Benedict of Nursia, finding his resolution to remain chaste on the point
of yielding,
threw himself into a thicket of brambles and nettles,
through which he rolled until his naked body was lacerated from head
to foot. The desires of the flesh were effectually conquered.”
And to think that such 9epresentatives
of God” made our laws
and governed our conduct for more than a thousand years. Is it any
wonder that such a period was called the “Dark Ages”?
Female devotees of religious orders also mutilated
themselves in
order to stifle the natural impulses of sexual desire. The experiences
of Sister Jeanne des Anges, Superior of the Convent of the Ursulines
of London, are described in her autobiography:
“These impurities
and
the fire of concupiscence which the evil spirit caused me to feel, beyond
all that I can say, forced me to throw myself onto braziers of hot coal.
. . . At other times, in the depth of winter, I have sometimes passed
part of the night entirely naked in the snow or in tubs of icy water.” ?*
There seems to be no limit to the self-inflicted
tortures that these
religiously fanatical human beings endured for the sake of “purity.”
The blessed Angela de Fulginio tells us that, until forbidden by her
confessor, she would place hot coals in her private parts, hoping by the
use of material fire and heat to extinguish the burning lust that would
surge through her body.79
Mme. Guyon, who lived as late as the eighteenth century, is perhaps the most noted example of how the suppression of the natural
sexual instincts distorts the mentality.
She became “married”
to God
am3 would often acclaim that she loved him more than the most pasShe craved “the love that thrills and burns
sionate lover his mistress.
So strong
and leaves one fainting in an inexpressible joy and pain.”
76Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 372.
77Lea, op. cit., p. 85.
7s Leuba, The Psychology
.‘0 Westermarck, Marriage,
of
Religious
Mysticism,
Vol. 1, p. 153.
p. 160.
428
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
did passion burn within her that she actually experienced an orgasm,
which prompted her to say that if God would make sensual people feel
as she did, they would give up their false pleasures of the flesh! The
method by which she sought to stifle her sexual desires is too revolting
to be recorded here.80
The case of St. Marguerite
Marie (1647-1690)
varies only slightly.
She was beatified in 1864 and only recently canonized.
After seventeen months in a monastery, “she lay down on the pavement of the
church, the sheet of the dead spread over her, and she rose again,
radiant, for she was henceforth to be dead to the world.”
She had
become the bride of Christ.
The method she practised to restrain her
sexual feeling is too nauseating for repetition here, despite the fact that
she hoped she would be able to do it every day. The following night
Christ rewarded her for her self-mortification
and held her in close
embrace for two or three hours with her mouth pressed on his heart.
Once, when Christ was crushing her by the weight of his love, he said
to her: “Let me do my pleasure.
There is time for everything.
Now
I want you to be the plaything
of my love, and you must live thus
without resistance, surrendered to my desires, allowing me to gratify
myself at your expense.” 81 As Professor Leuba remarks, this took
place not in the Dark Ages, but in the latter half of the last century,
and is recorded by a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
To suppress sexual desires, Catherine St. Cloud placed her body on
a red-hot stove, while Catherine Ebner cut a cross over her heart and
tore the Christian symbol off her body.82
Those women-and
there were many-who
pledged spiritual matrimony to Christ, but who were unable to resist sexual congress with
unmarried ecclesiastics, were denied holy communion
at their death
and were branded as adulterers of Christ!
It was contended that if an
ordinary husband found his wife enjoying sexual congress with another
man and was provoked to violence by jealousy, then what must be the
80 Leuba,
06 cif., pp. 77, 7%
81Leuba,
op. cit., p. 114.
SZW. J. Fielding,
Love and the
Sex Emotions, p. 315.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
429
indignation of Christ at such flagrant unfaithfulness!
8s There was no
expiation for “holy” adultery.
According to the rules of St. Caesarius for nuns, no male clothing
was to be taken into the convents for the purpose of washing or mending. He feared that contact with male attire would stimulate the nuns’
sexual desire for copulation or self-abuse.
St. Augustine maintained
that the fall of Eve in the Garden of
Eden caused the sex organs to become the seat of lust. Based upon
this belief, religious societies were formed where there were to be no
sexual relations whatever.
Under the influence of this religious insanity, Origen emasculated himself and wanted to exclude all women
from heaven as a corrupting influence.
A sect called the Valesians is
said to have obtained proselytes by forcibly mutilating
anyone unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. Sextus Philosophus, popularly
known as Sextus II, openly advocated mutilation
of the genitals.
As a
result of this mania, an epidemic broke out among the Christian
Fathers and each outdid the other in self-castration.84
There is no limit to fanaticism,
particularly
when mixed with
religious fervor. The whole system of Christian asceticism was based
on the impurity
of sex; as a consequence, anything lhal tended to
arouse sexual excitement was condemned as a sin.
The frightful results of trying to impose such perverted ideas of
sex on the world are already too well known to be recorded here.
Humanity
is still struggling to free itself from the inhibitions
with
which this repressive and perverted system enslaved it.
The lives that were ruined, the labors that were lost, the mentalities
that were poisoned, can well be imagined from these cases of enforced
asceticism.
This perverted and fanatical way of life deprived the
world of the fruits of the labors of men of strong will and unfailing
determination,
men who could have contributed
wealth to the world
and been recompensed by the joys of creating.
The result of this perversion of the human body destroyed whatever
83 Westermarck,
s4May,
Social
Marriage,
Control
of
Vol. 1, pp. 396, 405.
Sexual Expression,
p. 51.
430
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
element of love it contained, and made Christianity
not only a religion
of chastity, but a religion of implacable hatred of all that was natural
to our nature. This stifling of the ties of human affection is one of the
unforgivable crimes of the Church. By the suppression of the natural
impulses of love, Christianity
made perverts of her devout believers
and soldiers of hate against all those “vicious”
enough to love and
laugh.
Celibacy had an altogether different effect from what was
intended.
Not all were capable of suppressing the natural desires of
their sexual natures.
Being restricted from seeking a normal outlet
for the passions of the flesh, the “pious” were forced to satisfy their
sexual longings through prohibited
channels.
The result was that
while celibacy produced fanatical asceticism on the one hand, it was
also the cause of the most demoralizing
promiscuity
on the other. The
gross immorality
that followed the imposition of celibacy on the clergy
can never be completely
recorded.
Priests became adulterers and
corrupters of the home, and nunneries became notorious brothels.
Authoritative
writers of the Middle Ages tell of nunneries that were
like brothels, and of the widespread prevalence of incest among the
priests, many of whom lived with their mothers and sisters.*”
John
Knox committed
adultery with his stepmother.
Gregory, Bishop of
Vercelli, was convicted of incest, having had relations with a widow
betrothed to his uncle.
In an effort to impose celibacy on the priest, the clergyman’s
mother or sister was not permitted
to sleep in the same house with
him. Experience had taught them that no blood tie was strong enough
to prevent sexual satisfaction. 8c The hot passions of the body easily
overpower the cool resolutions of the mind.
No wonder St. Bernard said that for men and women to live together without having sexual relations was a greater miracle than raising the dead.“?
Cardinal Peter d’Ailly declared that the immorality
in the nunneries
was so notorious that it was common for girls who wanted to enter a
8B Lecky,
Morals,
Vol. 2, p. 138.
*6Lea,
op. cit., pp. 154-295.
*rIbid.,
p, 314.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
431
life of prostitution
simply to take the veil. One of the reasons for the
Church’s denunciation
of Savonarola was that he declared the nuns
in the convents were no better than harlots, and that the whole fabric
of morality was being corrupted by the adultery of members of the
religious orders.ss
In order to remedy the evil of the widespread immorality
existing
in the nunneries, the Council of Saragossa forbade virgins to take the
veil unless they were at least forty years of age.sD
When Sixtus III was tried for the seduction of a nun, he defended
himself by repeating the story of the woman taken in adultery and
quoted the words of Jesus: “He who is without sin should cast the
first stone.” The holy gentleman was not convicted.s0
In 1259, Alexander IV did not hesitate to declare that the people,
instead of being reformed, were absolutely corrupted by the ministers
who represented God on earth. Louis XV would amuse himself by
causing the arrest of all ecclesiastics caught frequenting brothels.
It
never took long to secure several hundred.“l
At one time in Spain
the number of bastard children of the priests almost equaled the number of children of the laity! 92
Popes themselves furnished the examples for others to follow.
Sergius III’s bastard son sat in the pontifical
chair, while John XII
turned
the Lateran
profligacy
Palace
into
a brolhel.
that women were deterred
for fear of his promiscuous
So notorious
was
his
from going near the holy palace
and unbridled
1ust.Q3
Pope John XXIII
was condemned for notorious incest, adultery, defilement and homicide.
He confessed to having violated over two hundred maidens, including
a number of nuns. After being deposed, he became Dean of the Sacred
College ! O4 A hundred years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury
No
8s Lea, op. cit., pp. 328-342.
92 Ibid.,
p. 285.
an Ibid.,
p.
76.
0X Ibid.,
p. 115.
QQIbid.,
91 Ibid.,
p.
60.
94Ibid.,
p. 292.
less
p. 532.
a Catholic
authority
than
the
Rcvcrcnd
James
M.
Gillis,
C.S.P.,
of February 17, 1945, admits to the truth, integrity
of Professor Henry C. Lea a; a historian.
Brooklyn
Tablet
wliting
h the
and competency
THE
432
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
made an endeavor to curb the licentiousness of a certain bishop whose
mistress had confessed that she had borne him five children.
The
bishop admitted his guilt to the archbishop, but claimed immunity
on
the ground that the acts had taken place in the confessional! 95 St.
Brice, in the diocese of Tours, was the father of a child born unseasonably to a nung6
If ever the world needed an instance of the utter and impossible
relation of morality to religion, it is presented in the cases already
recorded. Martin Luther condemned celibacy as “angelical in appearance, but devilish in reality, and a fertile source of sin, vice and
corruption.”
97
Cesare Lombroso, reviewing the history and causes of immorality
among the celibate priesthood, in his Crime: Its Causes and Remedies,
says :
“In other cities, the right to commit fornication with impunity
for a lifetime could be obtained by the payment of a quarter cask
of wine to the bishop’s officer, who drew this privilege from the
canon De Dilectissimis
in the decretals
of the Pope.”
Lea, after a thorough and most painstaking
tion, was forced to conclude:
analysis
of this situa-
‘(An absolution and indulgence grew to be a marketable comit even became the interest of the traders in salvation to
have a brisk demand for their wares. When infraction of the
modity,
divine
precepts
could
be redeemed
with
a few pence,
it
is not
surprising if priest and people at length were led to look upon the
violation of the Decalogue with the eye of the merchant and
customer rather than with the spirit of the Lawgiver.” 8u
Clerical celibacy not only corrupted the morality of the community,
but, far more pernicious, it corrupted youths who came in contact with
the clergy while under their guidance,9e
s6Lea, op. cit., p. 243.
QaIbid.,
p. 55.
Ibid.,
gsIbid.,
97
p. 3.55.
p. 302.
BQCf. E. Boyd Barrett, Jesuit
Enigma,
p,
187.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
433
If our sense of morality causes us to pass laws to prohibit polygamy,
then why not laws to prohibit something far more detrimental to
morality than a plurality of wives? If adultery is wrong, then the
celibacy of priests is equally so. If the former is in violation of this
Commandment, then the other is a secret perversion of it.loO How
much longer will the moral conscience of mankind tolerate the unnatural and corrupting influence of sacerdotal celibates?
THE
CONFESSIONAL
It is with reluctance that I discuss the institution of the confessional in relation to this Commandment. No one can read the history
of that institution, however, without feeling that unscrupulous priests
used it as a medium to commit adultery with their female parishioners
under the guise of saving their souls.
This conduct eventually brought on the confessional the condemnation it deserved, but that did not erase the sorrow and misery female
penitents had already suffered. The contagion of sexual corruption
which such men spread through the medium of the confessional is
hardly believable were it not for authentic court records and judicial
evidence minutely detailed at the trials of these debauchers who
preached that adultery was a mortal sin.lol
The Supreme Council of the Spanish Inquisition ruled that solicitation either before or aft.er cnnfession was no crime. Years of debate
were required to determine whether a priest was guilty of violating his
vows if he secured a girl for another priest’s sexual pleasure.i02
10s A great many people do not know the real meaning of priestly celibacy as enjoined by the Catholic Church. The general impression is that both celibacy and
chastity are imposed on all priests. This is not true. Celibacy and chastity are required of only a small number of priests who are members of certain specific orders.
The majority of priests-in
the lay category-are
pledged only to celibacy. This
simply means, in Catholic theology, that CAey wiU not legally marry. They take no
vow of chastity, and sexual indulgence therefore does not in the slightest degree affect
Catltolic, Dec., 1942 (L. H. Lehmann, “The
their celibate status. The Converted
Tyranny ol Priestly Celibacy”).
10 Lea, History
of Sacerdotal
Celibacy,
p. 54.
lo2 Ibid., p. 504.
THE
434
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Yet, despite the devious and subtle methods permitted
in the confessional to commit adultery, many scandals were reported to the
Church tribunal.
Typical was the case of Hilario Caone, of Besarqon,
an uncurbed profligate who confessed that he had solicited with success
some forty women while performing
his duties in the Church of San
Francisco de Paula of Seville.lo3
Fernando de Valdes confessed having solicited with successful results seven single and three married
women and one pregnant woman while in confession! io4 He openly
boasted of his sexual conquests and made no secret of his illicit affairs
with his female penitents while dispensing absolution!
AbbC Mallet, Canon of Cambria, seduced three Jewish girls and
then procured their confinement in convents under the pretext that he
was laboring for their conversion ! One of the girls went insane as the
result of her suffering.
Although the AbbC was condemned for his
acts of seduction, Church ofticials defended his conduct on the ground
that any offense of religious proselytism was justified.
This permitted
the worst criminals to wear the cloaks of the martyrs of faith.los
Priestly solicitation
in the confessional became so brazen and
shameless that Pope Pius IV issued a bull in 1561 to investigate and
punish all confessors guilty of soliciting
women during the act of
confession.100
Lea records a case which attracted a great deal of attention in his
time. Antoine Mingrat, a priest of Saint Aupe, created scandal by his
amours. He was attracted by a young married woman named Marie
Gerin and he made a brutal hut unsuccessful attack on her virtue.
This made it necessary for him to dispose of her. He choked her to
death in the parsonage and dragged the body three-quarters
of a mile
to another town, where he cut off the legs and threw the fragments
into the river.
He was simply transferred
to Saint Quentin and
lo3Lea,
History
104 Ibid.,
p. 524.
105 Ibid.,
1~ Ibid.,
p. 572.
p. 501.
of
Sacerdotal
Celibacy,
p. 517.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
435
allowed to continue his nefarious work without suffering the slightest
punishment.lO’
In a case recorded as late as 1898, a priest heard the confession of
his laundress that she had once committed
adultery.
When she finished, he told her to wait for him in the anteroom.
There, after some
talk about his clothes, he made suggestive advances to her which she
did not repulse.
When she attended mass, he would beckon her to
his confessional and make appointments
to visit her at her house,
finally taking and supporting her as his mistress.los
History does not record a more revolting abuse of the confessional
than that which occurred in our own time. Within the lifetime of the
author, there floated down the Hudson River a bloodstained
sack
which contained the dismembered
body of a woman.
She had been
brutally
attacked and murdered.
Once the woman’s identity
was
established,
it. did not take the pnlice
nf New Ynrk
lnng t.n a.pprehend
the culprit.
Several days elapsed, however, before an arrest was made
because the evidence of the crime pointed to a Catholic priest-Father
“Hans” (Johannes) Schmidt!
Being inculcated early in life with the
religion of Catholicism,
he had been, since his pre-adolescent
years,
peculiarly affected by the rite of blood atonement, and as a result the
sight of blood always had a sexually stimulating
effect on him.
In
fact, so obsessed was he with the element of blood that he used to
believe that he was God’s favorite priest because on many occasions
he imagined
he saw real blood in the chalice.
When he first met his victim,
Anna Aumiiller,
him for confession, he said he fainted.
who had come to
Sho’rtly thereafter,
he began to
cohabit with her. After this had continued for some time, he asked
himself whether he was doing right.
He knew he was offending the
laws of the priesthood, but felt that if God had given him those feelings and the necessary faculties, he had the right to satisfy them. To
make certain, he had sexual relations with her at the altar, meanwhile
watching the chalice to see whether God would give him a sign express107 Lea, History
of Sacerdotal
IonIbid.,
p. 568.
Celibacy,
p. 512.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
436
As there was so sign, he thought God approved.
ing his disapproval.
It is quite likely that he killed Anna Aumiiller because she was pregnant. Perhaps the strangest thing about this atrocious case is the fact
that when asked whether
he was at peace with God, the murderer said
he was! His conscience was clear.
Nor must we fail to mention another recent case where confession
was the lure to seduction and adultery-and
finally murder.
That is
the case of the Rev. Joseph J. Leonard, a Catholic priest, and Mrs.
Ruth Steinmetz, a comely bride of two weeks. It happened in the
Knights of Columbus Hotel (now the Capitol Hotel) in New York
City on the evening of November 26, 1934.“”
Mrs. Ruth Steinmetz and her husband came to New York on their
honeymoon.
She was seventeen and her husband a twenty-two-yearThe Rev. Joseph J. Leonard was in New York
old divinity student.
on a visit.
While
Ruth SteinrneLz
and her husband
were. in the lobby
of the hotel, she was approached by Father Leonard, who lost no time
in making
the acquaintance
of the couple.
Hc told them he was the
Pastor of the Chapel of Our Lady of the Rosary and spiritual director
of the Morris
Hall
Home
for the Aged
at Lawrenceville,
New
Jersey,
and asked how long it had been since Mrs. Steinmetz went to confession. When she guiltily admit-ted it. was quite some time, the Rev.
Joseph J. Leonard replied: “I will hear your confession, and I think
you had better come to my room, where we won’t be disturbed.”
So
they went to the room where Father Joseph J. Leonard of Lawrenceville, New Jersey, had registered as “John J. Leonard
of Trenton,
New
Jersey,” while the young husbarid remained outside. The girl returned, however, within a few minutes to tell her husband that the
priest had invited them to lunch. While at the restaurant, Father
Leonard treated them to highballs, and drank so fast that his two
Young guests had great difficulty in keeping up with him, After
lunch they returned to the hotel and went to the room occupied by
the couple. Leonard suggested that Harry go to sleep, and the young
lo0 New
York
Times;
Daily
News,
Oct. 31, 1937.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
437
husband fell into an alcoholic stupor.
Suddenly awaking, he discovered that his wife and the priest were gone!
He hurriedly went to the priest’s room and placed his ear against
the keyhole.
What he heard made him try to enter. The door was
He
knocked,
saying he was the bellboy.
As Leonard opened
locked!
the door, he pushed his way in and found the priest stripped. . . .
Then he saw his wife, partly undressed, crouching beside the bed. He
cried : “You can’t do this to my wife!”
Remembering
that he had
given the priest his loaded pistol to hold for him, the drunk-crazed
youth took it from the priest’s coat pocket and in frenzy cried: “She’s
my wife! You’ve her, and now you are going to hell!”
Five
shots were fired. One penetrated the priest’s back and entered the
chest of the wife.. The “confession” was over, but the priest and the
wife were dead.
Church officials made haste to explain that Leonard had not been
mentally well. This was also the explanation regarding the murderous
action of Schmidt.
Confession did not prove good for the souls of
Ruth Steinmetz and Anna Aumiiller;
it merely brought about their
deaths.
Of what value is the institution
of the confessional to the morality
of the comimunity,
when the preachers of a doctrine are guilty of
committing
the very acts which they condemn in others as a mortal
sin?
EROTIC
ADULTERY
Is it a violation of this Commandment
to commit adultery in a
dream?
There is ample evidence in the Bible that such an act was
given serious consideration
and condemned as “unclean,” the Biblical
word for being ritually taboo. I quote Leviticus, Chapter 15, verses
16 and 17:
16
And
if
any
man’s
seed
of
copulation
go
out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh
in water, and be unclean until the even.
17 And every garment, and every skin,
whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be
washed with water, and be unclean until the
even.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
438
If this quotation
is a condemnation
of dream pollution,
then every
potent man and every woman with a healthy libido has been guilty of
violating this Commandment.
Not all dreams have sexual motives,
yet it cannot be denied that dreams of a sexual nature are of erotic
origin, and are often the fulfillment
of desires experienced during
waking hours. I quote Deuteronomy,
Chapter 23, verses 9 to 11:
9 When the host goeth forth against thine
enemies, then keep thee from every wicked
thing.
10 If there be among you any man, that is
not clean by reason of uncleanness that
chanceth him by night, then shall he go
abroad out of the camp, he shall not come
within the camp:
11 But it shall be, when evening cometh on,
he shall wash himself with water: and when
the sun is down, he shall come into the camp
again.
This is a recognition by the Bible writer of the prevalence of erotic
dreams among soldiers as a result of prolonged continence. The taboo
of “uncleanness” associated with its manifestation is indicative of the
fear of pollution in matters concerning sex, and the necessity for
purification.
Celibates notoriously have erotic dreams, as is proved by their
Married men and women who have practised
continence for some time reveal their subjection and complete sur-
diaries and confessions.
render
to the erotic impulse while asleep.
Sexually
repressed
un-
married women and sexually unsatisfied married women habitually
have erotic dreams. In the dream state they can be completely abandoned to their passions, and invariably their phantom partners explore
their sexual regions and stimulate their erotic zones in a manner not
experienced while awake. What their husbands and lovers fail to give
them while awake, these creatures of the night bring them in the
painful but inexpressible ecstasy which their unsatisfied libido craves.
It is not uncommon for a married woman utterly unaware of any
attraction for a man to dream of having relations with him. Equally
stimulating are the sexual congresses with phallic symbols. While
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
439
dreaming, women have had violent sexual intercourse with snakes and
other objects representing the male organ.ll’J
Even among primitive peoples, erotic dreams have their meaning
and significance. The Papuans believe that before a young girl begins
to menstruate, she dreams that the moon in the shape of a man has
intercourse with her.lll
Men dream of harems where seductive women are as plentiful as
fruit in an orchard and where convention and restrictions are unknown. Men known to be wholly devoted to their wives who would
no more think of committing adultery than they would think of
robbing a bank have confessed to having experienced coitus in dreams
with women of their acquaintance and unknown women.
It is equally common for a woman, especially after having experienced some unpleasantness with the opposite sex, to dream of being
in a remote part of the earth wholly unfamiliar
to her, and surrounded
by men she has never seen before. After selecting the man she wants,
she experiences the most violent love-making, in a manner heretofore
unknown, climaxed by an orgasm of inexpressible joy.l12
There is no accounting for the eerie figures of sexually stimulated
imagination which take form, nor for the manner or shape in which
they appear.
Among primitives it is believed that erotic dreams are due to their
god’s desire to copulate with them. From this belief, evidently, comes
the superstition
that many children
are begotten
of God.l13
The waking imagination of man has never been able to equal the
realities of dreams. In no realm of the unconscious is this so evident
as in the activities of sexual conduct.
The freedom of action from
both legal and social be.rriers, the choice of partners, the lack of
convention, the disregard for the presence of others, the force and
vitality of the orgiastic climax are certainly equal to the conscious
activities of men and women. While in the dream state, these per110 Ellis, Psychology of Sex, Vol. 1, p. 193.
1X1 Ibid.,
p. 199.
p. 202.
118 Ibid., p. 188.
112 Ibid.,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
440
formances and the emotional responses and physical reactions are
identical in results with those experienced and performed during waking hours, the only difference being the consequences! If such acts in
the awakened
state are violations
of this Commandment,
in what
category is one to place those committed in the dream state?
ADULTERY
AND
THE
VARIED
MANKIND
SEXUAL
CUSTOMS
OF
We know that morality is subject to the process of evolution and
that standards of morality vary according to climate, culture and condition of the people. We also know that because of the complicated
sex mechanism and the great functional differences between man and
woman, every conceivable variety of sexual conduct has been practised
by the peoples in the different
inhabited
areas of the earth.
What
relationship do these varied forms of sexual conduct bear to this
Commandment?
Why is adultery condemned in some communities
as
the most heinous of offenses, while in other communities
it is as
unheeded as myriad other forms of physical action?
nomic
value of a woman enter into the evaluation
Does the eco-
of her sexual be-
havior? Is sexual purity measured for its pecuniary value, or for its
virtue? Does the fear of blood pollution discount the value of woman’s
chastity? Is adultery condemned because of its effect on the husband,
the family, the tribe or the community? If adultery is condemned, is it
because of private or public concern?
Professor James Henry Breasted warns us that “it is important to
bear in mind the now commonly accepted fact that in its primitive
stages, religion had nothing to do with morals as understood by us
today.” I14
In early Hebrew
tribal
lile,
the woman who went to her grave
unmarried was disgraced. It was her duty to marry and bear a son,
in the hope that he would prove the much longed-for
II4 Breasted,
The
Dawn
of Conscience,
p. 18.
Messiah
who
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
441
would lead his people to salvation. Yet the girl who was not a virgin
was denied the privilege of marriage.
That the morality of the Bible is based on a most primitive code of
sexual conduct is illustrated by the following passage from Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, verses 13 to 21:
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto
her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her,
and bring up an evil name upon her, and say,
I took this woman, and when I came to her,
I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and
her mother, take and bring forth the tokens
of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of
the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto
the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man
to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech
against her, saying, I found not thy daughter
a maid; and yet these aye the to&ens of my
daughter’s virginity.
And they shall spread
the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that
man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in a hundred
shekels of silver, and give tkem unto the father
of the damsel, because he hath brought up
an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she
shall be his wife; he may rwL puL her away
all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens
of virginity be not found for the dam~sl:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to
the door of her father’s house, and the men
of her city shall stone her with stones that she
die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel,
to play the whore in her father’s house: so
shalt thou put evil away from among you.
VIRGINITY
But if the signs of virginity are fraudulent and the “tokelzs of
virginity be not found for the damsel,” what happens if she “play the
whore in her father’s house”?
She “shall be stoned with stones that
she die.” In other words, death was to be the penalty for unchastity.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
442
Does this not show that Biblical morality belongs in the same category
as that of other primitive tribes that likewise determined the bride’s
sexual purity by the cloths on her marriage bed which showed signs of
her virginity?
Among the Mandigos the blood-stained sheet of the marriage bed
is carried through the streets of the village for all to see. A similar
practice prevails among the Kulngo Negroes of the French Sudan. In
Southern Celebes the “proofs of virginity” are exhibited to the guests
on a silver plate. In other places the cloth is examined by a jury of
matrons. Among the Bedawi it used to be the rule to leave the bloodstained cloth bearing “proofs” of the bride’s virginity on a lance in
the middle of the village for several days. In some instances it was
hung out of a window; in others it was carried from house to house.
Among the nobles of the Line Islanders, proof of virginity is required
on marriage.
In Tonga the nuptial mat was paraded from house to house.
In Greece and Sicily the bride’s nightgown was left hanging from
her window for several days. In some provinces of Peru the mother
publicly deflowers her daughters before witnesses of the marriage
contract.
The delloration
of the brides
of kings
was an occasion
for great
public demonstrations.l15 When Charles V of Spain married Isabel
of I!raganza,
the “proofs”
of her virginity
were
solemnly
exhibited
for
inspection to the assembled grandees.
CHASTITY
The sexual purity of women has always exercised a peculiar fascination over men. The prayer of a vestal virgin was supposed to be
able to arrest a thief in his flight. In the story of Claudia, a ship
bearing the image of the mother of the gods had been stranded in the
Tiber. A vestal virgin attached her girdle to its prow and with her
115Briffault,
The Mothers,
Vol. 3, pp. 340, 343.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
443
mass which strong men had sought in
vain to move.116
According to the Chinese legend, on which perhaps the story of the
virgin birth of Jesus was based, when but one man and one woman
lived on the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice her virginity even to
people the globe. The gods, honoring her purity, granted that she
conceive beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and thus a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.l17
Christianity regarded virginity as woman’s greatest possession. It is
the Christian belief that if a girl dies a virgin, she is more likely to be
blessed in heaven for her purity. In fact, we have innumerable instances where sexual purity has become such a fetish that fathers have
murdered their daughters for fear that they would become polluted by
sex contact.
In some primitive tribes, chastity is regarded as woman’s greatest
virtue. Among the East African Takue, the seducer of a girl generally
pays with his life. The Baziba look on illegitimate intercourse as a
serious offense. If the crime is discovered, both the man and the
woman are bound hand and foot and thrown into the water to drown.
In Dahomey a man who seduces a girl is forced by law to marry her.
In Persia an unmarried girl who gave birth to a child would be killed.
The Karaya, a Brazilian tribe, consider sexual intercourse out of
wedlock a serious offense to be severely punished, sometimes even by
death.ll* The Algerian Berbcrs do not tolerate sexual relations out of
wedlock. In Morocco a bride who is found not to be a virgin is frequently sent away by her husband, and in some tribes she is killed by
her brother. Illegitimate children are generally killed together with
the mother.l19 Among the Hindus, female inconstancy is considered
abominable. Prostitutes are looked on as the most degraded of the
human race. In the Avesta, the religious book of Zoroastrianism, it is
written: “Any woman that has given up her body to two men in one
virgin hand drew the ponderous
ll”Lecky,
Morals,
Vol.
1, p. 44.
117 Ibid.
us Westermarck,
Marriage,
n@ Ibid., p. 155.
Vol.
1, p. 139.
THE
444
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
day is sooner to be killed than a wolf, a lion or a tiger.”
In Greece
the chastity of an unmarried girl is anxiously guarded.l’O
Yet the existence of the hymen is no guarantee of sexual purity.
The ignorant belief that it is has undoubtedly
been the cause of much
unmerited suffering.
A girl may be perfectly chaste and yet have a
ruptured hymen, sometimes without her knowledge, due to a strenuous
athletic life.
THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FIRSTNIGHT
Even where virginity was demanded of the bride, the taboo associated with spilling the first blood in the act of defloration was at times
so strong among certain tribes that it was performed by priests or
others specially appointed for such tasks.
When the Philippine
Islands were discovered, it was found that
virginity in girls was a hindrance to marriage, and that men made it a
profession to deflower girls at the age of puberty.
Among the Todas
of the Nilgiris, in Southern India, a man of strong physique, generally
from another clan, spends one night with a girl for the purpose of
deflowering her just before she matures.
If she waits until after the
signs of her puberty, it is considered a disgrace. The women of Nayar
beg the men to deprive them of their virginity because otherwise they
are unable to secure a husband.
When a young woman of the Queensland tribes shows signs of
puberty, two or three men take her away, and she has to submit to
intercourse with all. After this, she is considered eligible for marriage. ml In our socie t y, this would be condemned as the most vicious
kind of rape and severely punished; but in certain communities
it is
an accepted common occurrence.
Chinese women paid Buddhist priests to deflower their daughters
before marriage.
This was usually done when the girls were from
seven to nine years of age.“”
In Tibet and in Portugal, women gave
their children to strangers to be deflowered.
On the coast of Malabar,
Morats,
Vol. 2, pp. 426, 428-429.
12lIdem, Marriage, Vol. 1, p. 120.
-‘Westermsrc!r,
122Ibid.,
p. 171.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
445
if a girl died with her maidenhood,
some male member of the family
deflowered her before her burial for fear that she would be denied the
benefits of an afterlife.lz3
The king of Tenasserain permitted his bride to be deflowered by a
white man. In fact, it was regarded as a great benefit when it was
performed by a stranger.l””
When a
This taboo takes different forms in different communities.
Nasamonian
marries, says an authority, it is the custom for the bride
to lie with all the guests in turn, and each, when he has had intercourse
with her, gives her some present which he has brought with him. In
the Balearic Isles, the oldest friends lie with the bride first. A similar
custom prevails among the savages of Australia, where the bridegroom
seldom has his bride to himself until two or three nights after the
wedding ceremony.
Briffault suggests that the widespread custom of
giving all male guests at the wedding night the right to kiss the bride,
or dance with her, is merely a symbolic farewell to her days of
freedom,12”
In Morocco the best man is present when the bridegroom has relations with the bride and claims his share of the pleasure.
Other
customs among them are not fit to mention.lzO
The Kamchadal
bridegroom who finds his wife a virgin is greatly
put out. He fears to be the first to have intercourse with her because
of the taboo against spilling blood, and secures the services of the
priest to perform the act.127 In Guatemala, and among the Arawaks,
it was customary for the high priest to spend the first night with the
bride.
The Samorin must not cohabit with his bride until the chief
priest has done so, because the ‘(first fruits” of her nuptials must be
a holy oblation to the god she worships. The priest acts as the god’s
representative.12*
Westermorck,
Mertiagc,
I24 Ibid., p. 205.
lz5Briffault,
The Mothers,
Vol.
3, pp. 223, 227.
128 Westermarck,
Vol.
1, p. 205.
123
Marriage,
p. 344.
IT7 Briffault,
op. cit., p. 316.
128 Westermarck,
Marriage,
Vol.
1, p. 171.
446
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The kings of Uganda and of Calicut demanded virginity of their
brides, but at their own request had them deflowered by proxy, for
fear of the taboo of spilling blood.
The first communion, now performed as a rite of the Catholic
Church, is said to be a survival of the deflowering of a maiden by the
priests in early times .lzD In the Talmud also, we read that the virgin,
before going to her husband, must sleep with the Taphsar.130
It was not until 1642, in Catalonia, that the privilege of the first
night as belonging to the clergy was abolished. Until that time the
priest either enjoyed the first embrace or passed over the peasants in
bed as a symbol of his right.131
The Bishop of Amiens was prevailed on to abolish the custom of
demanding a large sum from the bridegroom for the privilege of having
conjugal relations with his wife for the first three nights.13”
Undoubtedly, the custom which demanded the privileges of the
first night with the peasant’s bride is a survival of the marriage customs of primitive societies in which priests enjoyed this privilege for
many and varied reasons associated with deflowering. When priests
lost power over the people due to the decline of superstition, the
secular rulers usurped, wherever possible, the privileges which the
priests had enjoyed through fears and taboos. As a result of this, the
deflowering of the bride by the lords of the manors continued for some
time, although it occasionally met with serious opposition, and was one
of the contributing
&it
causes of the downfall
of medieval
feudalism.
Le
du Seigneur existed in parts of France until the eve of the French
Revolution.
In ancient Ireland it was not only a king’s right but his duty to
deflower brides before they were handed over to their husbands; and
King Conchobarn is praised in an ancient record for his punctilious
devotion to duty in having destroyed the virginity of every maid in
Ulster. Among the Guanches of the Canaries, it was a matter of
12g Briffault,
op. cit., p. 230.
w” Mantegaua,
131 Lea, History
132 Westermarck,
Sezuul R&~iuns
uf Munkind,
p. 206.
of Sacerdotal
Celibacy,
301.
op. cit., Vol. 1,
178.
p.
p.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
447
considerable anxiety to the bridegroom that the services of a prince of
royal blood should be obtained to deflower his bride, for unless a
prince could be persuaded to bestow this favor on him, his children
would be regarded as bastards and the marriage would be null and
void.133 If the woman became pregnant, her child was considered of
noble heritage. The children born from relations with her husband
were considered commoners.134 When one of the great lords of Goa
married, it was the custom for him to take his bride to the sovereign
and ask him to sleep with her the first three nights.
This custom was widely prevalent throughout medieval as well as
primitive times. Histories of Scotland record that King Evenus III
enacted a law which authorized his successors to lie with every bride
before her husband could approach her. This law remained in force
for more than a thousand years. When the custom was abolished, the
bridegroom
had to pay a tax for the privilege
of the first
night
with
his bride.135
How
are we to judge
the standard
of sexual
acts when
among
certain peoples it was the custom for even fathers to deflower their
daughters?
When a Singhalese gave his daughter in marriage, he first
slept with her himself on the ground that he had a right to the first
fruit of the tree he had planted! 136
PROMISCUITY
Just as there are societies where virginity is demanded as a sign of
purity,
there
are also communities
where
it is of no consideration
in
evaluating a woman.
of
what we consider a moral feeling in relations between the sexes, and
promiscuous
sexual conduct is taken as a matter of course even among
Among
133 Briffault,
134
Ibid
) p
the Point
op. cit.,
Barrow
pp. 230,
Eskimos
231.
731
136 Westermarck,
~6 Ibid., p. 88.
Marriage,
Vol.
1, p. 174.
there is a complete
absence
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
448
children.13? In the Solomon Islands female chastity is practically
unknown, and for two or three years after a girl becomes eligible for
marriage she distributes her sexual favors among all the young men
of the village. Virginity in a bride has little value to the Kamchdales,
and among the Bakongo a woman’s honor is measured by the price
she costs.
Among the Yakuts and the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold
Coast, chastity per se is of no great importance. It is maintained only
because it is the duty of a daughter not to diminish her father’s property value in her. Where there is no expectation of selling her, he is
little concerned with her sexual indulgences.13s In British Central
Africa scarcely any girl remains a virgin after the age of five.13Q Yet,
among many of these same people, a woman who shows her face to a
stranger is condemned as being guilty of adultery. This is considered
the most immoral act she could perform and is often punished by
death.
Among the North American Indians a slightly different rule prevails. Here an unmarried girl may indulge in promiscuous relations
with members of the tribe, but no inducement could tempt her to have
relations
with
an outsider,
particularly
a white
man.
The
Missouri
Indians consider one of the duties of hospitality to provide visitors
with
temporary
wives,
but
these
must
be representatives
of other
nations. At the present day, among the Indians of the Utah reservation,
where
cnmp1et.e promiscuity
exists,
the women
refuse
to have
sexual relations with members of other tribes or with white men. More
severe is the rule of the Caribbean races of the Mosquite Coast. Here
sexual relations among them are unrestricted, but any woman having
relations with one outside the tribe is condemned as an adulteress and
put to death. The Masai, whose organized prenuptial love is notorious,
will beat a woman to death who has sexual intercourse with a European.140 The Munda Kols severely punish a girl who is seduced by a
137 Westermarck, Marriage, p. 136; Vol. 2, pp. 421-424.
188May, Social Control
of S~rud Erfmsrinn, pp. 4, 5.
189Westermarck, Mauriage, Vol. 3, p. 6.5.
140 Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 18, 20.
THE SEVENTH
449
COMMANDMENT
Hindu, whereas intercourse with a man of their own people is regarded
by most of them as a matter of course. Among the Barolongs, death
was formerly inflicted on anyone who had intercourse with a
European.141
Free sexual intercourse prevails among the young of West African
Pang-we, and if the trial proves satisfactory it generally leads to marriage.14” A similar custom, we are told, prevailed in Scotland and was
known as “handfasting.”
At public fairs men would select female
companions, with whom they cohabited. At the end of the year they
would either marry or separate. The same custom, in a slightly
different form, prevailed in Ireland and Wales.148
Among the New Zealand aborigines, a girl’s sexual conduct before
marriage is her own affair. However, after marriage she remains
faithful to her husband. So ingrained is this sentiment of fidelity that
girls who
submit
to strangers
for temporary
entertainment
other men to possess them during that period.
before
marriage
and fidelity
after
marriage
permit
no
Unrestricted license
prevail
also among
the
Land and Sea Dayaks.
Among the Peggy Islanders, cohabitation between unmarried persons is neither a crime nor a disgrace. The girl who has many lovers
is much in demand as a wife; the one who had more experience before
marriage is considered the more faithful after marriage. Marco Polo
noted that in Tibet the more tokens a girl carried around her neck
from her lovers, the more sought after she was as a wife. The Brames
reckon it a special merit if their wives are noted for their numerous
lovers.144
In certain parts of British East Africa a pregnant girl is considered
more desirable for marriage, and among the Bagas-Foreh, in French
Guinea, a young woman cannot hope to find a husband unless she has
141 Westermarck, Marriage, Vol. 2, p. 40. The Biblical Hebrew
to marry outside the tribe on pain of death.
142 Ihid., Vol. 1, p. 135.
143
Ibid.
144Briffault,
op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 316.
was also forbidden
450
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
two children old enough to walk.14” They regard a girl who is still a
virgin as having no desirable qualities that attratt a man.
In Runiana it is desirable for a young woman to cohabit with as
many men as possible within a short time.
The Hawaiians regard it
as a meanness for a man or woman to refuse a solicitation
for sexual
gratification.
The young girls of Madison’s Island, of the Marquesas,
are the wives of all who can purchase their favors, and a handsome
daughter is considered a blessing by her parents because she brings
them wealth.146
Among certain tribes sexual conduct is a matter of indifference.
They look upon the sex act as of no more significance than any other
physical function.
MODESTY
In primitive customs, especially in the realm of sexual morality,
it
The years can be
is discovered that even modesty is of recent origin.
counted since the time that the genital organs were covered from the
gaze of the opposite sex.
Among the Negritos of the Andaman Islands, copulation
takes
place anywhere, in the presence of men, women or children.
The
Fuegians have no inhibitions
against performing
the sexual act in
public.
In Tahiti, copulation used to take place in public, and it was
stated that the ladies of the court watched with complete unconcern.
It is said that such scenes are quite frequent among the Maori even
today. The Indians of New Mexico cohabit in public.
The Botocudos
are perfectly indifferent to the presence of relatives or friends when
performing
the sex act.14?
In many savage tribes where there are no taboos associated with
sex, the sexual act is considered an amusing sport when indulged in
by children.
Like their elders, they give presents before hiding themselves in the bushes and imitating
them in copulation.148
1~ Westermarck, Marriage, Vol. 1, p. 161.
146 Ibid..
‘P. 136.
I*7 Briffault, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 316.
14sB. Malinowski, Semal Life of Savages, Vol. 1, p. 56.
0
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
451
Among the Bantu Kavirondo,
the bridegroom
performs the first
act of intercourse with his bride in the presence of women and girls;
and among the Lower Congo people, the act is witnessed to see that
the husband is potent.
If he is unable to consummate
the act, the
marriage is dissolved.14g
In Sweden and Teutonic
countries, until
quite recent times, the bride and bridegroom
undressed before the
guests and went to bed in their presence before they would depart.lsO
SEXUAL HOSPITALITY
There exists also in primitive societies what has been called “hospitality prostitution.”
Among the Kacoodja,
a man going away for
some time hands his wife over to a friend, who is entitled to cohabit
with her. A guest of the Assains (an Arab tribe living in the south of
Kortium)
is given a house and a woman for the time that he remains
with the tribe.
Among certain tribes it is considered the height of
courtesy for the chief of the tribe to offer his wife to strangers as a
gesture of good wi11.151
The Sioux Indians, in order to show friendship to those they love,
offer their wives to them.
To refuse is an insult.
But if the friend
should seek the wife on another occasion without the husband’s consent, he would be killed.
Other tribes do likewise.
The choicest
females are offered as a mark of gracious hospitality
to strangers, but
none dare take a woman without previous consent.152
Among the Maori it ~10
LJ a point of hospitality,
when a strange
chief of high rank paid a, visit, for the host to send his guest a temporary wife or wives. In British Columbia, the temporary gift of a wife
is one of the greatest honors that can be bestowed upon a guest. The
Eskimos also considered it an act of generous hospitality.153
In
Melanesia, a husband may offer his wife to a friend as an expression
149Westermarck, Martiage, Vol. 2, p. 436.
m Ibid., p. 437.
1~1Malinnwski.
op.
cit.,
p.
323.
162Briffault, op. cit., pp. 103, 107.
X53Westermarck, Mawiuge, Vol. 1, p. 227.
45’2
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of hospitality.
The Koryaks consider it the height of affrontery if a
friend refuses to share his wife or daughter.
In Madagascar,
a missionary barely escaped being murdered because he refused to accept
the wife of one of his native acquaintances.
It was considered the
greatest of insults.164
Among the Bakunta, on the shores of Lake Edward, a woman after
marriage was expected to admit any of her husband.‘s friends to her
favors. It is the source of great pride to rich men, who possess many
wives, to entertain numerous guests of their clan and provide each one
with a separate hut and a wife.
GROUP
MARRIAGE
Among the Gilyak, the younger brother is permitted
during the
husband’s absence to have sexual relations with his wife.15” The same
is true in Eastern Tibet and Sikkim.
Among other tribes, the
brothers, each in turn, enjoy the wife of the eldest, and in many instances the wife selects those who are to cohabit with her.lso
Sometimes, when a woman is married to one man and desires another, she
is permitted the embrace of both.15’
The Negroes of Angola exchanged wives to break the monotony
of lift.
The Eskimos of Fury and Kekla Straits, when on a fishing or
sealing excursion for any length of time, often exchange wives as a
matter of friendly convenience.158
When two tribal brothers of the Darling tribes of New South
Wales have quarreled and wish a reconciliation,
one sends his wife to
the other’s camp and a temporary exchange is effected.15*
Among the Eskimos of Bering Straits it is quite common for two
men in near-by villages to agree to become bond-fellows.
This permits
lo* Rriffault, op cit., Vol. 1, p. bJb.
155 Westermarck, Marriage, Vol. 3, p. 110.
lh@Ibid.,
p. 119.
*fir Ibid.,
p. 148.
168 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 232.
169 Ibid.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
453
them the use of each other’s wives. It is said that when this agreement prevails, the children, unable to know who their father is, consider one another brothers and sisters. In Repulse Bay it is the usual
thing for friends to exchange wives for a week or two. Very often
wives are so exchanged that each woman goes from man to man until
she has passed through the hands of all.lOO In the Malay Peninsula,
during the rice harvest, the men of the Jakun tribes exchange wives.1s1
Even today in our own country one often hears of men exchanging
wives while away together on vacations.
FIDELITY
AND
UNFAITHFULNESS
In some societies conjugal fidelity applies only to the woman.
There are, however, some primitive tribes not blessed with the divine
knowledge of the Decalogue who prove interesting exceptions to this
rule. Not only do we find that the husband and wife are loyal and
faithful to each other, but both are equally punished for disloyalty.
The Igorots of Luzon are so strictly monogamous that if either
husband or wife were guilty of sexual indiscretion, the guilty one could
be compelled to leave the hut forever. Adultery is practically unknown
among the Abipones.lG3
Among the Sakai, punishment for adultery is denth.la3 Although
sexual freedom is prevalent before marriage among the Semangs, a
high degree of faithfulness is observed by both partners after marriage, and seldom does a married man have relations with another
man’s wife.164
The Maori execute a woman who has committed adultery. Similar
punishment prevails among the Caribs. In Tahiti, the wife guilty of
adultery must die. Among many North American tribes, the punishment for a woman guilty of adultery consisted in cutting her hair-a
le0
161
182
leS
m
Briffault,
The Mothers,
Vol. 3, p. 197.
Ibid.
Westermarck,
Morals,
Vol. 2, pp. GO, 652.
Idem, Marriage,
Vol. 1, p. 121.
Ibid., p. 122.
454
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
frightful disgrace in itself-or amputating the ears, lips or nose, and
sometimes a beating. The punishment prevailing in Mexico for the
woman guilty of committing adultery is death by stoning. Married
women in ancient Peru who were found to be unfaithful were killed.
A similar rule prevailed among certain tribes in Brazil.
At Cumae, in the Campagna, the adulterous woman was stripped
and exposed to the insults of the crowd, after which she was ridden
on an ass through the city and remained dishonored forever after.
INCEST
Although to people today nothing is more abhorrent than incestuous
relations between members of the same family, yet if such relationships prevailed as a marriage institution, it is certainly within the
province of this study to mention incest in conjunction with this Commandment. Incestuous unions were far more common than most
people imagine and are not uncommon even today.
Until the middle of the last century in France, some fathers lived
in concubinage with their daughters. Lugaid, the supreme king of
Ireland, married his mother, and a king of Leinster had his two sisters
as wives. It is stated that the Pharaohs and Ptolemies married their
sisters.le5 This gave rise to the expression that “princes and dogs
know no relationship.”
Sarah was Abraham’s half sister, and did not Lot commit incest
with
his daughters?
The Caribs have no prohibition against sons marrying their mothers
marrying
their daughters.
Among the Piojes of Ecuador, a
widow often takes her son to replace the deceased husband, and a
widower his daughter on the death of his first wife.166
Among the Eastern Tinne of North America, many instances are
recorded of marriages between brothers and sisters, fathers and
daughters, and mothers and sons. The Southern Indians of the Tinne
stock gave their daughters to their sons after they have cohabited
166 Westermarck, kfurriuge, Vol. 2, p. 91.
leeIbid., pp. 82, 83.
or fathers
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
455
with them. Among the Banyoro of Central Africa, men marry their
sisters and daughters. In the harem of King Warus, there were found
not only his sisters and nieces, but his own daughters.
In the Marshall Islands, as well as among tribes of the Solomon
Group, incestuous unions have not been infrequent, and the Kalangs
believe that if a mother and son live together, it will lead to prosperity
and riches. Among numerous small, isolated tribes, brothers and
sisters marry.ls7
In any discussion of morality, incest deserves as serious consideration as adultery. Why did not this Commandment prohibit incest as
well, since it is more reprehensible biologically and morally than the
other?
A
PROVINCIAL
TABOO
The different forms of mating which prevail throughout the world
are as varied as are other forms of conduct. While monogamy is the
strict rule in one place, polygamy is the standard in another, and
polyandry the custom in still another.lG8 While some communities
make marriage a lifetime institution, in other places men can divorce
their wives with no more difficulty than writing “a bill of divorcement.” Some do not consider marriage of any more concern than
eating or plowing together, while others look upon it as a “divine”
indissoluble institution. Prostitution or promiscuous sexual relations
prevail in nearly all communities and among all tribes, but whereas
promiscuity is the rule in some places, it is the exception in others.
Whereas adultery is condemned with death in one community, it is
looked upon with indifference in another, while still another community
regards it as sport for the pleasurable outlet of a complicated and
mysterious physical function. In one place the wife of a man is
jealously guarded with his life, while in another place it would be considered the greatest insult if you refused his wife as your bedfellow
I61Westermarck,
d4arriage,Vol.
2, DP. 84-88.
~8 These marriage institutions were and are too widespread and too well known for
me to give detailed examples of their prevalence. Cf. Westermarck, History of Marriage.
456
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
while you were a guest. While the mores of one community
consider
virginity
a woman’s most valuable possession, in another community
no value whatsoever is placed on chastity, and in some communities
In one place an unmarried girl
it is actually considered a detriment.
is free to indulge sexually with as many men as she desires, but
once married she belongs exclusively to her husband; in another place
all members of the tribe may enjoy the sexual pleasure of another’s
wife, although while unmarried
it was incumbent
upon her to be
chaste. In certain places women are as cheap as vegetables, yet it
would provoke bitter condemnation
if one of the women had sexual
intercourse with a man outside the tribe.
In one community,
copulation
may take place only at certain
times of the month or year; in another, in the secrecy of a dark
corner; in yet another, in the open fields at planting time; and in
still other communities,
without regard to time or place.
As society advances, as the rights of woman become more established, as her status as a chattel diminishes,
the whole tenor of
woman’s sexual behavior is regarded in an altogether different light.
Certainly no woman will be stoned to death in a civilized society for
an act of unfaithfulness.
Today adultel-y is sometimes committed
as
a means of emancipation.
Court records abundantly
prove that
many women commit adultery in order to furnish evidence to secure
a divorce from perpetual slavery in an unhappy marriage.
In New
(It
York State alone, adultery is the only legal ground for divorce.
is a primary ground in all other States except South Carolina, which
grants no divorces on any ground.)
In view of the great variety of sexual customs through which
man has passed, and the great divergencies of sexual acts he has
experienced in his process of moral evolution, it becomes increasingly
curious as to why such a Commandment
as “Thou shalt not commit
adultery” was made one of the important
parts of the Decalogue.
The failure of this Commandment
to specify all the sexual acts
contrary both to nature and to the welfare of society is a matter
It gives rise to the thought that there must have
of serious omission.
THE
SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
457
been some particular
reason why only adultery was mentioned
and
why all the sex acts definitely
antisocial and detrimental
to the individual
and to society alike were left unmentioned.
There was
a definite reason why abnormal sex manifestations
were not included
in this Commandment,
and there was a very definite purpose for the
specific mention of adultery only.
This Commandment
was no more intended to guard the sanctity of
the home, OY to serve as a rule for the purity of sexual conduct, than
were the previous ones formulated
for the purposes for which they
are mistakenly
taken to apply today.
The ethics of personal sexual conduct up to the time of the Biblical
Hebrews had not yet evolved universally to that state of morality which
condemned adultery as an act of moral misbehavior.
It was still associated with sinful implications.
This Commandment was a prohibitkon
It was a
TABOO
the Decalocuf:
based upon sympathetic
for
the same wason
not founded on morality.
magic.
It became part
of
as the previous ones.
A precept claiming infallibility
should certainly possess the universality of the law of gravitation
and the perfection of the arithmetical table.
If it fails to possess these undeviating
qualities, its
imperfection
is self-evident
and its value either greatly diminished
or useless. The evidence presented here raises the question as to
whether a rule governing sexual conduct can be dogmatically
applied
to all people of the earth, in all communities,
under all circumstances
and conditions, at the same time. The facts we have already adduced
prove the utter impossibiliLy
of such a rule. The conclusion is inevitable that this Commandment
was a provincial precept for a particular tribe of people, and was never intended to be an infallible
moral guide in the realm of sexual behavior.
And so we ask: Is adultery a sin? Or is it a violation of a ccrtain standard of sexual conduct?
Or is it a wrong perpetrated by one
partner on another?
Or is it merely an act of unfaithfulness?
We
shall find the answer in the superstitious
beliefs which prevailed
among primitive
tribes of the cultural level of the Biblical Hebrews.
458
ADULTERY
THE
TEN
AS A TABOO
COMMANDMENTS
BASED
ON SYMPATHETIC
MAGIC
As the Sixth Commandment
was a taboo against shedding blood
because of the fear of blood pollution,
so we find this Commandment
to be a taboo against the adulterous act based on sympathetic
magic
because of the fear of its detrimental
influence on the pursuits of the
husband.
Beyond that, the authors of this Commandment
did not
have the slightest knowledge or understanding
of proper sexual conduct, according to our present-day standards.
In the section headed “The Second Tables of Stone and a Forgotten Set of Commandments,”
I68 we mentioned
that the Tenth
Commandment
of that earlier Decalogue, “Thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother’s milk,”
would reveal the secret of the origin and
meaning of the present Ten Commandments,
and the fundamental
basis of the religion of the Biblical Hebrews.
We now come to that
important
matter.
We emphatically
state that the Commandment,
“Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,”
and the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,”
are fundamentally
the
same: both originated in the belief in sympathetic
magic, which accounts for their inclusion in both Decalogues of the tribal Israelites.
The Commandment,
“Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s
milk,” offers indisputable
evidence that morality was not the governing
motive for these Commandments-for
what moral qualities are there
in refraining from mixing meat and milk?
There was an altogether
different reason for such a prohibition,
and its presence in the Decalogue, as taught today, only emphasizes the persistence of a superstition long after its origin has been lost and the uselessness of its
continuance
demonstrated.
Despite its elimination
from the currently accepted Decalogue, this Commandment
is still regarded by
orthodo’x Hebrews as one of the most important
of their ritual observances, and has been handed down from generation to generation.
Why were the Biblical Hebrews so much concerned about “seething a kid in its mother’s milk” as to make it one of the Commandlo9 Page 48.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
459
ments of the earlier Decalogues? Because it was the belief in sympathetic magic that if a calf was boiled in its mother’s milk it would
cause the cow’s udder to dry up and develop a disease which would
impair her usefulness and destroy her value as a means of subsistence.
Since they did not understand the nature and cause of disease, they
based their beliefs on superstitions with magical associations. The
deceptive forces and manifestations of nature are constantly leading
man into devious and false paths. If we are still subject to such delusions, one can understand the pitiful mental subjection which prevailed in primitive times. It was one of these delusive beliefs that
led to the taboo of drinking milk and eating meat during the same
meal.lgO
The Hebrews were not the only primitive tribe that observed this
superstitious belief in sympathetic magic. Its prevalence among other
primitive tribes that had no contact with the Hebrews is proof that
it did not originate with them but was current among peoples of the
same cultural level ‘as the Israelites. A like belief prevails among
the primitive Banyoro tribes. They do not permit milk to be put in
an iron or metal vessel for fear that “it would be injurious to the
cattle.” The Washamba of East Africa never drink milk and eat
1’0 Yet the Hebrews today who still fanatically observe this edict provide themselves
with two sets of dishes, one for meat, and one for food prepared with milk or milk
products. They are designated by the words flesh&z for the meat service and milkach
for the dairy meal. No more grievous sin could be committed by the pious Hebrew
than to mix his two sets of dishes. Among the stricter observers, if a plate or dish
once used for meat should, through error or by accident, be used for milk or a food
made from milk, or vice versa, the plate is broken so that it cannot be used again.
Nor does this avoidance of any connection between milk and meat confine itselt to
dishes only. There must be two sets of cooking utensils, two sets of cutlery, and two
sets of linen. If circumstances do not permit two sets of linen, the cloth must be thoroughly washed between meals. Even the stomach is not exempt. If one has eaten meat
at one meal, he must wait at least six hours before he may partake of food made with
milk; when milk has been drunk, four hours must elapse before the person may consume meat ! The observance of this Commandment is a test of the purity of a Hebrew ;
his failure to observe it is condemned as apostasy. He becomes imbued with the
spirit of impurity and is cast out of the realm of divine holiness. (Jewish Encyclofiedia,
Vol. 4, p, 598.) A violation of this religious rule is about the nearest thing to a mortal
sin that an orthodox Hebrew could possibly commit. However, this superstitious custom is being rapidly discarded by modern people of the Jewish faith.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
460
meat at the same meal; they believe that doing this would cause the
death of the cow from which the milk was obtained. Among the
Masai, who never allow milk to be boiled, it is considered a great
offense to drink milk and eat meat at the same time; so for ten days
the Masai lives exclusively on milk and for ten days exclusively on
meat. So great is the aversion to bringing the two foods together
that they take a strong emetic before changing from one food to the
other.
Among the pastoral tribes in Africa at the present day, there is a
deeply rooted aversion to boiling milk, based on the belief that a
cow whose milk is boiled will yield no more milk and may die as a
result. Cow’s milk and butter form a large part of the diet of the
Mohammedans of Sierra Leone, and therefore they never boil milk
for fear of causing the cow to become dry. Nor will they sell their
milk to those who boil it. The same belief, based on sympathetic
magic, prevails among the Bolloms, who refuse to sell their oranges
to those who throw the skins into the fire, “lest it occasion the unripe
fruit to fall off.”
The belief in sympathetic magic is so powerful among some tribes
of Africans that they believe their cattle will become ill if women milk
them; because women are subject to monthly “sickness,” the cattle
will likewise
be affected.171
The Mohammedans of Morocco believe that milk drawn from the
COW retains such vital
connection
with the animal that any injury
done to the milk will be sympathetically felt by the cow. Milk is
never boiled by them in the same pot in which it has been drawn
from the cow. They also believe that if milk boils over, the cow will
have a diseased udder.
The Masai of East Africa, a pastoral tribe depending for their
sustenance on their herds of cattle, consider boiling milk a heinous
offense, because it would cause their cattle to cease giving milk. The
same belief prevails among the Baganda of Central Africa.172 The
1T1Westermarck,Morals, p. 636.
lT2Frazer,Fotklore in the Old Testament,
pp. 365,
366.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
461
Bahima of Central Africa are so obsessed with this superstition that
they believe the heat used in boiling the milk will dry up the cow’s
udder. They tell stories of how certain cows refuse to give milk because their milk has been boiled.
They also believe that if a European puts milk in his tea, it will kill the cow which gave the milk.
Among the Somali of East Africa, who are dependent on the camel
for their sustenance, “camel’s milk is never heated for fear of bewitching the animal.” The same belief in sympathetic magic prevails
among the Eskimos. During the salmon fishery, no water must be
boiled in the house, because “it is bad for the fisher.”
The Damaras or Herero of Southwestern Africa, who are dependent on the cow for food, never cleanse the milk vessels out of which
they drink or eat for fear the cow will cease to give milk. They believe that by washing out the remains of the milk from the pot, the
rnw’s
m-?th-s
will
~lnn he rlrsiner1.173
But what connection, it might be asked, is there between the
Commandment, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,”
and the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? Both
Commandments
are founded
on the same superstitious
belief and are
identical in intent and purpose.
The same sympathetic connection that was supposed to exist between the cow and her milk was believed to prevail between husband
and wife; disloyalty on the part of one would affect the welfare of
the other.
Under
this superstitiion,
it was believed
that the unf&thfuiness of the wife would prove injurious to the husband’s welfare,
and adultery
therefore
became a taboo;
hence, the inclusion of a pro-
hibition against it in the Decalogue.
Just as we found parallel beliefs among primitive tribes similar
to the Hebrews who observed the taboos regarding the mixing of meat
and milk, so we find them regarding the evil results to the husband
and the clan if the wife were to be guilty of unfaithfulness.
Many of the indigenous tribes of the Sarawak are firmly persuaded that were the wives to commit adultery while their husbands
1~ Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, p. 369.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
462
were searching for camphor in the jungle, the camphor obtained by
the men would evaporate.
When a Borneo Dyak is out head-hunting, his wife must wear a
sword
day and night
in order
that he may always
think
of his weap-
ons, and she must not sleep during the day or go to bed before early
morning lest her husband be surprised in his sleep by an enemy. In
Madagascar, it is the belief that when the husband is at war, he will
be wounded or killed if his wife should be having an intrigue with
another man in his absence.
Elephant hunters in East Africa believe that if their wives prove
unfaithful in their absence, this gives the elephant power over his
pursuer, who will accordingly be killed or severely wounded. Hence,
if a hunter hears of his wife’s misconduct, he abandons the chase and
returns home. If a Wagogo hunter is unsuccessful or is attacked by
a lion, he attributes
it to his wife’s
misbehavior
at home and returns
in great wrath. While he is away hunting, she must not let anyone
pass behind her or stand in front of her as she sits; and she must lie
on her face in bed! 174 The Moxos Indians of Bolivia thought that
if a hunter’s wife were unfaithful to him in his absence, he would be
bitten by a serpent or a jaguar. Accordingly, if such an accident happened to him, it was sure to entail the punishment, and often the
death, of the woman, whether she was actually guilty or innocent. An
Aleutian hunter of sea otters thinks that he cannot kill a single animal
if during
his absence
from
home his wife
is unfaithful
01 his sister
unchaste.176
The Wayao and Mang’anja
tribes of Lake Nyassa
believe that
the food prepared by an unfaithful wife will poison the husband who
eats it. The Ashanti believed that they would cease to be prolific if
adultery existed among them. Various Negro tribes attribute drought
and famine to the adulterous acts of their wives.176
If the husband commits adultery while the wife is pregnant, the
1’4 The superstition still exists today that, if a person passes between two others, one
of the two will lose a friend or have bad luck.
lT5Frazer, The Golden Bough, pp. 21, 23.
1~ Geoffrey May, Social Control
of SexualEx#ression,
p. 9.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
463
Bahuana believes that it will have a fatal influence on the child.17’
The Southern Bambala in the Congo maintain that adultery is generally the cause of the death of infants. The Thong in Southeastern
Africa
fear
terrible
complications
at the birth
of a child
born
of
an adulterous union. If a woman suffered extreme labor and difficulty in giving birth to a child, it was proof, according to the general
belief, that the child was not legitimate.17s
Even in other phases of the sexual realm, sympathetic magic has
its definite influence. In British East Africa it is strictly forbidden
to have sexual relations while cattle are at pasture for fear that the
act would have a deleterious effect on the cattle.170 It is also believed that if a man cohabits while he is away on a journey, ill luck
will come to the village. I80 In New Caledonia, both before and after
planting, cohabitation is forbidden.
In primitive
times,
and among some tribes
today,
only
unmarried
men were sent to battle. It was the belief that married men had
become weakened by their close relationship with women. If the
unmarried men had had sexual relations, they had to be “purified”
before going to battle. This took many forms. Some were not allowed to eat food cooked by women. Others must not use weapons
women had touched. In Noessa Laut, it is the belief that those who
remain continent are invulnerable in war.
The Wagiriami of British East Africa believe that if men cohabit
with their wives during wartime they will be unable to kill their ene-
mies, and that if they receive a trifling wound it will prove fatal.
Others belicvc that their eyesight will be impaired and they will not
be able to shoot properly.1s1 This taboo evidently prevented Uriah
from visiting Rathshehs, when he was recalled by David before being
sent to the forefront of the battle to die so that David could commit
adultery with his wife.
1” Westermarck, Marriage, Vol. 3, p. 6i’.
ITsIbid.,
Vol. 1, p. 317.
17QFrazer, The Golden Bough, pp. 19-25.
~0 Westermarck, Mods,
Vol. 1, pp. 477, 4%.
181 Crawley, The Mystic
Rose, Vol. 1, pp. 68, 71.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
464
Among the Nagas of Maniour, when the men are in special danger,
they must refrain from sexual intercourse; and also when they set
out or return from a raid. The Sia of New Mexico are continent four
days before going hunting. The Huichols of Mexico must abstain
from sexual relations when engaged on a hunting trip. They believe
that if a snare is put up by a man in love, the animal will not be
caught.
As far as the Decalogue is concerned, it would not have made the
slightest difference, from the point of view of morality, if the listing
of these two Commandments had been reversed, since the reason for
the inclusion of the one is identical with the reason for the presence
of the other. If the Tenth Commandment of the “forgotten set” of
Commandments, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk,”
were the seventh in the present Decalogue, and the Seventh Commandment as we know it, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” were the tenth
in the forgotten set of Commandments, the only difference would
be that instead of talking about adultery, we would be practising
the primitive superstitious custom of not mixing meat and milk at the
same meal1 Christians would in all probability be using two sets of
dishes like Orthodox Hebrews, and the clergy would not have an excuse to refer to the Seventh Commandment as the one they “rarely
mention.” They would be shouting that “Thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother’s milk” was a God-given command and would portend disastrous results, such as the breakdown of all morality, law
and civilization, and the widespread prevalence of crime, as the mnsequence of its violation. They would also contend, as they now do
with the taboos of the other Commandments, that the violation of
this one would provoke the Bible Deity to vent his anger on the
people, and that they would suffer the consequences for committing
so dire a sin as mixing meat and milk at the same meal. For it is
the law of all religions that “he who truly fears God will observe his
laws without inquiry into the reasons for them.” la2
la* Jewish
Encyctopedia,
Vol.
5, p. 598.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
465
One thing is certain: if this prohibition of mixing meat and milk
were the Seventh Commandment of the present Decalogue, this taboo
would be observed with greater fidelity than the one mentioned at
the beginning of this chapter.
ADDITIONAL
PATHETIC
EVIDENCE OF THE PREVALENCE OF SYMMAGIC AMONG THE BIBLICAL HEBREWS
Not only was the belief in sympathetic magic deeply rooted in
primitive Hebrew thought, but the use of magical formulas based on
this belief became an integral part of their daily lives.
There is abundant Biblical evidence for the superstitious belief in
magic; we need but mention the following instance recorded in Genesis of the bargaining between Jacob and his father-in-law, Laban, as
to the compensation Jacob should receive for his years of labor. It
was decided that Laban give him cattle and goats. The division of
the cattle was to be determined by the number of “brown among the
sheep” and the “speckled and spotted among the goats.” To increase
one over the other, this was the method Jacob used. I quote Genesis,
Chapter
30, verses
37 tu 41:
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar,
and of the hazel and chestnut
white
streaks
in them, and
tree:
made
and pilled
the white
appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled
before the flocks in the gutters in the watering
troughs when the flocks came to drink, that
they should conceive when they came to drink.
39
And
the flocks
conccivcd
bcforc
the rods,
and brought
forth
cattle ring-streaked,
speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and
set the faces of the flocks toward
the ringstreaked, and all the brown in the flock of
Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban’s cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the
stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid
the rods
before
the eyes
of the cattle
in the
gutters, that they might conceive among the
rods.
466
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
All so simple! It is regrettable that Gregor Mendel, the geneticist,
spent so many years in scientific research to determine the law of
inherited characteristics, when all he had to do was to consult his
Bible for this great biological secret!
As a result of this Bible story which is based on the belief in sympathetic magic, there arose the superstition that if a child is born
with a birthmark, it is because the mother, while pregnant, saw some
object resembling the mark on the child. For instance, if a child is
born with a long, discolored mark, it is explained that the mother
was frightened by a mouse; if a small red mark appears on the child’s
body, it is explained that the mother had seen or eaten a strawberry.
No matter what “mark” the child bore, the superstitious found an
explanation for it in some object which a lively imagination considered
it resembled, even though the mother might never have seen such an
object during her period of gestation. What about the countless
mothers who pass through frightful experiences, yet whose children
are born without the slightest blemish?
Also from this primitive belief has grown the superstition that a
prospective mother who desires to have a beautiful child should look
intently at a beautiful object! That this has been the cause of much
mental agony is only too well known. Fortunately, however, educated people today no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible
or in the influence of the mother’s impressions on the unborn. But
there are still many who believe in these superstitions, as reported
by Dr. H. F. Kilander, Dean of the Panzer, New Jersey, College of
Physical Education and Hygiene, who made a three-year survey. He
said: “Forty per cent of the students and adults felt that a prospective mother
could make her child more musical
if she listened
to good
music. About the same number believed ‘various marks of disfiguration on the newborn
child are due to fright of the mother during
pregnancy.’ “ls3
Among some orthodox
Hebrews,
as soon as a woman begins to
198New
York
Times,
May
5, 1939.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
467
have labor pains, all the female inmates of the house loosen their
hair, believing that it will loosen the child and facilitate its birth.
Among Polish Jews, as a help in easing birth, all knots in the women’s
clothing are untied.ls4 On the cradle of an infant, in Biblical days,
the Children of Israel hung bells and other amulets to guard the
child against demons. Rocking an empty cradle is forbidden in the
belief that a child in the house will die and the cradle indeed will be
empty. When the birth of a child is expected, nothing is permitted
to be taken out of the house for fear that the child will die and be
taken out of the house. If an infant laughs in its sleep, you must
lightly tap its lips, as it is supposed to be playing with the angel
of death.l*”
If someone steps over a child or it walks between the legs of
another person, it will cause its growth to be stunted, is another belief .ls6
The influence of sympathetic magic still prevails in the observance
of Rosh Hashonah, the Jewish New Year, by the orthodox Hebrew.
During the ritual ceremony, honey is set on the table and bread is
dipped in it, while the head of the house pronounces the words:
“May it be His will that this year be a sweet one.” The special
loaves of white bread and the manner in which they are baked is additional evidence of this influence. The bread is formed round and
smooth as a symbol of the desire that the New Year be likewise round
and smooth.1S7
Even at the present time the superstitious custom of the Tashlich,
the “casting
vff” uf sins, is observed
by the extremely
orthodox.
is the ceremony performed by the entire congregation:
afternoon
services
on the first
day of Rosh
Hashonah
This
When the
are over,
the
worshipers go to the edge of the river or any other body of flowing
water
and recite
the following
ritual:
184 Jewish Etuyclopedia, Vol. 4, pp. 29-31.
18s Hastings, Encycloptzdia, Vol. 2, p. 658.
1~ Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 4, pp. 29-31.
ls7Idelsohn, Ceremonies of Judaism, p. 16.
“May
God csst
our sins
into
468
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the depths of the sea.” The men then shake the ends. of their coat
sleeves as though brushing off their sins.188
Another instance of sympathetic magic is the custom of “Kapporos.” This ritual first consisted in killing a lamb, but a chicken is
now used instead. Each person could lay his sins on the head of
the fowl by swinging the chicken above his head three times and reciting: “The chicken is my substitute and my ransom, and shall be
killed that I may survive for a long and peaceful life.” White chickens are preferably used because white symbolizes purity and innocence! 18s Women select hens and men select roosters in this idiotic
ceremony.
Another ceremony performed by the orthodox based on the belief
in sympathetic magic deals with the scapegoat and takes place during
the observance of the Day of Atonement, “Yom Kippur.” In Biblical
times the Jewish high priest laid both hands on the head of a live
goat, confessed over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel,
and, having thereby transferred the sins of the people to the beast,
sent it away into the wilderness.lso For the Biblical passage and
authority dealing with this superstitious practice, I quote Leviticus,
Chapter
16, verses
21 and
22:
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon
the head of the live goat, and confess over
him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions in all their sins,
putting them upon the head of the goat, and
shall
send lcim away Ly the hand of a fit
man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their
iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he
shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
The idea of the scapegoat as a means of protection comes from the
savage belief that as actual burdens can be shifted from one back
to another, pains and sorrows as well as sins can also be shifted! lo1
**sIdelsohn, Ceremonies of Judaism, p. 17.
lss Ibid., p. 18.
laoInnumerable
such observances based on sympathetic magic exist in the Catholic
ritual.
191 Frazer, op. cit., p. 1.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
469
The early Christians, in performing an identically similar ceremony, used as a scapegoat the sacrificial lamb. That is why in its
early days the symbol of Christianity was a lamb. Today, however,
Christians
celebrate this ceremony
on Ascension Day to commemorate the ascent of the supercolossal scapegoat in the figure of Jesus
Christ, who is supposed to have died for the sins of all mankind1 The
Brahmans transfer the sins of their people to sacred ~0~s.~~~ How
far removed are the Hebrews, the Christians and the Brahmans from
the Matse Negroes of Togoland, who think that the river Awo has
the power to carry away the sins and sorrows of all the people? lo3
COMPLEMENTARY
EXAMPLES
OF SYMPATHETIC
MAGIC
The belief in sympathetic magic was so widespread among primitive peoples that it influenced nearly all phases of their conduct. A
few illustrations will show the prevalence of this belief, its domination
over the minds of primitive peoples, and its persistence even in our
own times.
Some of us may remember
from childhood
days
11~~ when
zt but-
ton was to be sewed on a garment being worn, we were told to chew
a piece of thread
would
magic
while
the button
also be sewed up.
evidently
survives
was being
attnchcd,
or our brains
This particular superstition in sympathetic
from
the belief
still
prevalent
among
the
Saghalien. A pregnant woman may not spin or twist ropes for two
months before her delivery because they think that if she did so, the
child’s intestines might become entangled like a thread. It is still a
Hebrew superstition that a pregnant woman should not step over a
rope or the umbilical cord will twine around the child’s neck and
strangle it.
In Saibai, one of the islands of the Torres Straits, it is the custom for a woman who wants a male child to press a fruit resembling
IQQFrazer, The Golden
lQ3Zbid.,
p. 3.
Bough,
The
Scapegoat,
p. 216.
470
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the male organ of generation to her abdomen, and then pass it to
another woman who has borne only boys.lQ4
The Galeareese think that spitting on a pebble establishes a homeopathic connection between them and the pebble which will make
their teeth as hard and durable as stone. On the other hand, a
child’s hair should not be combed before it has teethed, or its teeth
will be separated from each other like those of a comb.
Children should not look into sieves, or they will suffer from a
skin disease and will have as many sores on their bodies as there
are holes in the sieve,. In Samarkand, women give a baby sugar
candy to suck, and put glue in the palm of its hand, in order that
when the child grows up his words may be sweet, and that precious
things may stick to its hands as if they were glued.lQ6
The animistic superstition that the soul of an animal becomes absorbed by the person who eats its flesh is also current in nearly all
primitive tribes. Many of the food prejudices of savage tribes derive
from this conviction. It accounts for the Biblical Hebrew’s proscription against eating the flesh of a pig or hog. It was believed
that the one who
ate the flesh of the pig would
acquire
his charac-
teristics. The Tyrolese wears the tuft of the eagle’s down in his hat,
believing
that it will
give him the eagle’s keen sight
and courage.
Among the Dyaks, young men abstain from eating the flesh of deer
for fear that it will make them shy and timid,
and before
a pig hunt,
they avoid oil lest the game should slip through their fingers. The
warriors of South America avoid eating the flesh of slow-moving and
cowardly animals, while they feast on the meat of tigers, stags and
boars to give them courage and speed. The story is told of an English merchant in Shanghai who, at the time of the Taeping attack,
found that his Chinese servant had brought home a human heart.
The Englishman asked him what he was going to do with it. The
ls+Frazer, The Magic Art, p. 7.2.
196 Idem, Tke Golden Bough, Vol. 1, p. 159. The similarity
stitious beliefs prevalent today is obvious.
between this and super-
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
471
servant replied that it was the heart of a rebel which he intended to
eat in order to gain courage.leB
When a Maori war party is about to start, the priests set up sticks
in the ground to represent the warriors, and he whose stick is blown
down is sure to fall in battle.la7
In New Zealand, when a male child has been baptized in the native manner and has received its name, small pebbles the size of a
large pinhead are thrust down his throat to make his heart callous,
hard and incapable of pity.
Round the neck of a Basuto child in South Africa is hung a kite’s
foot to give swiftness, a lion’s paw for security, or an iron ring to
give it iron resistance.
The American Indian hunter wears as ornaments the claws of the
grizzly bear that he may be endowed with its courage and ferocity.le8
When
the natives
of Australia
give a dance,
they
make
a grass
figure of a kangaroo. This is believed to give them the power of
the real kangaroo in a hunt.
Equally related is the belief among the Huzuls of the Carpathians. The wife of the hunter may not spin while her husband is
hunting, or the game will wind like a spindle, and the hunter will be
unable to hit it. In Loas, when an elephant hunter is starting for
the chase, he warns his wife not to cut her hair or oil her body in his
absence. If she cuts her hair, the elephant will burst the toils; if
she oils herself, it would slip through them.
Based on sympathetic magic, tattooing came into existence, It
was the belief that if a person
was tattooed
with
the image of a pro-
tective animal, it would protect the person from harm. In the Easter
Island, a ynung married man tattooed the vulva of his wife on his
chest as a sign that he was married, and evidently with the thought
that as long as he had his wife’s vulva with him, no one could make
use of it.lee
lQe Tylor, Earty History of Mankind, p, 131.
1~ I bid.
la8Ibid., pp. 130-131.
IQ9Westermarck,
Ma&age, Vol. 1, p. 515.
472
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
There are still many present-day carry-overs of these superstitious beliefs. In the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park,
New York, there is a miniature pearl-handled knife in one of the
showcases. The legend on the attached card says; “Given to the
President by Sir Robert A. Hodfield of London in return for the customary copper cent to avoid the ‘Cutting of Friendship.’ ” The giving of any sharp instrument is believed by many to cause a severance
of friendship unless counteracted by the exchange of some object,
preferably a coin. Such is the tenacity of superstitious belief even
among otherwise intelligent people.
THE CHILD
AND THIS
COMMANDMENT
If ministers tell us that this Commandment is rarely mentioned
bcforc adult congregations because of the delicate nature of its subject, one can well imagine how discussions about it would affect the
minds of the impressionable and the adolescent.
If a child is told that one of the Ten Commandments of God is
not to commit aduhery, he is entitled to know the meaning of what
he is admonished not to do. Obviously, he cannot refrain from performing any act unless he knows exactly what it is. This Commandment, as part of the Decalogue, acts as a reminder which continuously arouses the dormant curiosity of the adolescent child. Lacking
the proper knowledge of sex, this Commandment stimulates the child’s
desire for information as to what actually happens when adultery is
committed. Of what value is the inculcation of this Commandment
in the mind of a child of tender age who not only has not the remotest intention of committing adultery, but has not even the slightest conception of what it means?
If knowledge of an adulterous act arouses the curiosity of adults
and stimulates them to seek information about the minutest details,
what can we expect of children whose curiosity is keener and whose
imagination is more vivid? While an adult can generally take the
details of adultery as a matter of fact, the mind of the child becomes
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
473
tainted and corrupted; it becomes acquainted with sex through a
medium of deception, duplicity and the other objectionable factors
always present in the act of adultery.
Those misguided people who protest against the imparting of scientific sexual knowledge to our school children by competent teachers should pay a little more attention to the harm done by the teaching of the Decalogue. If they are so solicitous about what books
children read, they should become aware of the harm done by this
Commandment. As a rule, those religious people who protest loudest
against scientific sexual knowledge being imparted to our school children are the very ones who corrupt their minds in the matter of sex by
approaching the subject through the channel of the very worst phase
of sexual conduct.
You cannot get results by planting seeds in corrupted soil, and
you cannot get a high sense of morality from a mind imbued with
lurid thoughts of sexual conduct. How morality can be taught to
a child by admonishing him not to “commit adultery” is more than
I can understand.
Imparting sex knowledge and explaining proper sexual conduct is
not an easy task. It is the most difficult function of education, and
one of the most important. To guide a child through the adolescent
period
into adulthood,
to teach him to fit himself
ried life, is the highest function of education.
Commandment,
which
deals with
for a happy
mar-
But to teach him this
the very act that
is destructive
of marriage, is a perversion of education. If marriage is our ideal
and we strive to surround it with lofty s.nd beautiful sentiments, it is
a strange religion that is bent on acquainting future partners of such
a union with the very method by which it is contaminated and destroyed.
At home, in school, in church, the child hears repeated over and
over again that one of the commands of God is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The consequences are that the child soon learns that
adultery
is associated
with lust, passion, seduction,
debauchery,
sex-
ual depravity, obscenity, deception, faithlessness and the whole vo-
474
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
cabulary of offensive and repulsive acts in the realm of sex. Before
the child is old enough to receive the simplest instruction in sexual
matters, he is already, through overstimulation produced by the words
of this Commandment, contaminated and polluted by the nasty side
of sex.
Children need instruction in sexual matters; it is vital to their
welfare and development. But it must be knowledge that their young,
sensitive minds can comprehend and absorb, and it must be imparted in a manner that will not shock their delicate sensibilities.
Will anyone have the effrontery to say that shouting the words ‘(Thou
shalt not commit adultery” to a child is the proper method of teaching
sex in order to enable him to lead a healthy, normal life as well as
to avoid possible future tragedies resulting from ignorance about sex?
That educators are now becoming cognizant of this fact is evidenced
by the statement of the British Board of Education. After stressing
the importance of discouraging the old-fashioned fairy tales about
birth-“ the proverbial gooseberry bush, stork and doctor’s bag”-it
urged the following method of sex education: “A simple but sound
maxim is: Whatever the age of the child and whatever the question
he asks, answer him to the fullest extent that he is capable of understanding at that stage.” 2oo
The pernicious influence of this Commandment on the mentality
of the child is alone sufficient to condemn it as a corrupting force in
the realm of sexual behavior.
If the Bible were a moral guide, it should contain the most detailed informs.t.inn and knowledge of the complicated mechanism of
the body, its functions and its uses. Within its pages should be-found
the proper method of imparting to children the correct mode of conduct during their years of growth, particularly to fortify them with
knowledge during their critical adolescent period.
If only it contained the proper sex guidance for adults, half the
misery of the world would be avoided. It is the pitiful ignorance of
man within the sexual realm that is responsible for so many tragedies.
200New York Times,Nov. 8, 1943.
THE SEVENTH
COMMANDMENT
475
Instead of the Bible being the most authoritative source of sexual
knowledge, its pages reek with sexual misconduct of the most revolting nature. Is it any wonder? Throughout the Bible’s eleven
hundred pages, the words
“whoredom”
are mentioned
“morality”
is not mentioned
“adultery,”
“fornication,”
“whore”
and
more than 500 times, while the word
oncel
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
Bank of Wisdom
The Bank of Wisdom publishes all works of
human interest, we scorn no ideas of serious thought.
Ideas and beliefs some may think “dangerous” and would
hide, we seek to reproduce and distribute for the
consideration and intellectual development of every
human mind. When peace and understanding is
established throughout the world it might be said that
humanity has achieved an acceptable degree of
civilization, but until that longed for time we must never
cease to search for greater truth and a higher morality for
humanity.
The wealth of thought hidden in obscure books of
bygone ages makes fascinating reading, and as much of
this great original thought was suppressed by the sheer
power of the established systems of the time, these ideas
may well be the ones needed to bring peace and human
progress to our world. One thing is certain, the belief
systems we have are not the ones we need.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
www.bankofwisdom.com
The
Eighth
Commandment
“Thou shalt not steal.”
WHAT CONSTITUTES
A THEFT?
T
HOU shalt not steal” -what?
Is it only property that one
must not steal, and, if so, what kind of property? Are there
not things more valuable than property that can be stolen, and
are those things included in this Commandment? Is it not true that
4‘
“Who
steals my
purse steals trash; . . .
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
-Merchant
of Venice, Act 3, SC. 3.
Unless there is a more specific definition of stealing or a more
detailed description of what not to steal, this Commandment is impossible to understand, and impossible to observe.
Even Professor Philip Wheelwright, of the Department of Philosophy at New York University, admits that before this Commandment can be made effective “there must be some way of knowing what
actions ‘stealing’ is to cover.” l
Stealing, like morality, very often depends on time and place.
What is considered honesty in one community
may be condemned as
thievery in another. Certain acts considered honest in the past are
today classified
as flagrantly
dishonest.
What
at one time was con-
sidered dishonest, may at another time have both moral and legal
sanction. Honesty depends on place and circumstances, and the
more inflexible
the rule governing
honest conduct, the more difficult
is
its observance. Extremely significant to this study is the fact that
of the ten crimes which Biblical Hebrew law punished by stoning,
nine have ceased to be offenses in modern society.a
1P. Wheelwright, A Critical Introduction
2 Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, p. 187.
to Ethics, p. 225.
479
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
480
Is the stealing prohibited by this Commandment condemned from
the ethical, moral or legal standpoint? What is the standard by
which we are to judge? On whose authority is the standard to be
accepted?
Do we not from the moment of birth begin to “take” things which
are not ours? Does not the instinct of self-preservation often force
us to take what belongs to others in order to survive? Will the value
of the article stolen, or the age of the person committing the theft,
determine the guilt or innocence of his conduct?
Is the man who “steals” his friend’s sweetheart or wife guilty
of theft? Or are there exceptions which make it “all’s fair in love and
war,” even though the act is dishonest? Is “stealing” a kiss just as
flagrant a theft as stealing a purse? Is the boy who “steals” his
brother’s ties, or the girl who “steals” her sister’s dress, guilty of
theft within the meaning of this Commandment? What about the
boy who “steals” a ride on his friend’s bicycle?
Some years ago a New York judge ruled that a man who enters
the home of another to “steal a nap” is not guilty of burglary,3 while
another judge ruled that “robbery for love” deserved the court’s
mercy.
Alexander the Great said he would not “steal a victory,” yet there
are many business
financial advantage.
or a valuable
trade
Weal
men who
a march”
on their
competitors
for
Stealing an idea from another, stealing a patent
secret,
is just
as dishonest
as any other form
of
theft.
I know some people who are so scrupulous about other people’s
property that they will always make sure that the light is turned off
when they leave a hotel room, feeling that failure to do so would put
the owner to an unnecessary expense.
How are we to judge those acts which at one time were legal and
Would an act committed under the belief
at another time illegal?
that it had legal sanction violate this Commandment if at a later date
such
sanction
were
removed
9 New York Journal, May 1.5, 1934.
and the act condemned
as thievery?
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
481
Sometimes acts are ethicaIly and morally wrong but legally right, and
there are many acts condemned by law which possess inherent moral
and ethical value.
At one time legal permission
and license was granted to commit
robbery on the high seas. Did that change the immoral
nature of
the act? Many laws on our statute books today are not very far removed from those which gave legal sanction to the sea robber.
Could
a Commandment
of this kind be applied in a society where it is lawful to commit deliberate robbery?
What is more pertinent than the
fact that pocket-picking
even today is a recognized and highly unionized profession in Egypt?
When King Farouk was married, the King
of Thieves issued a proclamation
in the newspapers stating that, as
a friendly gesture to the other king, he would call off all his thieves
in consequence, not a pocket was
during the nuptial celebrations;
picked.4
Forgery, as we know it today, was certainly unknown in Biblical
times, since the majority of the people then rmld
not even write. Yet
today, forging a person’s name to a legal instrument,
such as a check,
contract or deed to property, may be the means of perpetrating
a
greater theft than the actual stealing of physical property.
William
Harriman,
the banker, who merely ordered a transfer of balances from
one account to another on the ledger sheets of his bank’s books, stole
millions of dollars by this simple transaction, yet he did not physically take part in the transfer.O
Several years ago two well-known bankers were convicted of a
“highly technical viola&n
of an intricate banking law” and given
long prison sentences. This was done despite their plea that not one
person lost a single penny as a result of their a~t,~ and that they had
acted in good faith only after receiving the advice of responsible
counsel.
Are these men as guilty of theft under this Commandment
4 Reader’s Digest, Sept., 1938.
5 New York American,
May
17, 1934.
e New York
Times, Apr. 26, 1924.
legal
as is
482
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the robber who breaks into a home and steals valuable property, or a
thief who in the dead of night perpetrates a hold-up on a defenseless
man and robs him of his money? The theft of a nickel is considered
petty
larceny;
yet to take some lead, mold it into the shape of a five-
cent piece and use it to purchase a single article, makes one guilty
of the serious crime of counterfeiting!
One can resort to the protection
of bankruptcy
laws
for the relief
of debts he is unable to meet,
and start anew without a penny’s obligation. But if, in doing so, the
petitioner “conceals” part of his assets, he is guilty of a dishonest
act and is punished severely for it.
There have been innumerable instances where jurors seeking to
judge the acts of certain of their fellow men with some degree of
certainty have been unable to agree as to whether or not the accused’s
conduct was dishonest, so difficult is it sometimes to determine the
honesty
of a transaction
in relation
to the interpretation
of the law.
In fact, not only have juries disagreed as to the guilt or innocence
of a person
accused
o’f stealing,
but learned
judges,
men trained
in
the art of weighing, evidence, have also been unable to agree. There
have been cases when both judge and jury adjudged a person guilty
of stealing, when in reality he was not; and, likewise, there have
been instances in which judge and jury have acquitted a person
charged with theft, when in reality he should have been convicted.7
There have also been instances when a judge condemned a person as
a thief and the jury decided otherwise, and just as many cases are
recorded in which a jury condemned a person as a thief and the
judge
thought
otherwise.
In a recent decision, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice
Harlan
F. Stone rendered
a dissenting
opinion
in a case concerning
an activity which the government characterized as a “union racket.”
It was claimed by the prosecution that nearly a. million dnllars had
been extorted as a result of coercion and violence, yet the highest
tribunal in the land gave the stamp of legality to these acts. Justice
‘For a detailed account of innocent men suffering the penalty of guilt, see Edwin
Borchard, Convicting the Innocent.
M.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
483
Stone said that in giving legal sanction to them, it “would render
common-law robbery an innocent pastime.” *
Sometimes it is utterly impossible to know with any degree of
certainty
where stealing
ends and honesty
begins.
Was Shakespeare right when he said to a band of professional
thieves :
“I’ll example you with thievery:
The sun’s a thief, and with his great attraction
Robs the vast sea; the moon’s an arrant thief,
And her pale fire she snatches from the sun;
The sea’s a thief, whose liquid surge resolves
The moon into salt tears; the earth’s a thief,
That feeds and breeds by a cornposture stolen
From general excrement ; each thing’s a thief;
The laws, your curb and whip, in their rough power
Have uncheck’d
. . . . . .
theft.
. .
. . .
. . .
All that you meet are thieves. . . .
Break open shops; nothing can you steal but thieves
Do lose it. . . .” e
LAW, ETHICS
AND CONSCIENCE
To those who might question whether law, ethics or morals
should be the standard by which to judge acts in relation to this
Commandment, there is left what many claim to be the infallible criterion of conduct-conscience.
But is conscience the proper guide,
and is it always infallible?
Are there nut many crimes condoned by
conscience?
A person with an “easy” conscience can, with very little
effort, convince himself of the justification
of a theft.
In fact, there are many instances when a person has been injured
by another and, having no recourse to law to satisfy the injury, and
no other means of retaliation except by stealing, will commit theft in
order to “satisfy his conscience.” Do not many boast of the fact
*New
York Times,
o Timon
of Athens,
Mar. 3, 1942.
Act 4, SC.
3.
484
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
that they have “put one over”-meaning
a questionably honest acton a particularly mean individual, and could anything satisfy their
conscience more completely than such an act? “Getting even” with
people, either through a dishonest deal, misrepresentation or downright fraud, is a widespread means among certain people of salving
their conscience. Do we not express satisfaction when we learn that
a particularly mean and unscrupulous person has been cheated or
fooled? When a miser is worsted in a deal, do we not say that “it
serves him right”?
How many times have we heard people tell of their failure to pay
their fare on a street car as a proper retaliation for the poor service
furnished by the railroad company ? Under the ethical principle that
two wrongs do not make a right, does not the failure to pay the fare
constitute a theft, despite the fact that a feeling of satisfaction follows the act? Yet men of high moral character, men of unimpeachable integrity, who would not otherwise commit the slightest wrong,
do not hesitate
to cheat
a railroad
out of its fare in retaliation
its poor service. Lecky, the great moralist, observed:
more
common
than
to find
extreme
dishonesty
in
for
“Nothing
speculation
is
co-
existing with scrupulous veracity in business.” lo
There
are some persons
who
would
feel grossly
insulted
if you
accused them of stealing an apple from a grocery store, yet do not
suffer the slightest compunction in signing a false proof of loss in
order to get more than they are entitled to from an insurance company. A business man whose elastic code of honesty permits him to
charge many times his legitimate profit on merchandise will severely
rebuke his son for stealing marbles.
How many are like a noted thief who said to his prison keeper,
“I may be a thief, but, thank God, I am a respectable man!” I1 ‘(Respectable” men have stated that if they could steal a million dollars
they would gladly spend a few years in prison for the theft. On their
lOLecky,
11 Ellis,
Morals,
Vol.
The Ctimind,
1, p. 119.
p. 240.
.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
485
release their “conscience would be clear” to buy “pleasure” with
their stolen money.
So few people have a proper understanding of the principles of
honesty.
Thousands
condemn
as dishonest
in others
acts that
they
themselves are guilty of committing. This point is well illustrated in
a cartoon showing two well-to-do women sipping their afternoon tea.
One exclaims to the other, “DO you know, my maid stole six of my
Pullman towels ! ”
Even standards of ethics differ. What might be acceptable in one
particular profession would not be accepted in another.
Before the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission and other
governmental agencies to protect people from fraudulent methods of
commerce, unscrupulous business men shamelessly robbed the innocent purchaser by misbranding and false labeling. Despite careful
supervision,
and
even
among
tradesmen
within
the scope
of our
present standards, there are still dealers who put sand in sugar to increase its weight, adulterate foods, mix water in gasoline, disguise
cotton as wool, and resort to many forms of misbranding and mislabeling.
In nearly all countries until recent times, false weights and false
pretenses of all kinds were considered ordinary instruments of commerce.‘” Trading is still not supposed to be an absolutely honest
undertaking, for the principle of “buyer beware” still governs innumerable
lransactions.
Even in business transactions where legal
talent and business acumen are carefully utilized, the courts are continually
called
on to invalidate
contracts
because
iraud
was
used in
certain representations. Wilson Mizner, noted American raconteur
said : “It is criminal negligence to leave suckers lying around to tempt
honest men.”
Just as “conscience doth make cowards of us all,” so it. ma.kes us
commit many a dishonest act without the implication of being a
thief. If a physician leads a person to believe that he is more ill
than he really is in order to increase the number of the patient’s
I2 Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 2, p. 103.
486
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
visits and the amount of his bill; if a dentist pretends to do more
work on a patient’s teeth than he actually does in order to charge
him more for the work; if a politician takes “graft” for selling special
favors;
if a judge
takes
a bribe
to render
a favorable
decision;
if a
business man makes more than a legitimate
profit on his merchandise; if a lawyer defends a thief and takes as his fee for services
part of the stolen money; if a farmer falsifies the weight and the
count of his products; if a laborer fails to give the full amount of
the work he is capable of doing; if a real-estate salesman inflates the
value of the property he is trying to sell-are
they guilty of dishonest
conduct under this Commandment?
It would be a difficult thing to
convince the physician or the dentist that this Commandment
is applicable to him in relation to his patients, or the politician,
the judge,
the farmer, the merchant, the laborer or the real-estate dealer in
their
dealings.
Many
do not
even
remotely
associate
this
Command-
ment with such acts, so little is their understanding
of the concept
of honesty.
But even if it were true that a stricken conscience afflicts all who
steal from others, how would that recompense the victim?
A stricken
conscience would merely be punishment
for the culprit, but the victim would continue to suffer the loss of his possessions. Not until the
victim of a theft has been satisfied and recompensed for the loss he
has sustained can any such feeling of remorse irz the thief be a proper
expiation for the theft committed.
Will a person with a “bad” conscience have the same reaction to a dishonest deed as a person with
a “good” conscience?
What about the person who hasn’t any conscience at all?
Daniel Drew, one of the early American
“robber barons” who
said that “the honest people of the world were a pack of fools,” and
who grew wealthy through his sharp business transactions,
was a
devoutly religious man.
His religious convictions
did not in the
slightest degree prevent him from using questionable
business methods, nor did he apparently suffer any compunction
for his dishonest
acts. How far removed was Drew from the Italian bandit who begged
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
487
the Virgin herself to bless his dishonest endeavors? Or from the
thief who invokes God’s protection while he breaks into the house? I3
How effectively can prayer give our dishonest acts the stamp of divine
approval?
Curiously enough, so important was this question of honesty that
it became the topic of debate among the students of Newcomb College, New Orleans, Louisiana. On the resolution that “honesty is
the best policy” the negative side won the debate. “Their leading
arguments,” said the report, “seems to be that in order to be a success in the world as it is constituted today, one must be a hypocrite,
a humbug and a liar, or any parts of these. The audience and the
judges approved heartily of the negative side and gave them the
prize.” I4
It was Bernard Shaw who said: “We must make the world honest
before
we can honestly
policy.”
say lo our children
that honesty
How pertinent are these words of Ingersoll:
dishonorable
success
outranks
honest
effort,
is the best
“As long as
as long as society
bows
and cringes before big thieves, there will be little ones enough to
is the
fill the jails.” I5 The father who said to his son, “Honesty
best policy; I have tried them both,” was merely confessing that in
the long run it was not profitable to be a thief. A man who takes
the attitude that honesty is the best policy because it will prove more
profitable in the end is not a morally honest man; he merely chooses
the most expedient course. The inference is that if he could be dishonest and not pay the penalty, he would follow that line of conduct.
Honesty for honesty’s sake is an altogether different principle.
To be honest whether it proves profitable or not is the highest ethical
conduct.
It was Archbishop Leighton who said: “The truth is, there is
scarcely
one
of
the
Commandments
so universally
broken,
and
whereof the breach is so little observed and so seldom repented of.” I6
1s Westermarck, Morals,
Vol. 2, D. 733; also Robber Baronr,
Daily Mirror,
Jan. 10, 1935.
1s Ingersoll, Crimes against Criminals, Vol. 11, p. 165.
1s Farrar, The Voice from Sinai, p. 238.
11 New
York
p.
19.
488
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Add to this the statement of Martin Luther:
“It is the smallest part
If we are to hang them all, where shall
of thieves that are hanged.
we get rope enough?” I7 One can then well understand
why the
philosophic Pope, when in deep reflection viewing men and affairs as
they are, cried: “An honest man is the noblest work of God.”
This
great poet could conceive of no greater handiwork
on the part
of the “Creator”
than an honest man. Nor must we forget in this
study the figure of Diogenes, with his lamp as his guide, going up
and down the highways and byways looking for an honest manwhom he did not find!
Carlyle said: “Make yourself an honest man
and then you may be sure there is one rascal less in the world.”
We a11 know that honesty is a virtue and that it is its own reward, but are there not times when stealing is justified?
Are there
not certain situations that arise where failure to “steal” would be the
cause of a greater wrong than theft?
Has not a mother the right
to steal food for her starving child?
If self-preservation
is the first
law 01 life, are we not justified in stealing in order to sustain life?
If there are exceptions, extreme though they be, to absolute and
undeviating
honesty, do these not invalidate
this Gmmandment
as
an all-embracing
and all-inclusive
law? Just as the Sixth Commandment was found to be inadequate in the interpretation
of the peremptory precept “Thou shalt not kill,”
so this Commandment
is
equally deficient in its application
to the multitudinous
acts involved
in dishonest conduct.
While the Right Rev. Robert WesIey Peach, presiding bishop of
the Reformed Episcopal Church, says that “even at the point of death,
hunger offers no excuse for theft,“18 Daniel Willard,
late president
of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad,
thinks 11lat extenuating
circumstances should be considered when judging a theft.
In a public
addl-ess he stated: “While I do not like to say so, I would be less
than candid if I did not say, I would steal before I would starve.” lo
17 Hayes, Ten Commandments,
p. 144.
18 New York Times, Apr. 3, 1933.
1QNew
York Herald
Tribune,
Mar.
28, 1931.
THE
EIGHTH
How shall we classify
Chapter 6, verse 30?-
COMMANDMENT
this
Biblical
489
expression
Men do not despise a thief, if he steal
satisfy his soul when he is hungry.
.30
from
Proverbs,
to
In Mexico, the law permits a first offener who steals food to
go free. According to the Swedish Westgota-lag,
a poor man who
can find no other means of relieving his family’s hunger may with
impunity
thrice appropriate
food belonging to somebody else; but
if he does it a fourth time, he is punished for theft.
According to
the Mohammedan
law, the hand is not to be cut off for stealing any
article of food that is quickly perishable, because it may have been
taken to supply the immediate
demands of hunger.
In China, stealing food under the stress of hunger rarely merits conviction.
Among
the
West
punished.
African
Fjort,
A similar
It would
open
robbery
rule prevails
he monstrous
to
appcasc
hunger
is never
among the Tahitians.20
to condemn
a man
on a charge
of mnral
turpitude
for stealing food for his starving family after he had tried
all other means to secure sustenance.
This is especially unjust in a
society where money represents wealth, and where the absence of
money makes a person poorer than the most primitive
aborigine; particularly
so in a society in which our code of property rights bears
no relationship
to the dishonest methods of its acquisition.
When this Commandment
was formulated,
the meaning of stealing was definite and concrete. Then it was understood to mean tangible,
physical
things
that
be marked,
properly,
man
such
in early
numbered
and
as food,
society
identified.
callle
and
llie
had acquired-things
The
possession
few
nlaterial
that
could
of a house,
a
cow o: similar property was invaluable to its owner; to be deprived
of them meant, as a rule, starvation or death.
For that reason, the
theft of those essential articles of sustenance was punishable by death
until recent times.
It was classified as a capital offense as serious as
murder.
z” Westermarck,
Morals,
Vol.
1, p. 286.
THE
490
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
In English law, within the last hundred years, there was a long
list of crimes involving petty thievery that were punishable by hanging. It is estimated that during the reign of Henry VIII more than
70,000 thieves were hanged.“l
As possessions became more plentiful
and the struggle for existence less severe, the penalty for stealing was naturally
lessened.
In fact, today stealing has many classifications,
The law does not
regard all stealing in the same light, and it provides different degrees
of punishment
for different kinds of theft.
The value of the article
often determines the seriousness of the theft; very often no notice
at all is taken of certain types of petty thievery which are committed
a thousand times a day. In early society, and even up to the present
century, stealing a horse was regarded as one of the gravest offenses,
while obtaining
property
under false pretenses was until recently
classified merely as fraudz2
We are living
tribal Hebrews.
in an altogether
different
society from that of the
The manner by which business is transacted today
was utterly inconceivable
to the minds of those who formulated
this Commandment.
So rapidly are new schemes and methods devised by unscrupulous
people to steal money and other valuables,
that the law is unable to keep pace with them. New laws are constantly being demanded to cope with the newer schemes of crime.
Just as the misappropriation
of money entrusted to another has only
recently become a crime under the law, so we find that “false prom-
ises” by which swindlers deprive others of their money do not yet
legally constitute a crime.
Is not one guilty of a theft who takes advantage of another’s
ignorance of the law to induce him to surrcndcr valuable possessions
with which he would not otherwise part if he were acquainted with
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse” in the lnss
his “legal rights”?
“Legal robbery” is not only permissible, but quite
of one’s property.
prevalent.
Such a premise
*I Ellis, op. cit., p. 297.
22 Jerome Hall, Theft, Law
is contrary
to the very basic principles
and Society, pp. B-49.
THE ETGHTH
COMMANDMENT
491
of honesty and justice. Lawyers themselves have been guilty of giving legal advice which has deprived their clients of valuable possessions. Taking unfair legal advantage of a person is just as dishonest
as delfberate stealing.
A person who had stolen a cow was released from custody because no value had been put on the animal, and since no theft can
be committed without some loss of value, the judge ruled the act no
theft. In another instance it was held that a person charged with
stealing live turkeys could not be held for trial because they were
found to be dead turkeys. A man was indicted for stealing a pair
of stockings, but was ordered acquitted because they were old ones.
Similarly, a person who was accused of stealing a duck was acquitted
because at his trial he submitted proof that it was a drake.23 Because
of the law’s technicality, were these acts any the less dishonest?
Does the technicality of the law determine the morality of the
act, or is the act inherently wrong despite the law’s failure to condemn it?
We are only too well acquainted with cases where the thief lives
on the wealth he has stolen, while the victim struggles for existence
in poverty. Why is the thief permitted not only to enjoy the wealth
he has stolen from another, but to pass it on for the benefit of his
children, while the victim’s children are made to suffer not for their
sins, or their father’s sins, but solely because of the dishonest act
of another person?
What about the armed thief who not only steaIs, but when caught
in his dishonest act kills his victim in order to escape with his loot?
How can this Commandment be applied to the situation which so
often happens, when the thief and murderer escapes and is never
apprehended, while the innocent victim has been deprived of both his
wealth and his life? Why should the violator of two Commandments
triumph over an innocent victim?
Lying and cheating are so essentially a part of stealing that failure
23 Hall,
Theft,
Law
and
Society,
p. 91.
THE
492
TEN
COMMANnMENTS
to include them in this Commandment
is almost conclusive evidence
that this precept was intended solely for some provincial
phase of
Hebrew tribal life.
Cheating in any game, transaction
or undertaking
which
results
in depriving
someone
of that
which
rightfully
belongs to him is just as much stealing as if a deliberate theft had
This is equally true as regards misrepresentation
been perpetrated.
Lying may sometimes be more detriand other forms of deception.
mental to society than stealing, and it is often difficult to determine
which is the greater enemy to society-the
liar or the thief.
If each dishonest act held within itself the means of detection
and exposure, what a great difference that would make ! One thing,
however, is certain: it would be far more effective in keeping people
honest than this Commandment.
And Ingersoll
said: “If all men
knew for a certainty that to steal from another was to rob themselves, larceny would cease.”
If the results of dishonesty could be so plainly and effectively
demonstrated
as in the story concerning the Emperor Charlemagne
and the bell-founder,
the world would be able to boast more honest
people. The Emperor gave the man a quantity of silver to mix with
baser metal in the casting of a bell. The dishonest craftsman kept
the silver and used a cheap substitute.
When the bell was hung it
would not ring. It would not even move. So the founder was sent
for. When he pulled the rope, the huge clapper fell and crushed him
to death.24
Honesty,
like
any other
phase
of morality,
is a. develnpmcnt
nf
evolutionary ethics, and the higher the cultural state, the more scrupulous the individual
conduct. If, every time a theft were attempted, the
hands became palsied, or if, when a person tried to secure unmerited
gain through dishonest statements,
“each false [word] as cauterizing
to the root of the tongue, consuming it with speaking,”
this Commandment would at least possess some value, not as a moral precept,
but as a warning signal.
24 F. J. Gould,
Three
Hundred
Stories
to Tell,
p. 57.
THE EIGHTH
493
COMMANDMENT
STEALING
AS ATAVISM
We do not have to go very far back in history to know that many
of the heroes of the past would be classified as criminals
today.
Many we still regard as heroes were robbers and bandits in the early
settlement days. Much evidence makes it necessary to give serious
consideration
to the thought that the modern criminal
is but a reversion to the spirit and daring which were essential to leadership
in a barbaric age. Many display the elements of genius at organiza-
tion and strategy.
The “honor among thieves” which they scrupu-
lously observe differs only in kind,
and not in degree, from the honor
that honest men demand.
In a recent address, Sir Basil Thomson, former director of Scotland Yard, declared that when World War I broke out nearly all the
desperate criminals of England, guilty of major crimes, enlisted voluntarily and served courageously through the war.25 He expressed
the opinion that this was not unusual, as he had always felt that
the burglar, as a rule, was a man who possessed great courage. The
man who in peace time becomes a criminal,
in time of war may prove
to be a great hero.
A noted English scholar quite truthfully
states that it may be
that a great number of modern habitual criminals merely have the
misfortune
to live
in a.n zgr
in which
their
merits
and ability
are
not appreciated. He further states that “with the dispositions and
habits of the uncivilized men which he has inherited from a remote
past, the criminal has to live in a country in which the majority of
the inhabitants
have learned
new lessons of life,
and where he is
regarded more and more as an outcast as he strives more and more
to fulfill the yearnings of his nature.” 2G The bold and daring exploits
of tribal chiefs that brought them honor and respect from their clans
would bring them only long prison sentences in our times, And many
26Ernest R. Groves, PersonaEtie;
2sEllis,
The
Criminal,
p. 254.
and
Social
Adjustment,
p. 98.
494
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of our “heroes,” had they been on the other side of the conflict, would
be condemned as “criminals.”
Darwin many years ago suggested that stealing and other forms
of criminality
may be due to atavism-the
recurrence
of traits
pos-
Stealing was one of man’s first
sessed by our primitive
ancestors.
pursuits.
This instinct, surviving in many people today, causes them
to steal without regard to the need or value of the article.
In speaking of the appearance
of blackness
in sheep, Darwin
remarks:
“With
mankind
some of the worst dispositions, which occasionally without
any assignable cause make their appearance in families, may perhaps
be reversions to a savage state, from which we are not removed by
many generations.
This view seems indeed recognized in the common expression that such men are the black sheep of the family.” 27
A proper comprehension
of this primitive
instinct
will help us to
understand
many acts that othcrwisc
seem criminal.
Many a child, when questioned as to why he has stolen some ar“T dn not knnw what. crimes over me. It seems as if
ticle, replies:
it were something that I cannot help. I am ashamed of it afterwards.
I just see something that doesn’t belong to me and I take it.”
Recently a high-school boy whose conduct was of the highest order,
and who otherwise was exemplary, was apprehended for stealing, and,
when questioned, replied:
“I steal because it makes me feel good
to steal, but I am terribly sorry afterwards.” 28
The impulse to steal may sometimes develop from a propensity
in childhood.
It is well known that many children steal, and nearly
all have a desire to. Many thir~k it “clever” to be able to take something belonging to another child without that child’s knowledge.
Sometimes encouragement by classmates makes a confirmed t&f
of
Once
the
habit
of
stealing
is
the child whose act was done “in fun.”
formed in childhood, it becomes extremely difficult to bring a child to
a realization of his wrongdoing.
He does not consider his acts any
worse than begging, and often, because of the proficiency he has de2’ Quoted, Ellis,
p. 2.53.
** For similarcases,
seeWilliam Healy, Honesty, pp. 163-169.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
495
veloped in stealing, he feels a certain superiority in both intelligence
and courage over other children. Unless propensity is eradicated at
an early stage, the child will generally grow up into a dishonest adult.
The children in Oliver Twist
whom Fagin taught how to steal
were completely unaware that their acts were ethically wrong or antisocial. On the contrary, they considered themselves clever and were
constantly striving to perfect their technique.
One of the most notorious instances of atavism was that of a
noted judge in France, who was regarded throughout the country as
the thieves’ most hated enemy. It was discovered that he would make
the thief he was to sentence describe in detail the intricate technique
he used in perpetrating his crimes. At night, the jurist would then
duplicate the very thefts for which he had but a few days before
sent a culprit to prison.
Indeed,
there arc innumerable
instances
of men engaged
in keep-
ing other people honest being guilty of what they are assigned to
prevent.
A striking
example
is a policeman
who
is employed
to pre-
vent thefts but who himself is guilty of stealing. The press recently
reported the case of a “Jekyll-Hyde cop.” “The dual life led by
former policeman Frank Flors was revealed today with his arrest as
a safecracker. By day he protected merchants of Astoria; by night
he robbed them, he confessed.” 2D
While assigned to protect the property of citizens, two New York
policemen were convicted of stealing over a hundred boxes of candy
from a nearby plant. In pronouncing judgment on them, the judge
said : “You were sworn to protect the public and you violated all
sense of duty by committing robbery. . . . You reduced yourselves
to the standard
of crooks.”
.In Another
insLance
is that
of a police-
man who was called to settle a dispute between two people. He forcibly
searched
one of the disputants
and stole his money.81
A grand jury indicted a judge, head of the bar association of his
z0 New
80 New
s* New
York
York
York
Evening
Journal,
Apr. 7, 1930.
American,
Mar. 26, 1935.
Times, Dec. 29, 1934.
496
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
city, for an alleged theft of nearly $50,000 from an estate of which
he was executor and attorney.
He held an honored position in the
community,
was trained to administer justice, and yet when the opportunity presented itself, he acted like a common thief.32
Attorneys who are supposed to support the ethics of their profession are unfortunately
only too often caught in dishonest transactions. The temptation
to speculate in stock and bet on horse races
was too difficult for one lawyer to resist, and as a result he defrauded
Today he is in
a number of men and women of more than $500,000.
prison for his thefts.33
Something far more effective than this Commandment
is needed tc
eradicate the deep-rooted instinct to steal that exists in some people.
A mentality
deeply ingrained with the cunning of the jungle cannot
be easily raised to the cultural level of modern man.
We cannot
expect the observance of the rules of modern society from a mentality that reverts to its primitive
instincts.
It is difficult enough,
even under favorable conditions,
to train a normal intellect
to observe the rules and laws of modern society.
A child is born with
instincts and desires inherited from primitive
ancestors, which be will
have to learn to suppress in order to be a socially accepted member
of society.
Thousands are incapable of making
this adjustment,
and that accounts for our large “criminal”
population.
In order that man might survive, nature forced him to practise the
most cunning forms of deception, and his propensity to deceive and
steal is but a survival of his early struggle against the inexnrable
forces of life. The conditions which he had to face forced him to
deceive his enemies; if he had failed, he would not have been able
to survive in the terrific struggle for existence.
rhose who possessed
the greatest amount of cunning were best able to cope with condiwas essential for survival during that early period
tions. ‘Stealing”
The atavistic instinct to steal is UnfOrtUof social development.
32 New
33 Ibid.,
York
Mar.
Times, Oct.
6, 1937.
13, 1934.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
497
nately still too deeply ingrained in some minds, making it impossible
for them to be honest according to our present code of morality.
KLEPTOMANIA
Just as there are children born with deformed limbs and crippled
bones, so some are born with warped and distorted mentalities.
As
it would be the height of folly to force a child with physical deformities of sight, of speech or of limb to attempt to see, to speak or to
walk as well as those who are physically
normal, so it is equally
absurd to expect those who are mentally deficient to behave like those
who possess normal mentalities.
No normal person would steal without some motive, and no normal person would steal if he knew that
he would be caught, the stolen goods taken from him, and punishment
inflicted
for his
act.
The ordinary thief steals for a reason. He thinks before he acts,
and chooses the most profitable undertaking
for the risks involved.
But there are some people who have no reason to steal, and who
know that the stolen article will be taken from them and restored to
the rightful owner, who steal because they cannot help themselves.
We call such persons “kleptomaniacs.”
To the kleptomaniac,
stealing is a compulsion,
and precepts and
advice are utterly useless against the irresistible
desire that obsesses
him.
The kleptomaniac
is no more responsible
for his acts than is
the crippled child who fails to walk as perfectly as the normal child.
Scientific
research
in this
field
has confirmed
this.
In
fact,
in some
forms of post-epileptic
automatism
the sufferer steals without knowing it, and is embarrassed and chagrined when he learns what he has
done. Are the acts of kleptomaniacs
to be condemned as thefts and
in violation of this Commandment?
Many kleptomaniacs
have a neurotic sexual complex.
Stealing
with them becomes a fetish of an almost ineradicable nature.
Honest
and scrupulous in all other dealings, they are unable to restrain
themselves when confronted with the object that arouses their erotic
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
498
desires. The articles stolen are shoes, caps, garters, gloves, pencils
and other things.
Not all forms of kleptomania, however, arise from sexual neuroses,
nor is it a respecter
of social standing.
It affects
people in all walks
of life and all classes of society-the rich and the poor, the cultured and the uncultured, the educated and the ignorant. Persons of
high social standing and of substantial wealth have been known to
steal from their closest associates. Their acts generally do not come
to public attention, but enough instances are recorded in the press
to substantiate the above facts. Recently “a highly respected woman
principal of a public school was revealed as a kleptomaniac who had
been stealing personal belongings for several years from men and
women connected with the Parent-Teachers Association. Almost invariably some minor belonging or small sum of money would disappear from the pocket of one of those at the parties. Most of the
time the articles or cash were so unimportant no mention was made
of it.” 24
Particularly during pregnancy are women subject to these emotional
disturbances.
The
following
case has innumerable
counter-
parts: A young married woman, on becoming pregnant, would experience
a strong
impulse
to steal
which
she
found
difficult
to
repress; if she succeeded in repressing the impulses of theft, she began
to vomit, undoubtedly owing to the conflict of reactions-that of restraining her dishonest impulses or suffering digestive disturbances.35
We do not have to go to the physician’s laboratory to find cases
of unusual and peculiar circumstances which prompt people to steal.
The following is extremely interesting:
“Four times have expectant babies made Marion Hacket,
twenty-seven, a criminal and sent her to jail. Four have been born
in jail. Only two have lived. With bowed head she blamed her
past misdeedson her physical condition, which she said upset her
a4 New
e6 Ellis,
York Wor&TeZegram,
Studies in Psychology
Jan.
of
Sex,
11,
1938.
Vol.
7, pp. 483, 484.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
499
mentally.
A jury took pity on her when she told them that her
fourth child had been born only a month and a half ago on
Welfare Island, where she has been held awaiting trial on a seconddegree larceny charge.” 36
Dr. Grah, lately physician to the Ameer of Afghanistan,
relates
the case of a man whose right arm was chopped off as the penalty
for stealing.
Though he knew the severe punishment
that would be
exacted for a second offense, he stole again shortly after, was caught,
and deprived of his left arm. Still unable to curb his propensity for
stealing, he used the stumps of his arms and stole a cheap piece of
earthenware.
Easily apprehended,
because the act had .been committed in broad daylight before many people, he was convicted and
sentenced to have his head cut ~ff.~’
A female thief told the matron of a prison that she tried very
hard to refrain from stealing; “but it wasn’t to be. 1 was obliged
to steal, or to watch for someone to steal from.
I did try my best,
but it couldn’t be helped, and here I am. It wasn’t my fault exactly, but I did try.” 38 A pickpocket
said: “When I see anyone
pass with a watch in his pocket, even though I have no need of
money, I feel a real need to take it.”
Dostoievsky,
the Russian
nnvelist, tells of a t.hief who was devoted to him.
He says: “He
sometimes stole from me, but it was always involuntary;
he scarcely
ever borrowed from me, so evidently what attracted him was not
money or other interested motive.” 39
Recently a retired business man was arrested on charges of petty
larceny.
He was discovered taking small coins-five
and ten cent
pieces-from
newsstands while the attendants were away. His acts
become the more inexplicable
because when questioned by the police
he had more than $1,300.00 in his possession; in addition, his police
s6New York Evening Journal, Jan. 30, 1930.
57 Charles Mercier,
Criminal
Responsibility,
p. 223. See also Krafft-Ebing,
pathia Sexualis.
sL(George S. Dougherty, The Criminal
as a Human Being, p. 177.
39Ibid.,
p. 180.
Psycho-
500
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
record disclosed the fact that he had committed similar crimes on
several other occasions! 4o
Every day in the week persons charged with stealing, which was
prompted
by circumstances
utterly
beyond
their
control,
are brought
into the courtroom. The grave question is whether they are thieves
by choice or necessity, and whether a voluntary or involuntary act of
theft should be equally condemned and punished. The cold gray bars
of a prison cell, even the threat of eternal damnation, cannot restrain
those who have an uncontrollable obsession for taking what does not
belong to them.
Is this Commandment to apply to each and every individual regardless of his mental or physical condition on the theory of “free
will”-that
is, that each individual is fully cognizant of what is right
and what is wrong and is therefore responsible for his acts? If man
were a free agent, as religion tells us he is, he would be fortified
against dishonest teachings by knowing instinctively their wrong implications.
TO apply
this
Commandment,
with
all its vcngcful
im-
plications, to the kleptomaniac, is just as ridiculous as to tell an insane
person
nnt. to talk
irrationally.41
Precept
and moral
suasion
to the
kleptomaniac are utterly useless,
We cannot in justice condemn a person suffering from kleptomania any more than we can justifiably punish a man suffering from
a disease which he contracted through no fault of his own. Kleptomania is recognized as a disease by the medical profession, and deserves the same careful medical attention as any of the other ills “that
flesh is heir to.” The mere existence of such a disease as kleptomania
should be sufficient to invalidate the claim of religion that this Commandment is an inflexible precept applicable to all people, under all
circumstances, at all times.
40 New
York Sun, Mar. 8, 1944.
41It is not so very long since the insane were imprisoned.
have
asylums
for
the
“criminally”
insme-that
is,
for
those
Today, however, we
who
have
been
guilty
of committing some crime against property or persons while suffering from some form
of insanity, thereby mitigating the severity of the punishment.
THE EIGHTH
STEALING
COMMANDMENT
AS A TABOO IN TRIBAL
501
SOCIETY
In analyzing the Sixth Commandment, we discovered that unless
we knew
exactly
what
was meant by the words,
“Thou
shalt not kill,”
the Commandment was meaningless. If literally interpreted, it would
be impossible to observe, since some form of killing takes place every
moment of the day, and will continue to take place as long as the
present pattern of living prevails in which one form of life must subsist
on the other. This premise is also applicable to the Eighth Commandment. For just as killing in some form takes place every moment of the day and night, so some form of “stealing” is committed.
Just as I have shown that the Sixth Commandment was based on
the fear of blood pollution, so I shall prove that a similar taboo is
the basis of this Commandment. This is borne out by the use of
curses
on a thief
in the tribe
who
has
escaped
apprehension
and
thereby avoided punishment. Not only do we find Biblical references
to support this practice, but it prevailed in other primitive societies.
Among the Samoans, when a theft has been committed in a garden,
the owner shouts: “May fire blast the eyes of the person who has
stolen my bananas.” It is essentially an appeal to the god of the tribe
to wreak vengeance on the culprit. A curse very often caused fear
and consternation that few other things could produce. The usual
curse among the Lriang-Sermata was “Evil shall devour you! Lightning shall strike you! ” And again, “May
the thief be eaten by a
white shark.” 42 The application of the curse in connection with
thievery
was also prevalent
among the Arabs.
They
cursed
the thief
in order to recover the stolen goods. A taboo was always associated
with a curse.43
The Samoans also have a system for the enforcement of property rights. In the case of a theft, the injured party gives the priest
a fee of mats. The priest places a curse on the thief; the latter,
Crawley, Oath, Curse and Bible Blessing, pp. 4-17.
4s The taboo of stealmg and the resultant curse survive today in an expression which
is still common. You often hear a person who has been accused of stealing say, “If I
stole this thing, may I [or my wife or children1 die.”
42
502
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
fearful of the fulfillment of the curse, deposits at the door of the
priest an equivalent for the stolen property.44 Many superstitious
people today believe they can punish a thief by this method.
In
primitive
times,
it was
extremely
effective.
Generally
the
curse invoked the threat of illness on the culprit, and as he, in the
natural course of events, was bound sooner or later to become ill, he
would confess and return the property for fear of further punishment. When the curse seemed ineffective, the priest, then as now,
conveniently left the matter to God’s judgment.45 The curse called
down on him for stealing, and not the ethical implication of the act,
was the effective deterrent to a thief in primitive times.
The primitive origin of this Commandment and its exclusive application to members within the tribe become apparent from a study
of the laws and taboos of uncivilized societies.
Property
rights
are respected
within
each community,
and severe
penalties inflicted for violations. However, stealing from neighboring or enemy tribes was never considered ethically wrong. On the
contrary, the most daring thief was considered the most honored
member of the tribe.
Among the Mbayas the law, “Thou shalt not steal,” applies only to
tribesmen and allies, not to strangers and enemies. The Tehuelches
of Patagonia, although honest among themselves, have no scruples
in stealing from anyone outside the tribe. The Abipones, who never
took anything from their own countrymen, used to rob and murder
the Spaniards, whom they considered their enemies. The high standard of honesty
which
prevailed
among
the North
American
Indians
did not apply to foreigners, especially white men, whom they thought
it no shame to rob or cheat.
A theft
from a member
of a.nother hand
was no crime; a theft from one of their own band was the greatest
of crimes.
If anything is stolen from his home during his absence, a Guiana
Indian thinks that the article has been carried away by someone not
44 Crawley, op. cit., p. 10.
46
Ibid.,
p. 32.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
503
of his own race. Among some Eskimos, it is believed that to steal
boldly and adroitly from a stranger is an act of heroism.4s
Of the Greenlanders it is said that if they can purloin or even
forcibly seize the property of another, it is a feather in their cap,
while stealing from people of the same village or tribe is regarded
as wrong. The Savage Islanders consider theft from a tribesman a
vice, but theft from a member of another tribe a virtue. Among the
Masai, the warriors and old men have a profound contempt for a
thief, but they do not consider cattle-raiding from neighboring tribes
stealing. The Arab was proud of robbing his enemies and of bringing away by stealth what he could not have taken by open force,47
yet if he stole from a tribesman he was dishonored.
Although the Bible is a veritable encyclopedia of stories of theft
and murder, one instance will be sufficient to indicate that this Commandment was not intended as a moral precept of honesty. Moses
tells the Children of Israel how to acquire the property of others in
EXODUS, Chapter
3, verses
21 and 22:
21 And I will give this people favor in the
sight of the Egyptians; and it shall come to
pass that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
22 But every woman shall borrow of her
neighhr,
and
01
her
that
sojourneth
in
her
house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and
raiment;
and ye shall put them upon your
sons and npnn your daughters; and ye shall
spoil the Egyptians,
The Children of Israel faithfully carried out Muses instructions
and believed they were doing the will of their God when they deceived the Egyptians.
As one writer has stated,4* this was not a
momentary freak of fraudulence or a sudden succumbing to temptation, but was perpetrated under the firm belief that they were acting
with the favor and approval of their God.
u Westexmarrk, Moruls, Vol. 2, p. 4.
47 Ibid., pp. 20-24.
4sE. P. Evans, Evolutiomry
Ethics, p. 24.
504
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Why was such an event recorded with such shameless pride in the
Bible?
The answer is simply that at that time despoiling others was
considered an achievement of tribal cunning.
Today such acts are
condemned as downright deception and thievery.
This event is not
only proof of the tribal concept of morality
exhibited by the early
Hebrews, but is also pertinent
evidence that ethics develop by an
evolutionary
process.
Peoples of low moral standard do not have to wait for wars to
practise deception.
It has been definitely established that during the
Middle Ages, throughout
most of Europe, it seemed to be tacitly
agreed that foreigners were created for the soIe purpose of being
robbed; 49 and this, during the time that a particular
religious belief
held absolute dominance over the people in almost every department
of human activity.
The clannishness of religion accounts for many
of the unnecessary ills of mankind.
Once religious delusions have
been eradicated and man devotes his energies to solving his own
problems, many of the ills that affect us will vanish as if by magic.
Not only was stealing permissible in primitive
societies, but it was
a settled principle of conduct that the grcatcr the degree of deception
practised on a “stranger,”
the more laudable was the transaction
considcrcd.
The early Hebrews were no different in this respect. from
the Balantis of Africa, who punished with death a theft committed
to the detriment of a tribesman, hut encouraged and rewarded thievery from other tribes.60
Knowing nothing of the moral value of honesty, the authors of
the Bible cannot be credited with a comprehension
of ethical ideals
attained more than two thousand years after their time.
We cannot, of course, condemn them for their tribal code. We merely believe that this primitive
concept of moral conduct should not be imposed on a civilization
whose cultural level is separated by an evolutionary progress of nearly thirty centuries.
4s Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 1, p. 24.
60 Evans, op. cit., p. 24.
THE
THE
SIN
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
OF STEALING
AND
LANDMARKS
THE
505
REMOVAL
OF
As previously
stated, the primitive
mentality
knew nothing about
ethics or ethical conduct as we understand these conceptions today.
In view of this, what was the meaning of the words, “Thou shalt not
steal”?
Could they have originated
as a curse for committing
a
particular theft?
The only method known in early Biblical times to determine the
ownership of land was by the partition
known as “landmarks,”
and
to remove them was condemned as both stealing and a “sin.”
J. M.
Powis Smith,51 noted Hebrew scholar, states that removing a neighbor’s landmark was condemned by Hebrew law as a crime equivalent
to land-stealing,
and the noted legal authority,
John M. Zane, states
that the injunction,
“Do not remove thy neighbor’s landmark,”
became a curse in the minatory 1aw.52
Probably
as significant as anything that might be adduced concerning the association of this Commandment
with the removal of
landmarks
are the following Biblical quotations from Deuteranomy,
Chapter 19, verse 14, and Chapter 27, verse 17:
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have sent in
thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in
the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee
to possess it.
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s
landmark; and all the people shall say, Amen.
This belief was prevalent in nearly all primitive
societies.
Both
among the ancient Greeks and Babylonians,
landmarks
were inscribed with curses on those who removed them.
Among the latter
is found this inscription:
“Upon this man may the great gods Anu,
Bel, Ea and Nuska look wrathfully, uproot his foundation and destroy
his offspring.” 63
81 J. M. Powis Smith, The Origin and History
of Hebrew Law, p. 49.
52 John M. Zane, The
Crawley, Oath, Curse
63
of Law,
and Blessing,
Stovy
p. 101.
pp. 4-17.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
506
Since removing a landmark was condemned as a theft and a sin,
and since this is the only theft so condemned by the tribal Hebrews,
one can well understand how this prohibition might have been restated
in the words
of the present
Commandment.
This
is exceed-
ingly pertinent when studied in the light of the fact that the Israelites
were driven from their land, and a “landmark” no longer had any
significance for them in their wanderings over the earth. How futile
to have such a Commandment as part of the Decalogue when there
was no land to protect, particularly when the reward for observing
one of the Commandments was the Biblical Deity’s guarantee of
their long tenure on the land he supposedly had given them. The
reward for observing this edict, as stated in the verses quoted above,
is strikingly similar to that offered for the observance of the Fifth
Commandment.
This
Commandment,
“Thou
shalt
not
steal,”
seems
to be but
a
restatement of the verses quoted above, and to have nothing whatever
to do with
the moral
question
of honesty
as understood
today.
If this premise is correct, it is a taboo of primitive superstition and
belongs in the same category as the previous ones.
Perhaps this is more understandable when analyzed in the light of
Frazer’s observation that “there may survive not a few old savage
taboos which . . . have maintained their credit long after the crude
ideas out of which they sprang have been discarded by the progress
of thought and knowledge.” 64
Significant evidence in favor of this premise also lies in the fact
that
the
language
used
in
the
Ninth
and
Tenth
Commandments
is
identical in structure and meaning with the prohibition, “Thou shalt
not
remove
thy
neighbor’s
landmark.”
55
There
is more,
however,
than similarity of expression involved in these Commandments. There
is a continuit.y of t.hought in behalf of tribal solidarity, and a close
relationship with the Fifth Commandment in the matter of reward.
sdFrazer,
The Golden
Bougk,
“Taboo
and the Perils of the Soul,” p. 218.
66 Ninth
Commandment:
“Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy
Tenth Commandment:
“Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor’s
goods.”
neighbor.”
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
507
When the Children of Israel were driven from their land, the Commandment dealing with landmarks had to be changed. And since removing the landmark was condemned as stealing, it is easily understood how this taboo was restated in the words of the present
Commandment to be applicable to other tribal thefts. There are no
original sources to which one can refer for verification of this premise,
but a study of early society and the Bible itself seem to make it indisputable. To restate ancient taboos in words of their original meaning has many difficulties, due to the limitations of language and the
changing meanings of words. Many acts are placed in one classification that have many meanings, and require an explanation of the
words applied to them to be properly understood.K0 In using words
dealing with ancient customs and beliefs, we are more than likely to
misunderstand their actual meanings by confusing them with their
present-day use, unless WCarc familiar with their anthropological derivations. There is no better example of the deficiency of language
than this Commandment, which nriginally was never even remotely
applicable to honest conduct in the present sense of the word.&?
In many primitive communities, removing a landmark has been
regarded as a sinful act because of the nature of the taboo placed
upon it. In the South Sea Islands, it is a common practice to protect
property by making it taboo. Thus, any attempt to use it incurred
the curse of the gods .58 In Polynesia, the mark of taboo on property
often consists of a wooden image of a man stuck in the ground. The
scarecrow which we so frequently see in fields and pastures is a survival
of this taboo.
In Samoa,
all kinds
of weird
figures
are used
for the purpose of a taboo which acts as a powerful check on stealing,
especially
from
fruit
trees
and plantations.
Innumerable
instances
could be given, but one should suffice. The “cross-stick taboo” consisted of a stick suspended horizontally from the tree, and implied that
any thief who touched the tree would catch a disease running right
56
See The
Ethics
of
Hercules.
5rSee “Culture and Human Behavior,”
Monthly,
Dec., 194.2.
58 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 63.
by Dr. McClellan
S. Ford, in Scientific
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
508
across his body which would remain fixed until he died.6g Of the
Barotse we are told that when they do not want a thing touched, they
spit on straws and stick them all about the object. When a Balonda
has placed a beehive
on a tree, he ties a “piece
of medicine”
round
the
trunk, which he believes will prove sufficient protection against
thieves. Jacob of Edessa tells of a Syrian priest who wrote a curse
and hung it on a tree so that nobody would dare to eat the fruit. It
is said that in the early days of Islam a man reserved water for his
own use by hanging some fringes of his red blanket on a tree beside it.6o
The natives of Timor in the Pacific Islands believe that a taboo
is just as effective as traps and dogs in driving away thieves from
their property. Among the Washambala, the owner of a field sometimes puts a stick in a banana leaf on the road, believing that anybody who
enters the field without permission “will
be subject to the
curse of this charm.”
The Wadahagga protect a doorless hut against burglars by placing
a banana leaf over the threshold, and any maliciously inclined person
who dares to step over it is supposed to become ill and die.*l The
Akka “stick an arrow in a bunch of bananas still on the stalk to
mark it as their own when ripe,” and then not even the owner of
the tree would think of touching the fruits claimed by another. When
Brazilian Indians leave their huts, they often wind a piece of the
same material
round the latch of the door;
sometimes they
hang
baskets, rags or flaps of bark on their landmarks.
Sympathetic-magic
rites were not confined to aborigines.
There
was a province in Arabia where laying stones on an enemy’s ground
meant that the owner would be visited wit.h fearful
consequences if
he cultivated the land. So great was the fear of such stones that
nobody would go near a field where they were placed, and this practice was eventually condemned as a “sin.” 62
69 Westermarck,
op. cit., Vol 1, p. 623.
O” Ibid.,
Vol. 2, pp. 5x-b5.
61 Ibid.,
p. 64.
021bid.,
Vol.
1, p. 65.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
509
The Etruscan placed the following curse on anyone who touched
or displaced a boundary mark: such a person shall be condemned by
the gods; his house shall disappear; his race shall be extinguished;
his limbs shall be covered with ulcers and waste away; his land shall
no longer produce fruits; hail, rust and fires of the dog-star shall
“And,” says Westermarck,
“considering
the
destroy his harvests.
important
part played by blood as a conductor of imprecations,
it is
not improbable
that the Roman ceremony of letting the blood of a
sacrificial animal flow into the hole where a landmark was to be placed
was intended to give efficacy to the curse.B3
In England, until very recently, the annual custom of “beating
the hounds” was observed.
This ceremony was accompanied by religious services during which a clergyman invoked a curse on anyone
who trespassed on his neighbor’s land, and blessings on him who
regarded the landmarks-e4
In addition to the belief that the remover of a landmark
will be
cursed for his deed, there are many other superstitions associated with
landmarks
and their removal.
In Teutonic and Scandinavian
lands,
it is believed that the Jack-o’-lantern
is the ghost of a former remover
of a landmark who now haunts it and the boundary lines. In popular Hindu belief, the ghost of a former proprietor will not allow the
people of another village to encroach with impunity
on a boundary.
In South India, witches were believed to ride on a tiger around the
boundaries of seven villages at night.
In the Hebrides, blight could
be removed from cattle by bringing the carcass of one near a boundary stream; the water from such a stream was used with silver to
remove the curse of the evil eye.65
The old inhabitants
of Cumana, on the Caribbean Sea, used to
mark off their plantations
by a single cotton thread, believing that
anybody tampering with this boundary mark would speedily die. A
similar idea prevails among the Indians of the Amazon.
In Ceylon,
OS Westermarck,
op. cit.,
O4 Ibid., p. 69.
85 Hastings,
Encyclopa?dia,
Vol.
Vol.
1, pp.
68, 69.
7, p. 794.
THE
510
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
to prevent fruit from being stolen, the people hang up certain grotesque figures around the orchard and dedicate it to the devils, after
which ceremony none of the native Ceylonese will dare even to touch
the fruit on any account.
On the landmarks
of the ancient Babylonians, generally consisting of stone pillars in the form of phalli, imprecations were inscribed with appeals to various deities.ss
Even the Romans came under the influence of this taboo. Jupiter
Terminalis
was the god of boundaries.
According to Roman tradition,
Numa directed that everyone should mark the bounds of his landed
property by stones consecrated to the god Jupiter, to whom sacrifices
should be offered at the festival of the Terminalia.
“If any person
demolished or displaced these stones, he should be looked upon as
devoted to this god, to the end that anybody might kill him as a
sacrilegious person with impunity
and without being defiled with
guilt.”
67
That
this
prevailed
among
the
Egyptians
and
was
then
considered stealing, is substantiated
by Professor James H. Breasted,
who shows it was stressed in the code of Amenemope,
which long
antedated the Mosaic precept.68
In Greece, land boundaries were supposed to be protected by the
god Zeus. This is mentioned by Plato in his “Laws”:
“Let no one
shift the boundary line either of a fellow citizen who is a neighbor,
or if he dwells at the extremity of the land, or any stranger which
is conterminous with him. Everyone should be more willing to move
the largest rock which is not a landmark,
than the last stone which
is the sworn mark of friendship and hatred between neighbors;
for
Zeus, the god of kindred,
is witness of the citizen, and Zeus, the god
of strangers, of the stranger, and, when aroused, terrible are the
wars
which
they
stir
up.
He
who
obeys
the
law
will
never
know
the fatal consequences of disobedience, but he who despises the law
shall be liable to a double penalty, the first coming from the gods, and
the second from the law.”
Such was the belief in nearly all ancient
66 Westermarck,
op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 65-68.
6T Ibid., Vol. 1, p, 61.
6s Breasted,
The Dawn
of Corzscience,
p. 373.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
511
societies; the removal of landmarks constituted a “sin” in the sight
of the gods and would be punished severely. In Palestine today,
and even here among farm owners, the taboo still persists to such a
degree that nobody dares to touch the piles of stone which are placed
on the boundaries of landed property.ss
No group can survive without some regulations regarding the acquisition of those things on which life depends, and this is true even of
the animal world. Property rights are as respected among animals as
among men. Experience must have taught them that if one does not
respect the rights of others within the group, others may not respect
his rights, and therefore the animal that steals is punished.
Animals protect their food and other property in a manner similar to that of primitive man. Some rub their bodies against trees and
other places which they seek to mark as their own. The individual
body odor identifies the spot. The squirrel marks his food with his
saliva. It is then unmistakably his and is then buried for future
use. No other squirrel would dare appropriate that food unless he
were prepared for a bitter struggle.‘O
Bears have been known not only to mark trees with the odor of
their bodies by rubbing against them, but to claw them in such a
way that they leave a mark of identification. Woe to the animal that
seeks to take away these possessions! A struggle to the death ensues.
If a stronger animal seeks to wrest the property from a weaker one,
the whole pack pounces on him, and he is either killed or driven off.
That is the penalty the creature must pay for stealing another’s
“landmark.” ‘l Animals do this without the inspired help of a Moses
because honesty is a self-regulating force, not because of its inherent
moral value, but because of the necessity for self-preservation.
Despite the fact that this Commandment, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark,” was discarded when the Children of
Israel were driven from the land of their forebears, the taboo assoeDWestermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 65.
‘“Thcrc
are
people
who,
when
they
sccurc
mark of ownership.
71Ernest T. Seton, The Ten Commandments
something
of
value,
spit
in the Animal World,
upon
pp.
it as their
3346.
512
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
ciated with it was not so easily eradicated.
The belief in its efficacy
persisted long after its original purpose had been abandoned, and
This
it was restated in the present words of this Commandment.
is evidenced by the transference of its application
to the Hebrew
custom of using the mezuzeli, which is still widesprezd among the
orthodox.
The mezuzeh is a small wooden, glass or metal case or
tube containing
a rectangular
piece of parchment
inscribed with a
Bible passage from the Book of Deuteronomy,
Chapter 6, verses 4 to
9, and Chapter 11, verses 13 to 21. The text had to be printed in
twenty-two lines equally spaced in order to possess magical powers.
4 Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one
Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee
this day, shall be in thine heart.
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto
thy children, and shalt talk of them when
thou sittest in thine house, and when thou
walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon
thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts
of thy house, and on thy g~tcs.
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall
hearken diligently unto my commandments
which I command you this day, to love the
Lord your God, and to serve him with all
your heart and with all your soul.
14 That I will give you the rain of your
land in his due season, the first rain and the
latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy
corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.
15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy
cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.
16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart
be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve
other gods, and worship them;
17 And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled
against you, and he shut up the heaven, that
there be no ram, and that the land yield not
her fruit; and Zest ye perish quickly from off
the good land which the Lord giveth you.
THE
EIGHTH
513
COMMANDMENT
18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words
in your heart and in your soul, and bind them
for a sign upon your hand, that they may
be as frontlets between your eyes.
19 And ye shall teach them your children,
speaking of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way,
when thou liest down, and when thou risest
up.
20 And thou shalt write them upon the door
posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
21 That your days may be multiplied, and
the days of your children, in the land which
the Lord sware unto your fathers to give
them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.
b
On the outer side of the parchment,
near the top of the roll, is
written the word “Shadday,”
the ancient name of the Hebrew God,
which means “to overpower” and “to treat with violence”-singularly appropriate in the apprehension of a thief.72 An opening is left
in the case opposite the word. The meauzeh is affixed in a slanting
position to the upper part of the right-hand
side of the doorpost as
one enters the dwelling, the upper end of the box pointing inward
and the lower one outward.
Pious Jews kiss their fingers after they
touch the mccucch, reciting, “May God keep my going out and my
coming in from now on and evermore,” 73 meaning, in early Biblical hmguage, “Mayst
thou live long in the land that the Lord,
thy God, giveth thee!”
The last verse of the quotation from Chapter 11, of the Book of
Deuteronomy,
emphasizes only too well why this Commandment
dealing with landmarks fell into disuse. The Bible God’s promise to the
Children of Israel was never fulfilled.
That the mezuzeh was not
originally used for its present purpose is admitted by leading Hebrew
authoritiesT4
The very name “mezuzeh” is the present Hebrew word
for doorpost.
During the tribal existence of the Children of Israel it
probably either meant or was a synonym for landmark,
since houses
of the kind used today were unknown then, the tent being the com72 Jewish
Encydo~ecliu,
73 Idelsohn, Ceremonies
74 Ibid,
Vol. 9, p. 162.
of Judaism,
p.
64.
514
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
mon type of dwelling.
It is quite likely that after the Israelites were
driven from the land of their fathers, a new ceremonial use was found
for this taboo and charm.
They merely transferred
the landmark
[to it] the power of warding off from the
to the doorpost, “ascribing
house all harm from without” -the
identical purpose of the landmark.75 The use of the ancient name of the Hebrew God, “Shadday,”
is additional
evidence that the mezuze/z is but a modern adaptation
for the supposed magical protective powers attributed
to the ancient
taboo of the landmark.
Modern enlightened Jews consider the mezuzeh a primitive
superstition,
and have abandoned its use.
Lacking the original reason for certain acts, it is naturally
difficult to understand the particular motives that inspired them.
When
an investigation
of their relationship
to events of the same period is
made, however, their origin and meaning become clear. Once direct
evidence is lost, time builds an almost unbridgeable
chasm between
the past and the present, and it is only by piecing together subtle
threads of evidence that the gap can be filled and the truth made as
apparent as if the actual facts were at hand.
Do we need a better
illustration
of this fact than Darwin’s magnificent
achievement
in
discovering the laws of evolution?
When first announced, it seemed
incredible that man and ape could have had a common ancestry,
but when examined in the light of Darwin’s findings concerning dormant physical characteristics,
such as eyes, ears, hair, bones, instincts, etc., none but the mentally
blind could refuse to accept the
conclusions of the indisputable
evidence amassed by this profound
thinker.
RELIGION
AND
THIEVERY
Ministers
of religion do not consider
mandment as serious as violations of the
speaking of this Commandment,
the Rev.
‘(At this point the Decalogue passes from
7GIdelsohn, Ceremonies of Judaism, p. 65.
the violation
of this Comprevious ones. Why?
In
G. Campbell Morgan says:
the discussion of the essen-
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
515
tial facts of life to matters of lesser importance.”
7o Is honesty less
important than making graven images?
The Rev. Mr. Morgan will
not find it “of lesser importance”
to violate this Commandment
than
the Second Commandment.
Our law provides no punishment
for
breaking the latter, but it does exact a severe penalty for committing
a theft. This very difference supplies us with a notable example of
the evolutionary
aspects of ethical conduct in society.
In Biblical
times, superstitious people considered making a graven image a greater
crime than stealing.
Today the government
encourages, by the expenditure of millions of dollars for schools and teachers, the development of the arts, one of which deals with “graven” images.
On the
other hand, the government
spends millions
of dollars for prisons
and the prosecution of those who commit dishonest acts. Many clergymen are only too familiar with this phase of law enforcement.
The
Rev. Mr. Morgan confesses that ‘% would
he interesting,
hut extremely painful, to pass through the homes of church members, instituting a rigid examination
as to the ownership of all books to be
found therein.” 77
The following Biblical text has been used not only to license unrestricted lying, but also to put the stamp of approval on dishonest
acts-Remans, Chapter 3, verse 7:
“For if the truth of God has more
through
my lie unto his glory, why
also judged as a sinner?”
No matter how deeply we go into
analyzing this Commandment,
we cannot
and defiant than those committed
in the
of dishonesty equals the lucrative spoils
for the glory of God.”
One of the most
abounded
yet am I
the question of stealing in
discover thefts more glaring
name of religion.
No form
purloined “in the name and
outrageous thefts committed
in the name of religion is charging the poor, deluded and distressed
for prayers.
In the thousands
of years it has been used! prayer has
not been responsible for saving a single soul.
76Morgan.
The
77 Ibid., p. 93.
Ten
Commandments,
p. 88.
“Purgatory,”
says
516
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Joseph McCabe, a Roman Catholic priest for twelve years, “is the
most lucrative doctrine ever ‘revealed’ to the Church.” 78 The dottrine of purgatory
has filled the coffers of the Church with gold.
Millions
of dollars have been taken for prayers for the release of
loved ones from purgatory-a
mythical hell. Prayer for the so-called
repose of the souls of the dead should be condemned by law as a
protection for ignorant and credulous people, and suitable punishments
provided for the fraudulent taking of money for such a purpose.
How succinct does Thomas Paine express this thought in these
words: “No man ought to make a living by religion.
It is dishonest
Religion
is
not
an
act
that
can
be
performed
by proxy.”
so to do.
Lecky says of this nefarious trade: “A system which deputed its
ministers to go to the unhappy widow in the first dark hour of her
anguish and desolation to tell her that he who was dearer to her than
all the world beside was now burning in a fire, and that he could
only be relieved by a gift of money to the priest, was assuredly of
its own kind not without extraordinary
merit.” 70
Congressman Loring M. Black of New York, in speaking in behalf of a bill to legalize horse racing in the District of Columbia, was
opposed by a church delegation.
Irritated
by this opposition,
he
turned to the ministers and said: “I don’t see how you have the
nerve to oppose this bill when you run the biggest gambling business
in the world-gambling
on the hereafter.” 8o
No less notorious than the doctrine of purgatory is the scheme of
indulgences.
For those outside the Catholic faith who may not know
what an indulgence is, 1 shall quote an authority:
“An indulgence is
the remission of the debt of temporal punishment
due to sin after
its guilt has been forgiven.” *’ The scandals created by the sale of
indulgences throughout
the Middle
Ages caused Martin
Luther to
break with the Catholic Church and condemn the practice in the moat
78 Joseph McCabe, The Popes
and Their Church,
‘QLecky,
Mar-a&,
Vol. 2, p. 253.
80 Brooklyn
Times Union, June 3, 1934.
81 Rev. Hugh Pope, The Doctrine
of Indulgences,
p. 188.
p. 3.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
517
scathing terms. It would be impossible to determine the amount of
money that this pious fraud brought to the Church.
In Spain, indulgences could be purchased as easily as postal money
orders. A repentant thief who did not know the name and address
of the man whose property he had stolen could buy an indulgence
for a small sum to wipe out the sin. The claim was made, and undoubtedly correctly so, that by this method of indulgence the Church
became a partner with every pickpocket.82
Nor must we fail to mention how the Church fattened on the
pious fraud of “holy” relics.
“In the Fifth Century,”
says Joseph
McCabe, “Rome began, on a large scale, the forgery of lives of martyrs. Relics of martyrs were now being ‘discovered’ in great numbers
to meet the pious demand of ignorant Christendom,
and legends were
fabricated by the thousands to authenticate
the spurious bits of
bone.” 83 Best known perhaps are pieces of the original Cross. There
are phials containing the milk of the Virgin Mary, sold to cure disease. Almost equally lucrative was the prepuce of Jesus Christ,
which was carried in a glass case at the head of processions.
Its value
as a money getter never diminished.
No one will ever know how
much has been paid to see the two skeletons of Jesus Christ --one
when he was a boy and one when he was a man!
The bones of
saints are still producing revenue. Not to mention “Veronica’s Veil”
would be to omit one of the choicest bits of fakery.
Veronica’s Veil
is supposed to be a linen cloth with which Jesus wiped his face while
carrying the Cross. Through miraculous qualities his image was impressed on it. However, these miraculous powers are unable to account for the existence of at least three such veils, differing in textures and impressions.
And then there was the finger of the Holy
Ghost, “as whole and as sound as ever.” On special occasions a few
rays of the star which appeared to the “wise” men were put on display, as well as a phial containing
Saint Michael’s
sweat when he
fought with the Devil, an arm of the Apostle James and part of the
*2C. R. B. Freeman, Priestcvaft, p. 73.
8s Little Blue Book 1130, p. 40.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
518
skeleton of John the Baptist .84 Martin Luther tells of a bishop who
possessed the flames of the Burning Bush which Moses beheld in its
fiery glow. Nor must we forget the tear shed by Jesus over the grave
of Lazarus, or the legs of the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem
-there
are no less than five “authentic”
sets. There are the rods
with which Aaron and Moses performed their miracles before Pharaoh,
and a pair of slippers worn by Enoch before the Flood took place.
Joseph McCabe, in commenting on some of these fakeries, said:
“At Lyons the chief treasures shown to the public were some
milk and hair of the Virgin Mary. This was Lyons’ set-off to the
rival attraction at Soissons, a neighboring town, which had secured
one of the milk-teeth shed by the infant Jesus. There seems to
have been enough of the milk of the Virgin-some
of it was still
exhibited in Spanish churches in the nineteenth century-preserved
in Europe to feed a few calves. There was hair enough to make a
mattress. There were sufficient pieces of the ‘true Cross’ to make
a boat. There were teeth of Christ enough to outfit a dentist
(one monastery at Charroux had a complete set). There were so
many
sets of baby
linen
of the infant
Jesus in Italy,
France
and
Spain, that one could have opened a shop with them. One of the
greatest churches had Christ’s manger-cradle. Seven churches had
his authentic umbilical cord, and a number of churches had his
foreskin (removed at circumcision and kept as a souvenir by
Mary).
One
church
had
the miraculous
imprint
of his
little
bottom on a stone on which he sat. Mary herself had left enough
wedding rings, shoes, stockings, shirts, girdles, etc., to fill a
museum; one of her shirts is still in the Chartres cathedral. One
church had Aaron’s rod. Six churches had the six heads cut off
John
the Baptist.
Every
one of these things
was, remember,
in
its origin, a cynical blasphemous swindle. Each of these objects
was at first launched upon the world with deliberate mendacity.
One is almost disposed to ask for an application to the clergy of
the law about obtaining money under false pretenses.” 85
Lecky, one of the most authentic and scrupulous of historians, reviewing the history of the frauds and forgeries of the Church, said:
s4 Joseph Rhys, The Reliquary,
p. 37.
s5McCabe, The Story of Religious
Controversy,
p. 353.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
519
‘(Making
every allowance for the errors of the most extreme fallibility, the history of Catholicism
would on this hypothesis represent
an amount of imposture
probably unequaled in the annals of the
human race.” 86 He also tells us that “the immense majority of the
acts of the martyrs are transparent
forgeries of lying monks.” 87
Joseph Wheless, in his carefully documented book, has collected
a veritable
encyclopedia
of outrageous frauds perpetrated
by the
Church.
He charges that “the Bible, in its every book, and in the
strictest legal and moral sense, is a huge forgery.” ** The relic business has not ended, and the dishonest trade still flourishes.
Recently it was reported that “Christ’s seamless coat, one of the
most precious relics of Catholicism,
was exhibited
today with solemn exercises for veneration in the ancient cathedral here for the
first time since 1891.” *O
No better example can be given of the connection between religion and thievery than the ministers and expounders of religion in
general who are notoriously
among the flagrantly
dishonest.
How
can we expect one knowingly engaged in a dishonest enterprise to exhibit a fidelity of principle greater than that of the profession which
he practises?
Or, for a more charitable deduction, shall we say that
religion was unable to eradicate their atavistic propensity to steal?
Although there arc numerous books dealing with the crimes of
preachers, a few current instances should be sufficient to prove the
relatinnship
nf religion and crime.
James P. Jones, member of the House of Delegates and formerly
treasurer of the Virginia
Methodist
Orphanage, was arrested on a
warrant charging him with the larceny of $38,000 of the orphanage’s
funds.OO William
F. Groves, Superintendent
of the St. James Methodist Episcopal Sunday School, was arrested for embezzling $17,000
in a year from a building and loan association for which he worked
*eLecky,
Rationalism,
Vol. 1, p. 164.
87 Idem, illovals,
Vol. 1, p. 197.
88 Jnseph WhdpsS, Forgery
in. Chvistimif.y,
89 New York Times, July 24, 1933.
OOZbid., Sept. 19, 1930.
See also Franklin
p. xix.
Steiner,
Religiolz
and
Rogue~y.
520
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
as solicitor.n1
“The admiring
congregation
of Reverend Frolkey’s
church in Le Mars, Iowa, was stunned by the discovery that their
beloved minister maintained
a gambling den and love nest in a neighboring city and kept his pockets filled with money for his wicked
indulgences by a series of bank robberies with mask and pistol.” n2
“The 500 citizens of the little town of Mooreland,
Indiana,
were
shocked recently when their beloved young pastor was arrested on
a charge of stealing automobiles.
But even more astonishing was his
defense. He said that his meagre salary of $40 a month was not
enough to enable him to buy a car in which to visit his parishioners.
So he stole three cars at different times ‘because the Lord’s work had
to go on.’ ” n3
“After exhorting his brethren to lead virtuous lives, Morris Johnson, a lay preacher, would climb from the pulpit, replace the Bible
in his hand with a revolver, and take up the more lucrative calling of
robbery, according to police yesterday who said that Johnson led a
gang of four in more than twenty hold-ups in Brooklyn.
Johnson,
police say, would rob and preach on the same nights.
‘Are you a
minister or thief?’ police asked Johnson.
‘Both,’ he is said to have
replied, explaining that money was slow in arriving to a clergyman.” O4
The case of Frederick
Grant White, a church worker, should
prove a lesson to those zealots who are constantly boasting of the
saving grace of religion.
He was sentenced to Folsom Prison for
from twelve to fifteen years after convictinn on thirteen fraud charges
against women members of his congregation.
White was sent to
prison thirteen years ago on similar fraud charges when associated
with a Los Angeles church.n5 No doubt, while Mr. White was serving
his first term for fraud, he was “born again” by the religious instruction of the prison chaplain, and undoubtedly
he was pointed out as
a shining example of the redeeming power of religion.
91 New
92 New
York
York
World,
Aug. 19, 1930.
American,
Oct. 27, 1929.
@S New
York
.lnumnl,
New
96 New
York
York
Herald
Tribune,
Nov.
Sun, Aug. 18, 1931.
94
Oct.
12,
1901.
13, 1929.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
521
We do not know what the words of this Commandment meant to
Austin Drysdale, Bible class teacher and formerly an official of the
First National Bank of Philadelphia, but he was sentenced to six
months in prison on charges of embezzling $2,000 of the bank’s
funds.96
Herbert R. Foshay, fifty-four-year-old vestryman of Saint Thomas’
Protestant Episcopal Church, Mamaroneck, New York, who resigned
as postmaster of that city in 1926 after a shortage of about $1,200
in the post-office funds had been discovered, was sentenced to a
year and a day in Atlanta Penitentiary for robbing the mails of $35
while he was still in the employ of the post office as a clerk.97
T. Edward Jarrell, twenty-six-year-old Methodist Sunday school
teacher and cashier of the Plaza National Bank of White Plains, New
York, was arrested, arraigned and held for the grand jury on charges
preferred by President Edwin P. Day of the bank that his accounts
were some $3 1,000 short.9s
Frank
A. Scott,
fifty-five
years
old, treasurer
of the First
Con-
gregational Church of Madison, Connecticut, was sentenced to six
mnnt.hs in fhe cnunty
jail on a charge
of embezzling
$1,800 of church
funds.99
Nor must we fail to mention the case of John T. Manton, Senior
Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Southern District of
New York, the highest-ranking judge in the United States ever to
be convicted of the crime of accepting a bribe. His decisions were
notorious instances of “bought justice,” yet Judge Manton boasted of
his strong religious convictions. Such a system of religion is an evil
to society. How can his mere reliance on forgiveness for confessing
his sins make amends LOlhost: who suffered for his dishonest conduct
in selling judicial opinions?
His acts cost others their fortunes and
their
lives,
and any
religious
creed
that
can soothe
the feeling
of
one who has prostituted his high office should be condemned as a
96 New
97 New
QsNew
99 New
York
York
York
York
American,
June 13, 1933.
Times, July 19, 1932.
Post, Jan. 9, 1930.
Herald
Tribune,
Dec. 20, 1933.
THE
522
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
contributing cause of dishonesty. It certainly cannot be commended
as making for honesty.
Rabbi Zeide M. Schmellner, fifty-nine years old, and Miss Mary
Berd, his secretary, were convicted of the theft of $20,000 from
Bernard Rudolf, an electrical-supply
dealer, who had testified that
he gave the defendants $60,000 in 1932 and 1933 to invest in a mysterious concern that had contracts with equally mysterious customers
to furnish them with explosives.loO
In view of the widespread dishonesty and embezzlements
by
church workers, treasurers and ministers, the boards of trustees of
churches are going to bond their employees
in the future, putting
reliance in a bonding company than in “God-fearing
formation
comes from Mr. Harry
men.”
more
This in-
T. Huff of New York, vice-president
of the National Surety Company, who in an address said: “One of
the largest religious
institutions
in the country
bonded three thousand
of its financial secretaries and treasurers last year,” while “indications are that all church officials who have the responsibility
of han-
dling sums of money for church organizations will be bonded in the
near future.”
loi
Fake cures in the name of religion are effective ways of “getting
the money”
as well as any other dishonest
The Rev. Joseph
schemes.
H. Stokes, who claimed the power to raise fallen arches by ‘(truth
and treatment,”
was fined $1,000,
given a six-month
suspended
jail
sentence, and placed on probation for a year in connection with his
spiritual
finance scheme.
His son, Cecil A. W. Stokes, was sentenced
to a year in jai1.1°2
Mrs. Annabel Lee Gatlin, lady evangelist of Texas, had saved the
souls of 2,000 hardened sinners, but she and her husband were accused
of stealing
about
200 sinless and soulless cattle,
among
them
fine horses. She was convicted and served a year in prison.loy
100 New
lo1 Truth
lo2 New
103 Ibid,
York Times, June 24, 1938.
Seeker, August,
1932.
York World-Telegram,
Apr. 19, 1932.
some
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
523
It is an established fact that religious leaders have been some of
the most flagrant perpetrators
of deception,
fraud and downright
thievery.
If it is contended that it was not their religious teachings
that caused them to become dishonest, then it must be admitted that
their religious training did not prevent their becoming thieves.
The Rev. Leo Kalmer,
Catholic chaplain of the Joliet, Illinois,
penitentiary,
in an article entitled,
“Does Religion
Breed Crime?”
makes the startling admission that “it would seem so from statistics
of penitentiary
reports.”
District Attorney Stanton of Connecticut
said: “Within
the past ten years five million dollars have been lost
in Connecticut by dishonest and other management;
in nearly every
instance by those who were prominent
in church matters.”
The Rt.
Hon. W. E. Gladstone, the great English Christian statesman, wrote:
“To my great pain and disappointment,
I have found that thousands
of churchmen supplied the great mass of those who have gone lnmentably wrong upon questions involving the interest of truth, justice
and humanity.”
lo4
The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that “the profession
of preacher does not necessarily invest a man with that purity of
morals which renders him more scrupulous in declaring the truth than
another man.” lo6 And the Court of Appeals of the State of New
York said: “Those who for years have given the highest evidence that
they would receive the reward of the true Christian,
are guilty of
grave offenses, moral and legal.” lo8
In view of all this evidence, imagine a thief being sentenced to
attend church as a means of making him honest!
This was the sentence John Francis Connaghan received when he pleaded guilty to
a theftlo
lo4 Quoted by Franklin Steiner, Religion
IO5 Sneed v. Greath, 8 N.C., 309.
106 Court
of
107 New York
Appeals,
State
uf
New
York,
Journal, Apr. 22, 1935.
and Roguery,
1868.
p. 66.
524
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
THE NEGATION
OF ETHICS
If this Commandment read “Thou shalt be honest,” the positive
expression might not only act as a deterrent, but it would lack the
negative suggestion of committing a wrong. Psychologists tell us that
instructions which contain suggestions of things to be avoided often
do far more harm than if no suggestion whatever had been given.
They often induce a person to do the very thing that the words used
were designed to prevent.
Because of the terrific struggle for existence under present economic conditions, particularly when one takes into account man’s
frailty and the pressure of circumstances, it is almost impossible at
times to determine what actually constitutes stealing. Life is not fashioned on a plan where the demarcation between honest and dishonest
conduct can always be accurately determined.
The pattern of a perfect society was not ordained for us. Environment in a world antagonistic to one’s physical and emotional nature is not without
influence on conduct. We find ourselves buffeted by countless conflicting interests. The most scrupulous are often faced with perplexities, and the man or woman who always rises above strong personal
interests and desires and does the intrinsically right thing is a rare
phenomenon.
We cannot produce a high degree of morality
by warning a child
that he will be punished for violating a religious precept, when all
about him he sees the prohibited
act being committed with impunity.
Such a doct+ae
is the very
negation
of ett%ics.
To pound into the ears of our children the negative suggestion
“Thou shalt not steal” dries not strengthen their resistance when the
opportunity to steal presents itself, In fact, it often has the opposite
effect. It is easier for a boy to obey when he is told to come directly home after school than if he is told not to go to the ball game
to watch his schoolmates play. To tell a girl that she may not go
to a dance, which she was unaware was to take place, only creates the
desire to attend. Once curiosity has been aroused and the urge to
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
525
participate
manifested, the strongest moral strength is necessary to
overcome it. Fortifying
a child with precepts of a positive good
makes that child’s resistance to wrong less difficult.
The advice to
eat foods that are healthful
will more likely be followed than the
admonition
to abstain from eating the tempting ones that are not.
“In moral education,”
says Westermarck,
“example plays a more
important
part than precept.
But even in this respect, Christianity
has unfortunately
little reason to boast of its achievements.”
lo8
The normal infant is neither a moral nor an immoral being, but
rather new material from which either can be made. If anything, his
inherited primitive traits impel him toward being an antisocial member
of our bewildering,
artificial and complicated
society. It is for education to make of that child a social-minded
being. The primary instinct of the newborn child is to satisfy its hunger, to sustain itself.
The manner in which this is accomplished
does not concern him in
the slightest degree.
He knows no laws, rules, restrictions
or restraints.
When these are imposed upon him, the natural tendency is
rebellion, and his struggles and tantrums often prove to be effective
weapons against these restrictions.
A well-known educator and authority on child psychology states
this truth pertinently
when he says: “For some time after birth, the
child is little more than an incarnation
of appetite which knows no
restraint, and only yields to the undermining
force of satiety.
The
child’s entrance into social lilt: through a growing
consciousness
of
the existence of others is marked by much fierce opposition to their
wishes.”
lo0
Dr.
M. V. O’Shea,
eminent
in the field of child
edu-
cation, makes this significant statement:
“The factors which may
lead a child to t.a.ke what does not belong to him are often subtle
and complex.
Unless this fact is appreciated, it will be impossible
to protect children from developing the habit of stealing, or cure them
when they have entered upon a criminal career.” Ilo
108 Westermarck,
Morals,
VoI.
10QHealy,
Honesty,
p. 21.
IlOQuoted,
ibid., p. 10.
2,
p.
737.
526
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The child is not born with the instincts of honesty implanted
in
its mind.
Honesty as we want it practised is a principle that must
be taught very much like anything else in the field of human endeavor.
We must early inculcate the principles of honesty in the
mind of the child if we expect the desired results to follow.
How
well this is substantiated
is furnished by the proofs of an exhaustive
study in the field of ethics by Professors Hugh Hartshorne
and Mark
A. May.
The study was sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia
into character education with parUniversity,
and was an “inquiry
ticular reference to religious education.”
After their scientific investigation, they were forced to the following conclusion with reference
to honesty in children:
“It [honesty]
is supposed to be present in
the child in the form of a ready-made force or mode of behavior requiring only to be evoked by precept, threat or reward. The method
is prolific of wise sayings and moral caution, but as a means of producing universal honor among men we certainly cannot boast of its
success.” 111
Another eminent authority states: ‘(If morality
and intellect are
finally demonstrated
to be correlated throughout
the whole range of
individual
differences, it is probably the most profoundly
significant
fact with which society has to deal.” 112
Just as the child is taught how to spell, just as he learns the
principles of grammar and arithmetic,
so he must be taught a code
of ethics and the principles of morality.
A precept learned without
understanding
is as useless as a blueprint without explanation
would
be to an untrained mind.
The rules of grammar
and the principles
of arithmetic are not based upon a supernatural
conception but upon
a purely scientific foundation;
so must the concepts and principles
of the moral order be based upon a natural and utilitarian
basis.
As it is difficult for some people to understand the mechanism
of the solar system, so there are people who will find it difficult to
comprehend the complicated
principles of higher ethics.
They are
111H. Hartshorne
112 J. B. Miner,
and M. A. May,
Studies in
The Relation
between
Morality
Deceit,
and
p. 27.
Intellect,
p, xx.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
527
not to be held responsible for their mental deficiency.
Our whole
system of criminal jurisprudence
will undergo a change when morality is regarded not as a divine plan, but as a purely human institution.
Religion’s greatest failure is in the field of ethics, because it considers ritual performances
the equivalent
of moral acts. McHugh
and Cullam found that, “It was never the function of religion to make
men virtuous-and
it was considered that the greatest sins a person
could commit were acts against the faith.
These acts were condemned as worse than sins against the moral virtues.”
That is why
religionists
are so often embarrassed when confronted with criminal
statistics.
Bishop Gallagher of Detroit, Michigan,
when shown the
prison statistics of his community,
was forced to admit:
“It is a matter of serious reproach to the Church that more
Catholic boys, in proportion to the total number, get into trouble
than those of any other denomination.
One-fifth [200/o] of the
people of Michigan are Catholics, but fifty per cent of the boys
in the Industrial
School for Boys at Lansing are Catholics.” I13
Ethical principles, when mixed with religion, are like good food
adulterated
with preservatives;
and just as the adulterated
food is
robbed of its nutritional
values, so ethics are contaminated
with superstition and the morality
of the act is lost in the confusion of religious ceremonies.
In a paper read before the Ninth International
Congress of Psy
chology, held at Yale
Pleasant R. Hightower
significant
report:
University
of Butler
on September
University
6, 1929, Professor
made this startling
STUDENTS
OF BIBLE FOUND LESS HONEST
“People have been saying for years that if you give children a
knowledge of the Bible, they will walk the straight and narrow
way.
The result shows that they won’t walk the straight and
narrow way. It does indicate very definitely that mere knowledge
of the Bible of itself is not sufficient to insure the proper character
attitudes.” 11*
113 New York Times, Dec. 8, 1936.
114New York Times, Sept. 7, 1929.
and
528
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Professor Hightower’s experiment was the result of a test given to
more than 3,300 children, and proves beyond the possibility of a
doubt that unless a child is taught and educated, he will not know.
Dr. George Rex Mursall,
chief psychologist
of the Ohio Depart-
ment of Welfare, examined comparable groups of boys in the Ohio
Reform School at Lancaster and of supposedly law-abiding children
outside. He found that the inmates of the reformatory had received
fully as much religious training as those outside. He concluded that
“it seems safe to state that there is no significant relation between
religious training and delinquent or non-delinquent behavior.” This
same conclusion was reached in a similar study of conditions among
school children in England. In Bradford, England, the City Council
appointed Mrs. E. M. Henshaw to investigate and report on juvenile
delinquency. She discovered and reported that the Church schools
have a substantially
higher rate of delinquents
than State schools, the
rates being in State schools 6.6 per thousand; in Church of England
schools, 7.5 per thousand; and in Roman Catholic schools, 15.3 per
thousand. She declared: “I think that .children get fundamental
ethical teaching in school, quite apart from religious teaching, in their
contacts with real people as distinct from a superimposed dogma, re“There
ligious or otherwise.” The report includes this statement:
has in the past been some confusion between the terms ‘religious
These two are not synonytraining’ and ‘character training.’
mous.” i16
When a child is born, it knows nothing about reading, ‘riting and
‘rithmetic. And if anyone thinks that by merely giving a rule in
arithmetic or grammar the child will be able to grasp the subject, his
knowledge
of education
is so utterly
best proof of the need for instruction.
be explained
deficient
that he himself
The complexities of life must
LO a child before he is able to understand
society and the proper conduct he is expected to perform.
is a slow process.
116 Arbitrator,
July-Aug.,
We can learn only by doing.
1943,
p. 4.
is the
Mere
his place in
Education
words are
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
529
meaningless.
Unless the child has the capacity to understand, even
teaching will prove valueless.
Not very long ago New York City was stirred by the exploits of
a young desperado-“two-gun”
Crowley. When he was captured, he
boldly confessed to the murder of an officer of the law. “Of course,
I killed that cop,” he said. “I don’t like cops. No, I don’t want any
lawyer. Get it over with. Repent?
Hell, no! My conscience was
never so clear in my life. What I want is a square meal.”
The kindhearted district attorney suggested a beefsteak.
“No, sir; no meat
for me,” said the young killer.
“Don’t you know this is Friday?” 116
What did Crowley’s religion teach him? That it was a greater sin
to eat meat on Friday than to murder a man?
Although he was in jail on charges of stealing scrolls from a synagogue at Long Beach, Mohrdehel
Rashinsky, eighteen years old, insisted on observing the feast of the Passover.
When his breakfast
was brought to him, he declined to eat it, asking for special Passover
food. This young man would rather take a chance on stealing and
letting the law take its course than incur the wrath of the Bible God
for eating tabooed food.ll’
Is not such a religious concept the very
negation
of ethics?
When Earle Peacox was apprehended
his wife,
he was found
to be the proud
after the frightful
possessor
murder
of a medal
of
for six
years of perfect attendance at Sunday school.
A desperate criminal, caught leaving a house after looting it and
A
killing members of the household, was shot dead by a policeman.
search of his clothes revealed a number of religious articles on his
person which caused the police to report that the bandit “had atHow much further
tended church just before committing
his crimes.”
removed in mental development
was this criminal from the members
of a certain African tribe who, when they are about to commit a crime,
115New
1~ The
“right with
society and
and crime,
York
Times, May 9, 1931.
Church has not changed. It is still more concerned with getting the culprit
God” than inculcatinn in him a rational attitude as to his position in
with a view to preventing further antisocial acts. For a study of religion
see: Donald A. Taft, Criminology.
530
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
lay aside their fetish and cover up their deity that the latter may
not be privy to the deed? llS And how could it be otherwise, since
religion is not concerned with morality,
but with ritual and ceremony?
This is confirmed by the statement made by the Rev. Charles J.
Woodbridge
of the First Presbyterian
Church, Flushing, New York,
who said: “Let me remind you that even the life of extreme selfsacrifice does not make the Christian.
Nothing
that man can do
along the lines of virtue or righteousness will make him anything but
an unprofitable
servant.
We simply cannot save ourselves by morality.” I19 How advanced is this present-day evaluation of religion
and morality from that of a bishop of the seventh century, canonized
by the Church of Rome, who described a good Christian as a man
“who comes frequently to church; who presents the oblation which
is offered to God upon the altar; who doth not taste of the fruits of
his own industry until he has consecrated a part of them to God;
who, when holy festivals approach, lives chastely with his wife for
several days that with a safe conscience he may draw near the altar
of God; and who, in the last place, can repeat the creed and the Lord’s
prayer.” 120 In this statement is crystallized
the religious viewpoint
which is concerned completely
with ritual observance and does not
require a single act of morality.
It is predicated on the belief that
man is a sinful being, and it is considered more important
to cleanse
himself of his sinful heritage than to live a life of moral perfection.
The result of this viewpoint is shown in criminal statistics. Naples,
which had the worst record of any European city for crimes against
the person, was also the most religious city in Europe.121
In Italy
and other Church-dominated
countries, it was held more infamous to
transgress the slightest ceremonial of the Church than to transgress
any moral duty.l””
However, Laing, the noted historian, stated that
lls Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 2, p. 669.
110 New York Times, July 7, 1930.
~0 Westermarck, Morals, Vol. 2, p. 736.
121 Ellis, The Criminal,
p. 159.
122 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 736.
THE
EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
531
in no country in Europe did he find so much morality and so little religion as in Switzerland.123
Westermarck
notes that “a high degree
of religious devotion is frequently
accompanied
by great laxity of
morals,” and that, with one or two exceptions, “the practice of religion may be taken as a sure index of low morality in a tribe.” 124
For proof of how wicked religious people can be, we need but recall
the tortures of the Inquisition,
the horrors of the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew’s
Eve, the frightful crimes of the Crusaders, the persecution by the Puritans, and the innumerable
other crimes for which
religion has been responsible.
All these were prompted by the obligation imposed upon the devotees of nearly all religious systems to
avenge offenses against their deity, which is not only utterly devoid
of any moral qualities, but automatically
negates moral conduct.
Professor Hudson Hoagland of Clark University found that “ethics
may be something quite independent of religion”
and that “there is
no necessary connection between religion and the problems of good
and evil. Good and evil refer to that which is good and bad for a
particular organism at a particular time.” 125 In view of these facts,
the conclusion is inevitable
that a greater sense of honesty will be
inculcated in the mind of a child who is taught morality without veligion than in the child who is taught religion without morality.
It was the opinion of Robert Erskine Ely, Director
Emeritus of
the Town Hall, New York, that of the thousands of men who spoke
at Town
IIall-including
sonages-
“the noblest
Prince
Peter
Presidents,
preachers
man, the one really
Kropotkin,
a self-profcsscd
and
greatest
atheist
and
other
noted
of them
a great
per-
all was
man
of
science.” 126
Governor
Walter
E. Edge,
of New
Jersey,
our
former
Ambassador
to France, in a letter to the New York Times, July 21, 1944, recalling
the twelve Premiers who held that high office during his four official
123Ellis,
op. cit.,
p.
159.
124 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 735.
125 New
12eIbid.,
York
World-Telegram,
Oct. 10, 1941.
Sept.
8, 1941,
532
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
years in Paris said, that Edouard Herriot (an avowed Freethinker
and
Anticlerical)
was beyond doubt the most dependable of them all.
The Rev. Harry
Emerson
Fosdick
admits
that many nonreligious people are “devoted philanthropists,
loyal servants of a better
day for mankind,
and they will do for the salvation of society more
than many of us will do.
They are filled with the love of
man. . . .” lz7
Not only in prison statistics, but in previous pages of this book,
evidence has been submitted to show that religion has been a failure
as a restraining force against committing
crimes.
Stealing will continue in direct ratio to the struggle for existence.
The rule governing the proportion
of murders and suicides to the
population
rate operates likewise in the number of thefts that will
be committed,
provided always that conditions are the same. Acts
today will be provocative of thefts in the future.
By determining
the
prevalence of the dangers in relation to the child’s age classification,
the wise parent can assist it successfully across the danger zone. All
the prayers in the world cannot save a child whose associations and
tendencies do not make for honesty.
Intelligent
supervision and training are the only effective instruments.
Thievery, like disease, seems to be an ever-present problem, and
just as disease was once treated by prayer and other superstitious
religious practices without success, so dishonesty will continue to prevail as long as it is believed that it can be cured by religious precepts
and taboos.
Just as the scientific study of disease has already eradicated many
of the ills of mankind which religion thought had been sent as punishment for sin, so will the application
of ethical principles to the
problems of dishonesty eradicate this propensity
in modern man.
Only by educating one to meet the exigencies of changing conditions,
and applying intelligent
analysis of intent and purpose to the problem
when it arises, will the evil of dishonesty be dispelled.
Not until man ceases to devote his energies to the love of God and
121 New
York Times, Apr.
21, 1934.
THE EIGHTH
COMMANDMENT
533
to rely on the performance of his “religious duty,” and instead dedicates himself to the eradication of his primitive antisocial instincts by
a rationalistic analysis of his troubles, will he achieve any degree of
successin solving the problems of society.
I am optimist enough to believe that just as there have been scientific achievements in preventing and curing diseases which formerly
plagued the human race with misery and death, so will high moral
principles, intelligently applied to ethical conduct, save mankind from
the plague of thievery and make the world a community of honest
men and women.
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
Bank of Wisdom
Priestcraft is not a thing of bygone ages, it lives today and will
live as long as people do not think for themselves. The clergy, by
whatever name they present themselves – Minister, Priest, Bishop,
Brother, Pope, etc. – are no more needed to bring people to truth or
morality than beggars are needed for a better economy.
But how do we break the chains of the mind that are passed on
from one generation to the next by child indoctrination? Priestcraft
insists that the child’s mind must be trained to believe in the one
religion preached, and special schools are provided to assure
that no child will escape the deadening influence of the old beliefs
that provide the clergy with power, wealth and influence.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of Wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
www.bankofwisdom.com
The
Ninth
Commandment
“Thou
shalt not bear
against thy neighbor.”
false
witness
THE TRIBAL
I
SIGNIFICANCE
OF “NEIGHBOR”
F THE
previous eight Commandments
were gems of a moral
genius and precepts for the highest ethical conduct-which
of
course they are not- this Command,ment
alone would invalidate
the Decalogue as a divine revelation.
This Commandment definitely
shows these precepts to be rules of conduct, based on superstitious
taboos, for the small tribe of Hebrews who formulated them, and is
in the same category as other provincial regulations of tribal ethics.
If there were a God of the universe, and if he had given all the peoples
of the earth
a precept
to follow,
this
God would
not have restricted
giving false witness only against one’s “neighbor.”
Bearing false
witness would have been condemned as inherently wrong regardless
of whom the testimony might affect.
False testimony is unethical no matter against whom it is given,
and if it is considered to be ethically right at certain times and under
certain circumstances, the whole fabric and structure of our moral
ideal collapses. For “truth is truth to the end of reckoning.” Not
for the benefit of one’s “neighbor” or to the detriment of one’s enemy, but truth for truth’s sake is the highest ethical concept and the
very quintessence of justice. The honorable man will speak truthIt is essential to
fully cvcn though it prove to his own detriment.
the principle of equality before the law that justice be applied equally
to my enemy and to me. If we permit an exception for the sake
of expediency or for some prejudicial reason, we may some day suffer
because of that exception.
Universal justice ZeFill never
the earth are governed by the
leges. It will not matter then
as he enjoys liberty, and justice
be achieved until all the peoples of
same laws and enjoy the same priviunder what flag a man lives, so tong
is administered
impartially
to all.
531
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
538
This Commandment does not say, “Thou shalt not bear false
witness.” If that were all it said, then it would possess some virtue.
But the makers of this Commandment were not concerned with a
general application
of telling the truth under all circumstances.
The
three additional words of this Commandment were added for a very
definite reason. For the age and for the purpose for which they were
intended, the Commandment
would be incomplete
without them.
Therefore, in keeping with the primitive moral standard of tribal
culture, this Commandment very properly reads: “Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbor.” These three words, “against
thy neighbor,”
completely change its meaning and preclude its application as an ethical precept for modern society. Without them
this Commandment could very easily have universal application, but
with them it falls back into the narrow provincial category of the
early Israelitish tribal code.
At the time this Commandment was written, anyone who was not
a “neighbor” was an enemy. This was the law of tribal life. The
boundaries and property of clans had to be vigilantly watched and
jealously guarded. It was essential to the solidarity of the tribe that
all band together for the common good.
According to Talmudic law, only a brother Hebrew is a neighbor.
In another interpretation of this very Commandment, brother and
neighbor are synonymous terms which do not apply to anyone outside
the c1an.l
The word “neighbor,”
as used in this Commandment, unmistak-
ably meant a fellow tribesman, a compatriot,
and did not, nor was it
ever intended to describe a fellow human being in a universal sense.
This is verified not only by leading Biblical authorities, such as the
Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin, who says that “the Israelites did not apply
this Commandment to their dealings with other people,” but by the
Bible itself.
When properly understood in the light of primitive culture, this
Commandment is in perfect harmony as to its origin and meaning with
1 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 620.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
539
the other portions of the Decalogue.
The authors of the Decalogue
could not have formulated
it differently;
they were mentally
incapable of embodying a Commandment
with the broader principle of
universal application.
All the Commandments
belong in the same
category and were promulgated
for one purpose-to
prevent injury
to the clan and to promote tribal solidarity
for the sake of their
Deity’s approval.
If this Commandment
consisted of the simple statement, “Thou
shalt not lie,” it would be free from its clannish implication.
And
if, in addition to this unequivocal
declaration that an untruth should
not be uttered, the penalty provided for speaking falsely were that
the tongue should become palsied, then indeed might such a Commandment
act as a sentinel in order that “truth might bear away
the victory.”
There
is no
guarding
mnnitnr
the mind
from
believing
that
which
is untrue, or restraining the tongue from speaking that which is false.
Professor James H. Breasted, the noted Egyptologist,
makes a
significant observation in his book, The Dawn of Conscience.
After
an exhaustive study of the evolution of ethics, he confesses:
“Like most lads among my boyhood associates, I learned the
Ten Commandments.
I was taught to reverence them because I
was assured that they came down from the skies into the hands
of Moses, and that obedience to them was therefore sacredly
incumbent
upon me. I remember that whenever I fibbed I fnund
consolation in the fact that there was no commandment ‘Thou shalt
not lie,’ and that the Decalogue forbade lying only as a ‘false
witness’ giving testimony before the courts where it might damage
one’s neighbor. In later years when I was much older, I began to
be trnuhld
hy
the
fart
that.
a, code of morals
which
did not forbid
lying seemed imperfect; but it was a long time before I raised
the interesting question: How has my own realization of this imperfection arisen? Where did I myself get the moral yardstick
by which I discovered this shortcoming in the Decalogue?”
Professor Breasted’s answer to his question is predicated on inevitable conclusions, drawn from his researches, that ethics develop
540
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
in an evolutionary
process and that “the moral ideas of early man
were the product of their own social experience.”
A careful examination of the early religious systems and the moral codes of contemporary times forced him to state that “it is important
to bear in
mind the now commonly
accepted fact that in its primitive
stages
religion had nothing to do with morals as understood by us today.” 2
Professor Breasted is too considerate when he speaks of only primitive religion and morals as being two entirely separate and distinct
departments of human thought.
They are just as much separate and
distinct today as they were ten thousand years ago. Religion
and
morals have not only no connection with each other, but are often
antagonistic
both in principle
and practice, as has been factually
substantiated
in the analysis of the previous Commandments.
He
also discovered that “man arose to high moral vision two thousand
years before the Hebrew nation was born.” 3
This Commandment
survives today, not because of any ethica:
value that it might possess, for it has none, but because it is associated with a religious taboo. It is but another striking example of
the utter lack of moral value when conduct is predicated upon racial
and religious edicts.
BIBLICAL
EVIDENCE
OF HEBREW
TRIBAL
SOLIDARITY
Just as the Bible is replete with instances to support the contention that the previous Commandments
were applicable solely to the
early Hebrews, so we find innumerable
instances recorded in it about
their dealings with outside tribes which show that this Commandment was exclusively a tribal precept, and that the word “neighbor”
as used in this Commandment
had reference only to a fellow Hebrew.
The code of conduct which made its adherents honest and trustworthy
among themselves, but deceitful and unscrupulous
toward strangers,
seems to have been prevalent in many similar primitive
social groups.
2 Breasted,
The
albid.,
p. If.
Dawn
of
Conscience,
p.
18.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
541
This Commandment
is as definite a reflection of that cultural level as
if it were stamped w&!h the year and age in which it was formulated.
An example of this tribal code is recorded in Deuteronomy,
Chapter 14, verse 21:
21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth
of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger
that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or
thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou
aut a holy people unto the Lord thy God. . . .
You and your neighbor may not eat meat from an animal that “dieth
of itself,” but it is permissible to give it to the stranger, or sell it to
an alien. This one illustration
alone should be sufficient to convince
anyone of the meaning and intent of the word “neighbor”
as used in
this Commandment,
because it is a far greater offense to sell diseased
meat to a stranger than to bear false witness against a neighbor.
The cont.err~pL will1 wKch
the stranger was held in primitive
society
only emphasizes the strong tribal ties which this Commandment
was
intended
to preserve.
Another Biblical passage revealing the clannish principle of tribal
solidarity is in Deuteronomy,
Chapter 1.5, verses 1 to 3:
1 At the end of every seven years thou
shalt make a release.
2 And this is the manner of the release:
Every creditor that lendeth aught unto his
neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it
of
his
neighbor,
or
of
his
brother;
bccnusc
it
is called the Lord’s release.
3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again:
but that which is thine with thy brother thine
hand shall release.
Not only are the words “neighbor”
and “brother” used synonymously
in the above instance, but the additional
fact that a fellow Hebrew
should cancel his neighbor’s debt after seven years, but “of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again,” is a clannish ethical concept that
leaves not the slightest doubt of the meaning of “neighbor”
as used
in Hebrew nomenclature,
and particularly
in this Commandment.*
4 New Standard Bible Dictionary,
p. 610.
THE
542
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Could there possibly be a stronger illustration
to indicate the meaning of the word “neighbor”
sense as part of this Commandment?
19
Thou
shalt
not
lend
upon
usury
than the following
used in the Biblical
to
thy
brother; usury of money, usury of victuals,
usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon
usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not
lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may
bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to
in the land whither thou goest to possess it.5
The same tribal code accounts for the rule which prevailed among
the Hebrews that if an article which had been lost by one member
was found by another, it was incumbent
upon the latter to see that
it was restored to his “brother,”
but that if the property belonged
to a stranger, no attempt need be made to return it.o
Equally
pertinent
to this tribal concept is the following
from
Leviticus, Chapter 19, verses 16 to 18:
16
Thou
shalt
not
go up
and
down
(IS a tale-
bearer among thy people; neither shalt thou
stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I
am the Lord.
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine
heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy
neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge,
nor
bcm
any
grudge against the children of thy people, but
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I
am the Lord.
As is well known,
its
clannish
the Bible
application,
no Hebrew
As quoted in Leviticus,
Hebrew.
~L-kuferonomy,
Chafitev
not only sanctions
23,
verxes
shall
Chapter
19
and
20.
be enslaved
slavery,
by
but, in
a brother
25, verses 44 to 46:
When
the
Christian
Church
adopted
the Old Testament, it observed this Commandment literally, and as a result refused to
charge interest on loans. However, this reversed the order of the Old Testament and
permitted
the
Hebrews
to
do
so.
As
a result,
Bernard
of
Clairvauv
urged
the
rulers
of his day to tolerate the Jews, not because he hated persecution, but in order that
Christians might not be constrained to imperil their souls by the sin of usury. (E. P.
I n 1210,
Fvnns,
Ihrnlvtiona~y
Ethic,,
p. 74.)
the German
Emperor Frederick III permitted Jews to dwell in Nuremberg for the same reason,
13Deuteronomy,
Chapter
22, verses
1 to 4,
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
543
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are round about you; of them shall ye
buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them
shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land: and
they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
for ever: but over your brethren the children
of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another
with rigour.
The bondmen and bondmaids “shall be of the heathen that are round
about you, ” “but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall
of
not rule . . .” This only re-emphasizes the clannish application
the word “neighbor”
in its relation to this Commandment.
The conclusion is inevitable
that “brother”
and “neighbor”
as
used in these Biblical quotations are identical in purpose with the
word “neighbor”
as used in this Commandment,
and meant a fellow
Hebrew only.
The significance of these quotations in relation to this Commandment may be summarized by placing them in the following order:
“Thou
must nnt eat of nnything
that dieth
of itself, but thou mayest give it unto the
stranger, or sell it to an alien. . . .”
“After every seven years thou shalt make a
release of thy neighbour’s debt, but of the foreigner thou mayest exact it again. . . .”
“Thou shalt not lend money upon usury
unto thy brother, but unto a stranger thou
mayest lend it upon usury. . . .”
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine
heart. . , .”
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbour. . . .”
Not only must you refrain
from giving false witness against your
your compatriot,
but, as in the previous instances, it was incumbent to bear false witness, if necessary,
neighbor,
your fellow tribesman,
544
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
against the stranger when the interest of a neighbor was involved.
While the injunction
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor” is negative in defense of tribal solidarity,
it is positive in
its application to tribal enemies. Among primitive
tribes, such as were
the Children of Israel, a “stranger”
did not merit the same rights
and consideration as a “neighbor”
and was looked upon as an enemy
of the tribe, as revealed in verse 16, quoted above-“neither
shalt
thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.
. . .”
THE
CLANNISHNESS
OF TRIBAL
LAW
In the lower stages of social life, the interests of the “foreigner”
or “stranger”
were not regarded at all.
In primitive
society, the
clan or community
was considered as a part of one’s own body. An
injury to an individual
member affected the whole community.
It
therefore became the bounden duty of each member of the clan to
protect the community
under all circumstances, even with his life, if
need be. Although there might be individual
differences within the
clan, all become as one when dealing with a common foe. The clannish thought underlying
this Commandment-and
the very basis of
Hebrew ethics-is
the survival of this primitive
family group.
It is
characteristic of certain individual
family attitudes even today. Just
as the primitive
clan, motivated by the interest of tribal solidarity,
justified lying and cheating for the bcncfit of their individual members,
so there are today certain family groups that feel justified in lying,
indeed believe it their duty to lie, for the benefit of one of their
members.
The late Judge Joseph E. Corrigan of New York, who was noted
for the number of witnesses he held for perjury, said: “It is considered the proper thing for a blood relative to lie to save his kin,
and it is only one degree more noble for a friend to come forward
and make the generous gesture.” 7
This same clannish spirit is manifested more prominently
in dif7 New York Times, June 10, 1934.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
545
ferent communities,
and still more intensified
in different nations.
That is why there is suspicion of members of different races and believers in different creeds. Do not the orthodox Jew, the fundamentalist Protestant and the pious Catholic still have a different attitude toward members of different faiths than their attitude toward
those of their own religious affiliations?
The white man feels SUperior to the black and yellow man. Oriental peoples have a certain
natural aversion for each other; the Turk does not readily tolerate
the Arab, or the Persian, and these feel similarly
toward the Turk.
The Syrian considers the Egyptian inhuman, and the Egyptian thinks
the Syrian is simple-minded.
The Spaniard and the Mexican also
are antagonistic.
So there is distrust and hatred and suspicion among
all peoples that have not been able to overcome their primitive
inhibitions.*
Westermarck
significantly
states that “throughout
the
Middle Ages all Europe seems to have tacitly agreed that foreigners
were created for the purpose of being robbed.” g
Even as late as the beginnings of Roman society, there existed two
divisions of the law, classilied as the civil law and the law of nations.
The civil law was composed of rules and regulations which governed
the Romans exclusively, d&ring
their rights and privileges;
the law
of nations, known as jus gelztium, determined the rights and privileges
of foreigners.
The latter precluded the foreigner or alien from having any share in purely Roman institutions.
Controversies involving
the interests af aliens could nnt he decided under the civil law, while
under the law of nations they enjoyed privileges until their interests
conflicted with those of the native Romans.lO
Indeed, it was not until recent times that foreigners were placed
on the same footing with citizens regarding inheritance.
It was not
until 1790 that the French National
Assembly abolished the right of
aubaine as being contrary to the principle of human brotherhood.
It
was not until 1870 that foreigners were authorized to inherit and
8 Westermarck,
0 Ibid., p. 24.
Mnrals,
10Maine XXI-II-III
Vol.
2, p. 226
(Ancient Law).
THE
546
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
And even today, in the State of
bequeath like British subjects.ll
California, Orientals are not permitted to own property.
People like that to which they are accustomed or which is their
own; they dislike the strange and unfamiliar.
The sight of a differently colored skin or strange wearing apparel, the sound of a foreigner’s language, arouse antipathies
and have greatly influenced the
At the same time, they
moral valuation of conduct toward foreigners.
have strengthened
the feeling of mutual interests between tribesmen
and compatriots.
This enmity between different communities
tends
to intensify each group’s devotion to a common goal and the friendly
feelings between members of the tribe.12 To do good to a friend and
to do harm to an enemy was a maxim of the ancient Scandinavians.ls
Innumerable
examples could be cited to show that it is a natural
tendency to regard compatriots
and coreligionists
from a different
moral standpoint
than persons who are not connected by such ties.
The latter are considered to have a lower standard of morality
and
an inferior sense of right and wrong.
Although Americans permitted the enslavement of the black man,
it was considered a grievous sin to enslave a white man. During our
slavery era, no one except the Abolitionists
believed that the black
man possessed the same emotions as his white master.
He could be
lashed, his family relationships
disrupted,
and human feelings outraged with impunity.
This narrow provincialism
persists to this day. A man’s name
was stricken from the list of prospective jurors because he said, when
examined by the judge, that he would not believe “the word of a
The judge
Negro in any circumstance against that of a white man.”
very properly replied : “The jury panel is no place for you. A juror
should always be fair and impartial.”
I4
An ancient provincial
law of Sweden permitted
a slave to be insulted without redress. In addition, the slave was considered of such
11 Westermarck, op. cit., p. 49.
I2 Ibid.,
D. 227.
13Ibid.,
Vol. 1, p. 74.
York Times, May 23, 1941.
l4 New
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
547
an inferior caste that he was not allowed even to invoke the law.lj The
slave in the United States before the Civil War was no better off.
Any dishonest or deceitful method might be used to deprive the slave
of anything he possessed; indeed, it was considered foolhardy not to
Christianity
taught that the black
resort to such devious devices.
man was “created” to be a slave. How can anyone having such a
point of view understand, much less practise, the American principle
that guarantees justice and equality to all regardless of race, color
or creed?
With reference to this system of ethics prevailing
in nearly all
primitive
societies, E. P. Evans says: “This is the kind of ethics
which finds expression in the legislation of all barbaric and semi-civilized races, from the Eskimos to the Hottentots.
The Balantis of
Africa punish with death a theft committed
to the detriment
of a
tribesman,
but encourage and reward thievery from other tribes.
According to Caesar’s statement, I8 the Germans did not deem it infamous to steal outside of the precincts of their own village, but
rather advocated it as a means of keeping the young men of the community in training and rendering them vigilant and adroit.” l7
Many primitive
tribes have been characterized as bands of thieves
because of their raids on other tribes, but among themselves they are
just as honest and as truthful as people in more civilized communities. In order to understand fully their behavior, one must know the
motives prompting
their acts. In early ethics, revenge is enjoined
as a duty, and forgiveness of enemies is despised.l*
It is said of the Bedouin of the Arabian desert that he “will be
forgiven if he should kill a stranger on the road, but eternal disgrace
would be attached to his name if it were known that he had robbed
his companion or his protected guest even of a handkerchief.”
Is
The natives of the interior of Sumatra do not deem it a moral deI6 Westermarck, op, cit., p. 143.
I6 De Bello Gal&o,
lib. vi, c. 23.
17 Evans, ofi. cit., p. 25.
1s Westermarck, op. cit., p. 145.
I9 Ibid.,
pp. 86-94.
548
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
feet to deal dishonestly with strangers. The Masai hold any kind
of deceit to be allowable in their relations with persons of another
race. The Hovas of Madagascar will punish a member of their own
tribe who does not speak falsely to foreigners. No stigma was attached to lying and deceit; they were considered proofs of superior
cunning, particularly in matters of dispute. A common Moslem doctrine is that a lie is permissible when told to obtain any advantage
in a war with enemies of the faith.20
We have parallel instances even today. It is a settled principle of
morality (if it can be called such) that nations at war practise the
most cunning forms of deception on the enemy. The more trickery
employed in deceiving the enemy, the more laudable the act. The
question of ethics or morality does not enter into the use of the most
reprehensible means to destroy the enemy. This primitive concept of
morality governs the conduct of the Japanese today. A well-known
authority states that the Japanese are a scrupulously honest people in
dealing with each other; that the doors of their houses are never
locked, and that thefts are rare among them. Despite this, they
would treacherously violate a solemn treaty with another nation if it
should ultimately advance their own interests.“l
What more pertinent
illustration of the survival of the tribal code than the dastardly attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, which President Rooscvclt
said “would live in infamy.” While their envoys pretended to talk
peace terms, they were plotting to destroy our defenses and cnnfiscate
our property.
This reprehensible conduct provoked Secretary of State
Cordell Hull to say: 22 “It is now apparent to the whole world that
Japan in its recent professions of a desire for peace has been infamously false and fraudulent. , . . In all my fifty years of public
service, I have never seen a document that was more crowded with
infamous falsehoods and distortions-infamous
falsehoods and distortions on a scale so huge that I never imagined until today that
20 Westermarck, op. tit., pp. 86-94.
Geogya#hic
Magazine,
Aug., 1942, Willard Price, “TJnknnam Japan?’
ssNew York Times, Dec. 7, 1941. See also “Prelude to Pearl Harbor,” by Arthur
Krock, New York Times, Nov. 8, 1942.
21 National
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
549
any government on this planet was capable of uttering them.”
The
New York Times reported the deception of the Japanese troops in
flying a flag of truce only as a means of perpetrating
a treacherous
assault on our unsuspecting soldiers .23 The acts of Hitler’s Germany
are equally reprehensible.
Of the Sudra inhabitants
of Central India, it is said that in their
intercourse with each other they are distinguished
for their adherence
to the truth, while in their relations with strangers they are generally
false and deceptive.
While they would never utter a lie or be dishonest in their dealings to one of their own clan, they would not hesitate to lie to or steal from a stranger.
The Indian Islanders are accused by strangers of being faithless
and perfidious.
Yet, in their domestic intercourse, they display more
integrity than one would generally believe they possessed. It is in
their dealings with strangers and enemies that their treachery is displayed.
The Greenlanders, who understate rather than overstate the
value of an article in trading among themselves, lied outrageously
in their transactions with the Danish traders.
The Touaregs, while
scrupulously
faithful to a promise given to one of their own people,
do not regard as binding a promise given to a Christian.
Among
the Bushmen, no one is permitted
to give information
to a stranger,
and among the Beni Amer, a stranger can never trust the word of a
native because “of their contempt of everything foreign.”
When the
Kafirs are involved in a lawsuit, witnesses are allowed to tell as many
lies as they like in order to make the best of their case.24
Throughout
India,
Sir W. H. Slccman
found
that “the question
whether truth or falsehood is to be spoken depends on the relationship
bctwccn
the
speaker
and
the
party
addressed,”
for
“if
a.
man
had
told a lie to cheat his neighbor, he would become an object of hatred
and contempt-if
he had told a lie to Sazle his neighbor’s fields from
an increase of rent or tax, he would have become an object of esteem
z3 New York Times, Oct. 30, 1942.
24 Westermarck, op. cit., pp. 83-112.
550
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
and respect.” 25 Sir John Malcolm found that the natives of the
Sudra of Central India often tell positive falsehoods to strangers,
whereas they are distinguished by their adherence to truth in their
relations among themselves.26
In the Western Islands of the Torres Straits, it was regarded as
meritorious to kill foreigners either in fair fight or by treachery, and
honor and glory were bestowed on those bringing home the skulls of
natives of other islands slain in battle.27
The Arab who meets an unknown wanderer in the desert acts in
accordance with the saying “The stranger is for the wolf.” He is
looked upon as an enemy.
The Indian Islanders have been accused by strangers of perfidy
and faithlessness; yet, says an authority, these acts must be understood in the proper light, In their domestic and social intercourse,
they are far from being a deceitful people. It is only in their intercourse
with
strangers
that
the treachery
of their
character
is dis-
played.28
The Orang-Ot of Borneo, when they meet strangers, turn their
backs on them and squat on the ground, hiding their faces; they explain their behavior by saying that the mere sight of a stranger upsets
them.2e The Tupi of Brazil call all men not of their race or language “strangers” or “enemies.”
Among the Kafirs of the Kindu-Kush, killing a stranger might not
be a crime, but killing a fellow tribesman is held in an altogether
different light. The Koriaks consider murder a great crime only
when committed within the tribe. The early Aleuts considered the
killing of a companion a crime worthy of death, “but to kill an enemy
was quite another thing.” Humboldt found that the natives of Guiana
“detest
all who
are not of their
family,
ur their
tribe,
and hunt
dians of a neighboring tribe who live at war with their own.”
OSWestermarck, op. cit.,
Vol.
2,
p.
90.
z6 Ibid.
27Hastings,Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 884.
” Wrslrrmarck,op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 87.
29Hastings,op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 884.
In-
The
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
551
Gallos consider it honorable to kill an alien, though criminal to kill
a countryman. To the Fuegians, a stranger and an enemy are synonymous terms. In Melanesia, also, a stranger as such was generally,
throughout
the islands,
an enemy to be killed.
Among
the Chukchi,
it is held criminal to thieve or murder in the family or race to which
a person belongs; but these crimes committed elsewhere are not only
permitted, but held honorable and glorious.
Nearly all tribes of the primitive culture of the ancient Hebrews
regarded the ‘(stranger within thy gates” as an enemy, and, as has
been noted in discussing the Eighth Commandment, the thief is considered an offender only when he steals from a fellow tribesman;
stealing from a stranger is praiseworthy.30 Among the Hindus, truthtelling depends on the motive. If false evidence is given for a pious
reason, such evidence is called “the speech of the gods.” 31
The code of these primitive peoples is undonhtedly
the same as
that which prevailed in the Hebrew tribe. Well might such clannish,
tribal conduct be expressed in the words of this Commandment:
‘(Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
The pursuit of truth above racial partisanship, however, is the
highest development in evolutionary ethics, and who is right is far
more important than the racial or religious relationship of the disputants.
THE STRANGER
There
was
another
TABOOED
very
significant
IN TRIBAL
reason
why
SOCIETY
the stranger
was
not accorded the same consideration as a neighbor in primitive societies: he was a believer and worshiper of strange and enemy gods.
This is revealed in the narrative where the Hebrew is prohibited from
eating “anything that dieth of itself . . . for thou art a holy people
unto the Lord thy God,” and in the narrative prohibiting the lending
“upon usury to thy brother . . . that the Lord may bless thee in all
30Hastings, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 886.
31 Westermarck, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 91.
THE
552
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
that thou setteth thine hand to do in the land whither thou goest to
possess it.”
To accord the stranger the same consideration as members of one’s
own tribe would be inviting the wrath and anger of the tribal god
whose jealousy we have already discussed. Tribal solidarity depended
on not arousing the jealousy of the tribe’s deity.
Telling the truth
to the detriment
of a neighbor and for the benefit of a stranger was
a flagrant offense in tribal culture.
While the passages to be quoted below deal with the Hebrew and
the stranger in a strictly ritual sense, they are nevertheless additional
evidence of the meaning of the word “neighbor”
as used in this Commandment.
No stranger could partake of those things holy to the
Hebrews. The Passover was prohibited by Biblical edict to the stranger. I quote Exodus, Chapter 12, verse 43:
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron,
This is the ordinance of the Passover: There
shall no stranger eat thereof.
In conformity
with the above prohibition,
it is understandable
now
why a “stranger”
could not observe the Sabbath, because “the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone.” 33 Nor could the
stranger touch things holy to the Hebrew, or offer sacrifices to the
Hebrew God, as stated in Leviticus, Chapter 22, verse 25:
25 Neither from a stranoer’s hand shall ye
offer the bread of your God of any of these;
because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be acc:pted
for you.
The belief in the corrupting and desecrating influence of the stranger
could not be more forcibly expressed than in the above quotations.
These Biblical prohibitions
make clear why a stranger could not be
taught the Torah.33
The same prohibition
is repeated in Exodus,
Chapter 29, verse 33:
32Jewish
33 Ibid.,
Encyclopedia,
p. 622.
Vol. 5, p. 623.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
553
33 And they shall eat those things
wherewith the atonement
was made, to consecrate
and to sanctify
them:
hut a stranger
shall
not eat thereof,
because they are holy.
Certainly, if a stranger cannot eat “those things wherewith the atonement was made,” what chance had he to be put on the same level as
a brother Hebrew in the matter of testimony, where the interests of
the tribe and the protection of its solidarity were considered the most
sacred obligation?
Nor could a stranger offer incense to the Hebrew Deity.
I quote
Numbers, Chapter 16, verse 40:
40 To be a memorial
unto the children
of
Israel, that no stranger,
which
is not of the
seed of Aaron,
come near to offer incense
before
the Lord;
that he be not as Korah,
and as his company:
as the Lord said to him
by the hand of Moses.
More significantly
even than the previous quotations, the Xblical
testimony to follow clearly and unequivocally
puts this Commandment in its proper category of Hebrew provincialism,
and is additional
indisputable
proof of its tribal genesis. Not only was the stranger
prohibited
from touching things holy to the Hebrew or offering the
bread as a sacrifice to the Lord, but there was a further restriction
placed upon him. He could not even “eat of the holy thing” sacred
to the Hebrew.
I quote Leviticus, Chapter 22, verses 10 to 13:
IO There
shall no stranger
rnt of the holy
thing:
a sojourner
of the priest, or a hired
servant,
shall not eat of the holy thing.
11 But if the priest buy any soul with his
money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born
in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
12 But if the priest’s
daughter
also be mayricd unto a stranger,
she may
not
cat of an
offering
of the holy things.
13 But if the priest’s
daughter
be a widow,
or divorced,
and have no child, and is returned
unto
her father’s
house,
as in her
youth,
she shall eat of her father’s
meat: but
there shall no stranger eat thereof.
THE
554
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Nor is that all. The mere fact that the priest’s daughter had been
“married
unto a stranger”-one
not a neighbor-was
such a profanation of the sacred, clannish tribal code that she herself “may not
eat of an offering
of the holy
things.”
If, however,
she avoided
the
further impiety of having children by the stranger, she may then
“eat of her father’s meat”-which
had previously been ritutally prepared, but her non-Hebrew husband was forbidden-“there
shall no
stranger eat thereof.”
If equal rights in so intimate an association as marriage are denied
the husband in a minor ritual matter because he is a “stranger,”
is
it not unthinkable
that a wholly detached stranger would be entitled
to equality in a far more restricted field affecting the entire Hebrew
national interest?
I quote
The stranger could not even approach the holy tabernacle.
Numbers, C’hnpter 1, verse 51:
51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward,
the I.evitw
<hall take
it down:
and when
the
tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall
set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh
shall be put to death.
Not only was the stranger prohibited
from taking part in the religious ceremonies of the Biblical Hebrew or receiving any of the blessings, and prohibited
from touching the bread of sacrifice or from
eating
“those
things
wherewith
the atonement
was made,” or from
offering “incense before the Lord,” but, to cap the climax, he “that
cometh
nigh
[unto
the taber’nacle]
shall
be put
to death.”
Do not some religious people even today resent the presence of
those of a different faith while performing
their religinus
ceremonies?
I remember once, at the request of a friend, accompanying
him while
he attended his religious services. While there, no one could have
acted more courteously than I. Yet, many in the congregation
not
only showed their uneasiness, but on leaving the church were quite
vehement in denouncing my presence in their church, and berated the
priest for tolerating me there.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
555
Can we boast of any advance over the Choctaw Indians who think
it highly irreligious
to bury one of their kinsmen among strangers?
Do we not even today practise this clannish tribal custom?
Do we
not have different cemeteries, not only for different races, but even
for those of different religious faiths?
Orthodox believers are horrified at the thought of being buried in a cemetery other than where
“their people” are interred. They are certain they would “turn in their
graves” if such a “catastrophe”
happened to them.
In primitive
society, special sacrifices are made to counteract the
evil influences of association with the stranger.
In Loas, before a
stranger can be accorded hospitality,
the master of the house must
offer a sacrifice to the ancestral spirit or it would be offended and
send disease to the inmates.34
Among the Battes of Sumatra,
a
buffalo is usually killed and the liver offered to the stranger.
This is
supposed to propitiate the evil spirits.
In the Mentawei Islands, children particularly
are supposed to
he a.fferted by the appearance of strangers.
When one enters the
house where there are children, the father takes something the children are wearing and gives it to the stranger.
This is to protect the
children from the evil effect the stranger might have on them, When
a Dutch steamship was approaching their villages, the people of Biak,
an island off the north coast of New Guinea, shook and knocked their
idols about in order to ward off ill luck.
North American Indians
believe that strangers, particularly
white strangers, are ofttimes accompanied by evil spirits.
The people of Nias carefully scrub and scour the weapons and
clothes which they buy in order to efface all connection between the
things and the persons from whom they bought them.
There is a
survival of this stranger taboo even today, particularly
among women.
After a visit to a person of a different race or religion, some women
will shake off the “contaminating”
effects of the contact. This is done
even after casual meetings because of the archaic belief that contact
with the person has been contaminating
in some way or other.
34Frazer,
Taboo
and
the Perils
of the Soul,
p. 104.
THE
556
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
In Australia, when a stranger tribe has been invited into a district, the strangers carry lighted bark or burning sticks in their hands
as they approach the encampment
of the tribe which owns the land
to clear and purify
the air.
When the Toradjas of Central Celebes are on a head-hunting
expedition and have entered the enemy’s country, they may not eat
any fruits that the foe has planted, nor any animal that he has
reared, until they have first committed
an act of hostility,
such as
burning a house or killing a man. They think that if they break this
taboo, something of the soul or spiritual
essence of the enemy will
enter into them and destroy the mystic virtue of their talisman.35
The Bechuanas cleanse or purify themselves after journeys by
shaving their heads lest they should have contracted some evil by
witchcraft
or sorcery from strangers.
In some parts of western
Africa,
a
when
man
returns
home after
a long absence,
he must wash
his person with a particular
fluid before he is allowed to visit his
wife, in order to counteract the evil influence that a strange woman
may have cast on him during his absence.
In some primitive
communities,
when a stranger has entered a
hut or dwelling, it is immediately
abandoned as having been desecrated.30 How far removed is the orthodox Hebrew of today who
will break the dish out of which a non-Jew has eaten, or the bigoted
Christian who does not even tolerate a Jew to enter his home-while
at the same time wurshipirlg
a Jew as the Sun of God!
Such was the moral code of the Children of Israel in differentiating
their conduct
between
“neighbors”
and “strangers”;
it was
also their
religion.
That is why, like other primitive
and uncultured
peoples,
they practised the utmost fidelity in their intratribal
relatinnships,
while any consideration
of honesty or equality to those outside the
clan was condemned as an affront and an offense to their Deity.
They
practised with fanatical jealousy these primitive,
clannish tribal codes
of conduct, and observed these taboos with fanatical zeal to show
35Frazer,
36Frazer,
op. cit., pp. 107-111.
op. cit., pp. 112-115,
THE
NINTH
557
COMMANDMENT
their devotion to the Biblical Deity for having made them his “Chosen
People.”
There was not the slightest question of either morals or
ethics involved in the observance of this Commandment.
It was accepted by the Children of Israel solely as a religious taboo to be
blindly followed as an edict of their God-for
the solidarity
of the
tribe.
THE
FULFILLMENT
OF THIS
COMMANDMENT
If one touch of nature makes the whole world kin, what is so
universal as truth and justice to unite mankind?
Truth and justice
should be as impartial
as gravitation.
Can one imagine gravitation
acting differently
because of a person’s beliefs?
That is what this
Commandment
would do in the field of equality.
Instead of creating
a universal bond of justice between men, it would divide mankind according to racial, religious and clannish groups.
If this Commandment
is obeyed, a Catholic has to favor a Catholic
in a controversy where Catholic interests are at stake, even to the
extent of lying in order to gain an advantage.
It means that a
Protestant
should favor a Protestant,
a Jew a Jew, a Mohammedan
a Mohammedan,
and that nations through their representatives should
hesitate to tell the trulh when it. might be disadvantageous
to them.
Hate, and particularly
sectarian hatred, can easily be rationalized
as having sufficient justification
not only to speak falsely, or to withhold the truth, but also to provoke the most reprehensible
acts.
What devout religious believer would not lie about some enemy of
his religion, if by so doing he might prevent an attack on his faith
or because it might possibly benefit by an untruth?
The religious
believer’s conscience would not be “clear” if he did not resort to
every devious means to defend his religion.
In 1378, when the infamous Urban VI became Pope, he, as head
of the Roman Catholic Church, “made a solemn and general declaration against keeping faith with heretics.” 37 In 1569, the Spanish
81 F. H.
Perrycoste,
Influence
of Religion
upon
Truthfulness,
p. 97.
558
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
Bishop Simancas once more asserted the Catholic principle that faith
is not to be kept with heretics, “for if with tyrants, pirates and other
robbers, who kill the body, faith is not to be kept, far less with confirmed heretics who kill souls.” 38 How convenient to resort to false
reasoning and Jesuitical sophistry to support an untenable premise!
The Church doctrine as early as the second century ordered that
‘Vhristians
should hold no conversation, or should interchange none
of the most ordinary courtesies of life, with the excommunicated
or
the heretics.” 30
Principles laid down in the Decretals, part of the canon law of the
Church, specifically state that “an oath disadvantageous
to the Church
is not binding.” 4o
From the day this pernicious doctrine was uttered to the present
time, the Roman Catholic Church has never issued a repudiation;
on
the contrary, it has reasserted again and again that it is the duty of
Catholics to lie for their Church/l
This accounts for the well-known
Jesuit doctrine:
“To take an oath is in itself a deadly sin; but the
man who only swears outwardly, without inwardly intending
to do
so, is not bound by his oath; he does not swear, he only jests.” 42
“Intellectual
veracity, sincerity in matters of thought and faith, consistency in thinking,
is not one of the virtues encouraged by the
Church,” says Professor Friedrich
Paulsen, whose partiality
to religion is unmistakable.43
Martin Luther, after admonishing
Philip of Hcsse to tell a “good
stout lie,” defends his advice in the following words: “What would
it matter if, for the sake of the Christian Church, nne were to tell a
big lie?” 44
Macaulay, in evaluating the doctrine, said that “pagans, who had
s* F. H. Perrycoste, Influence of Religion
=‘Lecky,
Alords,
Vol.
1, p.
4o Perrycoste, op. tit., p. 148.
41 Bonner, Christianity
and Conduct,
42
Perrycoste,
ofi.
cit.,
p.
upon
Truthfulness,
p.
138.
179.
p. 59.
167.
G F. Paulsen, System of Ethics, p. 682.
44Quoted by C. H. Moeblman in The Story
of
the Ten Commandments,
p. 269.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
559
never heard the name of Christ, and who were guided only by the
highest light of nature, were more trustworthy
members of civil society than men who had been formed from schools of the Popish
casuists.”
And Locke, another great English thinker,
says: “The
Church [religion]
which taught men not to keep faith with heretics,
had no claim to toleration.”
46 All of which proves that there is more
likelihood
of the truth being spoken if a man is taken on his honor
than on his religion.
Westermarck
records innumerable
instances in primitive
societies
where the “totem” bond is closer than the bond of blood or family;
that is, people are bound together more strongly by the fetishes of
a religion than even the ties of blood.4s This is proved by the fact
that a marriage between two persons of different religious faiths,
though related nationally
and by blood, provokes the strongest protests and antagonism;
while a. marriage
hetween
two
persons of the
same religious faith, though widely separated by both blood and nationality,
receives approbation
and approval.
This primitive
conduct prevails today among peoples of religious persuasions, though
nationally
related, and we see this hateful antagonism between bloodrelated families divided by the totem fetish.
Branches of the same
family that have adopted different religious faiths are generally antagonistic to each other.
There is still a menacing aspect of this
totem bond, as manifested
by this Commandment,
in the clannish
conduct in our own nation in political nlatters.47
We find that strongly religious persons would much prefer to
vote for a political candidate of their own faith than for a far superior representative
of a different religious persuasion; thus proving
that the ties of religion are much stronger than love of country.
This
bigoted religious attitude is the most dangerous menace to a democracy. In England, during the last century, this clannish division of
the people was so pronounced that Lecky says the situation gave rise
45 Perrycoste, Znjluence of Religion upon Truthfulness,
p. 171.
40 Westermarck, op. cit., p. 211.
47 Examples were given of this totem bond relative to marriage in the analysis of
the Fifth Commandment.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
560
to the maxim that a man’s true country or interest was not that in
which he was born, but that of his coreligionists.4s But, for the very
crystallization of this obnoxious attitude, I quote Father Phelan, a
Catholic
priest:
4B
“Tell us we are Catholics first and Americans or Englishmen
afterwards; of course we are. Tell us in conflict between the
Church and the civil government we side with the Church; of
course we do. Why, if the government of the United States were
at war with the Church, we would say tomorrow, to hell with the
government of the United States; and if the Church and all the
governments of the world were at war, we would say, to hell with
the governments of the world.”
This is a perfect example of the strict observance of this Commandment.
tified, in
the
Whether the government of the United States was jusevent of a war with the Catholic Church, would make
no difference to Father Phelan. The Church must come first regardless of the justification of the conflict. Could any attitude be
more pernicious, or contrary to the principles of national interest or
the country’s welfare? How can such a doctrine be productive of
common good for all and for the peace and security of the nation?
Do we need any better proof than the above quotation that the great
spirit and principle of toleration existing in free governments is safe
only because of the diminished influence of the clergy and the emancipatiurr
of lhe people
from their
religious
doctrines?
Does anyone
doubt for a moment that if the Catholic hierarchy had the power
today, it would repeat its condemnation
of toleration
to non-Catholics,
as it did in France in 18701 Go As a matter of fact, this sentiment
was expressed recently
by the Rev.
Charles
E. Curley,
who said: 61
“I proudly declare this country of ours to be thoroughly Chrisin its very roots. And if, with the passing years,
tion and Catholic
48Lecky,
Vol. 2, p, 69.
Junr 27, 1913.
6o Lecky,
History
of Rationalism
in Europe,
51 Brooklyn
Tablet,
July 3, 1943.
dQ Western
Rationalism,
Watchmm,
Vol.
2, p. 70.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
561
there have been grafted on to it elements which are neither Christian
nor Catholic, then I say, let us take a sharp pruning knife to them
and cut them off forever.”
These sentiments are only echoes of the pronouncements
in the
celebrated Encyclical letter against Modernism
issued by Pope Pius X
in 1917.
The Most Rev. John A. Duffy, Bishop of Buffalo, New York, as
reported in the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram, of March 3 1, 1939, said
with unashamed arrogance:
“I say publicly here and now that if the United States ever
joined in a foreign war with Russia, I would advise every Catholic
boy to refuse to serve in the United States Army.”
Pertinent
to this very subject is a public statement made
District Attorney of Bronx County of the City of New York.
official said : “I try to live as a Catholic and administer
my
An editorial in the New York World-Telagmm
a Catholic.”
District
Attorney Foley to task for this clannish statement
following manner :
by the
This
job as
52 took
in the
“Mr. Foley needed to be set right-if
actually he had any illusions-on the matter of religious administration of the prosecutor’s
office. He knows as well as anyone, in fact, that he is the District
Attorney of the Protestants, Jews, non-Christians and the godless
as much
as of the
Catholics,
and
that
this
country
is definitely
not
interested in any possible sectarian way of administering public
office. That he tries to live as a Catholic is beyond criticism or
comment, but it is altogether an extraneous characteristic under a
Constitution which says ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification
to any
office.’
”
Individuals,
groups and organizations
wrote to the Governor of
the State demanding that he remove Mr. Foley, as he was administering his office according to “his theological
beliefs.”
A petition
stated that “District Attorney Foley or any other public official elected
62Apr.
28, 1938.
562
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
by the people should administer his office in accordance with the laws
of the State and the nation, and not in accordance with his theological beliefs of any kind or sort. Mr. Foley’s address was not only
un-American, but against every fundamental principle of the Constitution,” concluded the protest.
Another instance, equally flagrant, is the statement made by Congressman Paul J. McCarty of Boston, Massachusetts, who said, “I
am a Catholic first and a representative second.” This attitude of
placing religious beliefs above that of sworn public duty raises the
question as to whether men such as Mr. Foley and Mr. McCarty,
because of divided allegiance, are entitled to hold public office under
our Constitution.63 This premise was sustained by Federal Judge
John Bright, when he revoked the citizenship of Fritz Kuhn and ten
other notorious members of the German-American Bund. Judge
Bright said: “It was not intended that memories of his native land
should be entirely forgotten, or that he should divorce himself from all
political action. Each defendant renounced all allegiance to his homeland; he agreed to support and defend the Constitution and our laws
against all enemies, and his faith and allegiance was to be true. These
three requirements preclude any divided concept [religious or otherwise]. They contemplate full and complete citizenship.” 64 ’
The primitive totem clanship rises above the thin veneer of culture that we have acquired, and sets at naught the most elementary
principles of honesty and morality.
Racial and religious prejudices can become so intense that privations of the worst kind are suffered under their influence, even to
the sacrifice of life. History records an instance where a Christian
preferred to die rather than be cured by a Jewish doctor; and only
recently, in London, an orthodox Jewish patient died rather than allow
himself to be saved by the transfusion of blood from a Christian
donor. The council of Beziers, 1246 A.D., and the Council of Alby,
1254 A.D., prohibited all Christians from resorting to the services
33
34
America,
New York
Jan. 3, 1942.
Times, Mar. 19, 1943.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
563
of Israelite physicians.5”
In France, in 1301, a decree was issued
prohibiting
a believer in the Hebrew religion from practising medicine
on a person of the Catholic faith.5G
How far removed is Nazi Germany from the ignorance, hatred
and bigotry that permeated the European continent during the Dark
Ages? The fanatical anti-Semite,
Herr Streicher, would even discontinue the use of medical knowledge to cure disease merely because the cures were discovered by Jewish physicians!
He finds particularly
obnoxious the discovery of Wassermann,
known as the
Wassermann
Test, by which syphilis is determined;
Ehrlich’s
salvarsan, a drug to cure this frightful disease, and Neisser’s discovery
of the gonococcus germ and his method of curing gonorrhea.
In
other words, he would rather see the German people suffer from these
two malignant
venereal diseases than be cured by the discoveries of
Jewish physicians ! 57
So strong can religious antipathy
develop from this totem bond
that even respect and honor due national heroes are avoided as if a
mortal sin were being committed.
There is an instance of the refusal
of the Rev. Romaine F. Bateman, pastor of the First Baptist Church
of Milburn,
New Jersey, to permit citizens of the community
to hold
a celebration in honor of George Washington.
He is reported as having stated;
“Washington
are unworthy
and Lincoln were un-Christian
of being
brought
bcforc
and their names
the public.”
Mr. Bateman also remarked that Washington’s
service to his country was “merely incidental compared with his un-Christianity.”
“I felt that when there is a question of what to preach, we had
better
stick to Christ,
much as we may think
of an individual.
If
we paint a beautiful picture of an individual and praise his
standards of life and then ask people also to accept Christ’s standard, there will be confusion if the two standards do not agree.” 68
66 Draper, Intellectual
lIR Ibid.
67 New
68 New
York
York
Times,
Herald
Development
of Europe,
May 13, 1935.
Tribune,
Feb. 18, 1932.
Vol. 2, p. 125.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
564
It is notorious that Thomas Paine has been denied his rightful
place among the country’s immortals
for his invaluable contributions
to the cause of American independence only because he was the author
of The Age of Reason.
The influence of this Commandment
has gone even further; not
only has it been responsible for the denial of honor to our national
heroes because of religious prejudice,
but it has also corrupted the
laws of this country.
Religiously
minded judges have prostituted
their high positions by invoking
this Commandment
in defiance of
the rights of equality before the law by making a religious test the
qualification
of a witness. Such conduct is in violation of the oath of
o&e to uphold the Constitution
of the Ukted States, and is not an
aid but an obstruction to justice, a denial of the fundamental
right of
every citizen of the country.
Courts of law were established for the purpose of procuring justice, not defeating it; and if testimony is only to favor a neighbor, of
what benefit is a trial?
If, because of the prejudice of the court in
not permitting
the fullest testimony
in a case, one party is denied
justice, this is just as reprehensible
as it would be to permit false
testimony.
In the trial of a thief, one judge refused to permit the complainant to testify
bccausc
The fact that other wit-
hc was an unbeliever.
nesses testified
for him and secured a conviction
that
was
his
rharge
true,
and
SO wnuld
have
been
of the culprit
his testimony.
proves
Be-
cause, however, the unbeliever was a “stranger”
in the eyes of the
religiously minded judge, he was denied the rights of a fundamental
tenet of justice.
Here the judge followed the precept of this Commandment
to the letter.
He put the interest of the religious thief
above that of the honest unbeliever, because of the very clannishness
exemplified
by this Commandment.
He favored the “neighbor,”
as
religiously defined, at the cost of truth and justice.‘@
In 1897, a Louisiana jury found a wretch guilty of raping a child,
but the conviction
59 Swancara, Obstruction
was
reversed
of
Justice
by a higher
by Religion,
p. 105.
court
because
it was
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
565
shown that the child had no belief in the existence of a God. The
court ruled that because of this there was no guarantee as to the
truth of her testimony! 6o
In Arkansas a man was convicted of first-degree murder on good
evidence, but the Supreme Court of that State reversed the conviction. The court held that the testimony of the ten-year-old child who
testified against him was not valid because it was not made under
‘(an immediate sense of the witness’ responsibility to God”! In another case such testimony by a nine-year-old girl was admitted as
valid not because of her intelligence but because she “had been taught
to believe that there is a God and a heaven.” 61
In 1791, a Warwickshire jury of Churchmen and Tories disgraced
English justice by acquitting several rioters who had destroyed
Priestley’s house. The jurymen’s animus against Priestley’s political
and religious views was so strnng that they had no qualms about perjuring themselves by acquitting the guilty men, although they were
very indignant when the counsel for the prosecution reminded them
of the obligation of their oath.e2
In a recent case in Illinois, a forger could have had his conviction
reversed if he had succeeded in proving that his victim, the prosecuting witness, did not believe in a God and a future state.63
In lhe benighted State of Alabama, the legislature at one time
enacted a law which provided that “Negroes, mulattoes, Indians and
all persons of mixed blood descended from Negro or Indian ancestors,
to the third generation inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person, whcthcr bond or free, must not
be witnesses in any cause, civil or criminal, except for or against
each other.” 64 Under this law, it has heen correctly noted that if
a Negro woman had been ravished by a white Christian she could
not testify against him. Such a law is intended to defeat the ends
BOSwancara,
6= Ibid.,
Obstruction
62 Pcrrycoste,
op.
LL’L., p. 194.
p. 16.
63 Swancara, op. cit.,
a Ibid.,
of Justice by Religion, p. 104.
p. 22.
p. 23.
THE
566
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of justice, and is not only in complete conformity with the purpose
of this Commandment, but it gives legal sanction to its narrow tribal
concept. The Supreme Court, invalidating this statute, expressed
what could happen to persons disqualified
as witnesses
under it: “The
white man may plunder the Negro of his property; he may abuse his
person; he may take his life; he may do this in open daylight, in the
presence of multitudes who witness the transaction, and he must go
acquitted, unless perchance there happens to be some white man
present.” 65
In New Jersey, a man was found stabbed in the throat and bleeding to death. While still conscious, he named and accused his assailant. At the latter’s trial for murder, the defendant’s attorney asked
the court to charge the jury to the effect that if the murdered man
had no belief in God and in a future state of reward and punishment,
they must disregard his accusation. The murderer was acquitted.66
Luther Burbank and Thomas A. Edison, two of the greatest men
who ever lived, would not have been permitted to testify either for
themselves or for others in the courts of the State of New Jersey!
Conrad H. Moehlman, Professor of the History of Christianity at
the Rochester Theological Seminary, says: “The numerous literary
forgeries and famous lies convict leading Christians of every century
of transgressing the Ninth Commandment.” 67 This statement not
only reveals the general lack of understanding of the Decalogue, and
particularly
of this Commandment,
but the literary
forgeries
and lies
and other means of fraud and deception by “leading Christians” to
advance their religion or destroy those opposed to them are not a
transgression of this Commandment but a fulfillment of it.
This Commandment is only another piece of indisputable evidence
added to what we have already discovered about the previous parts of
the Decalogue, that religion and religious doctrines were never intended to make for truth and morality. No wonder P&e Meslier, the
eE Swancarn,
Obstruction
of J.usticc by Religion
p. 24.
66 Ibid., p. 132.
87 C. H. Moehlman,
The Story
of the Ten Commandments,
p. 267.
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
567
“repentant” Roman Catholic priest, asked God on his deathbed to forgive him for preaching Christianity. He said that a strict observance of the precepts of religion founded upon the Bible would involve
the ruin of nations and destroy all bonds of human society.
THE LAW AND THIS COMMANDMENT
In my preface I quoted a number of prominent men, among whom
were a member of Congress, a Governor of one of our States, and a
jurist of one of our higher courts, to the effect that the laws of this
country were founded on the Ten Commandments. I stated that
these men were either ignorant of the fundamentals on which our
laws were based, or of the real meaning of the Decalogue. Not only
was this Republic not founded and not only are its laws not based on
the Ten Commandments, but the ends sought were in direct opposition to the precepts
of the Decalogue.
The edicts of the Decalogue are based on thk presumption that
certain acts are an offense to God, while the Constitution of the
United States is a code of laws specifically enacted to protect the
individual in society. The Ten Commandments are based on the
proposition that man is a sinful human being, while the Constitution
is an instrument in defense of the “Rights of Man.” One is designed
to punish sinful conduct, while the other was created to protect inalienable rights and privileges. The Decalogue, in effect, says, “Thou
shalt not commit a sin,” while the Constitution says, “Thou hast certain basic rights that may not be abridged.”
The laws of this country were designed to administer justice and
equality impartially to all, while the Ninth Commandment was intended to defeat the ends nf justice. Equality hefnre the law is nnp:
of the cornerstones and firm pillars of our legal structure, while this
Commandment was formulated for the very opposite purpose-that of
defeating equality before the law by restricting testimony to favor
one against the other. This Commandment
does not sponsor the truth
so that the ends of justice may be achieved, but that the ends of justice
may be defeated by the concealment of the truth.
THE
568
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
The fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence proclaiming
the “self-evident” truth “that all men are created equal,” and that they
possess the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness,”
are the basic
principles
underlying
the Constitution
of
the United States. The codification of these principles into laws
established for the first time on this earth a government truly dedicated to the principle of justice without regard to race, color or creed.
In proof, I quote the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution :
%r all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnessesagainst him; to have compulsory processfor obtaining
witnessesin his favor, and to have the assistanceof counsel for his
defense.”
And as an additional safeguard, the Fourteenth Amendment provides :
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.”
Can anything in the above quotations be construed as having been
founded on the Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor”? On the contrary, it very definitely says that
“the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by
an impartial jury.” So that the accused may use every means to
defend himself, and use every legitimate device to ascertain the truth
of the charges against him, he has the additional right of being “in-
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
569
formed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In addition, to protect his
interests and defend himself, he also possesses the right and power
to “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” and,
last but not least, “the assistance of counsel for his defense.” And if
he is unable to pay for such counsel, the courts invariably supply one
at the cost of the State whose laws he is charged with breaking and
which is prosecuting him in an endeavor to punish him for his alleged acts. Are these provisions of the Constitution anything like
the Ninth Commandment?
No matter how damaging the circumstances or the suspicion of
guilt, the individual charged with a crime is entitled to a fair and
impartial trial, and to present evidence in his own behalf. Under the
American system of jurisprudence, even an alien of the worst criminal
type
is given
the full protection
of the law,
and not until
sufficient
proof is presented to convince twelve men, beyond a reasonable doubt,
is he legally declared guilty of the crime with which he is charged.
One of the most dastardly crimes, in my opinion, ever committed
in this country was the kidnaping and murder of the infant of Charles
A. Lindbergh. When the suspect was arrested, it was discovered
that he was not only not a citizen, but an alien with a criminal record.
The Governor of the State in which this scoundrel was to be tried
made the public declaration that he was to receive a fair trial. He
said; “There is an old maxim in law that a man is [presumed] innocent until he is proven guilty. New Jersey will see that Bruno Richard Hauptmann
gets a fair trial.” O8 If this C~I~I~IKI~IE~~
had been
invoked against the culprit, then he, as an individual enemy, would
have been unable to bring forward any witnesses in his defense; while
under our Constitution he enjoyed the benefit of every legal means
in his behalf. Pereat coelum, fiat justitiaI
Let the sky fall, but justice
be done. It was far more important to give this execrable creature
the full opportunity to defend himself than to violate the principles
of justice.
88 New York Times, Oct. 20, 1934.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
570
To adopt the Ninth Commandment in our courts of law as the
criterion of justice would be to make religious and racial sectarianism
the standard of truth and justice. If we accept the sectarian principle of this Commandment,
then we must
scrap the Constitution,
because the basic secular philosophy of the Constitution is that all
men have equal rights before the law without regard to race, color or
creed.0g If we accept this Commandment, then we must erase from
our courts the motto that “The firm pillars of society rest upon the
true administration of justice.”
If this Commandment prevailed in our courts of law, justice
would be impossible and every sentiment toward the equality of man
would be stifled. The symbol of equality would have to be tipped
with a weight of prejudice in favor of one party; the blindfold covering the two eyes of justice to assure impartiality would have
to be removed,
and instead
one eye would
have
to be half
closed
into a wink indicating that only evidence in favor of one party would
be heard.
It is well to remember that the Goddess of Justice is a pagan
creation and not a Biblical one. No better comparison of the broad
cultural attainment of the former and the narrow provincialism of
the latter could be used as an illustration than by comparing this
Commandment with the evenly balanced scales of the Goddess of
Justice, insuring impartiality to all.
Not only has the analysis of this Commandment shuwn the impossibility of our laws being based on the Decalogue, but we are confronted
with
the United
the
alternative
of eitker
accepting
tke
Comta’tuta’on
of
States or the Ten Commandments.
The Decalogue is a code of a theocracy. The Constitution is an
instrument of a democracy. The Ten Commandments are based on
a divine right with dogmatic edicts. This government is a Republic
seThe Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution
the United States to vote shall not be denied or
by any State on account of race, color or previous
gress shall have power to enforce the provisions of
tion.”
says: ‘IThe right of the citizens of
abridged by the United States or
condition of servitude. The Conthis article by appropriate legisla-
THE NINTH
COMMANDMENT
571
based on equal representation of the people with the right to change
and alter its laws.
How odious is the comparison of the narrow sectarian doctrine of
this Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor,” with the words which are carved above the portals of the
Supreme Court in the nation’s Capital as symbolizing the fundamental
principle of universal justice on which our government was founded:
“Equal Justice under Law.”
SECTARIAN
VS. UNIVERSAL
BROTHERHOOD
Despite the fact that this Commandment expressed the highest
moral conception of the Hebrew Deity, and was considered the epitome of divine justice for more than two thousand years, other peoples had broader
and more universal
sentiments
and laid down
loftier
principles for human relationships. The latter’s doctrine was based
on the fundamental equality of human beings, that. human rights are
fundamental and basic, and that principles and not persons are the
criterion of justice. These “pagan” and “infidel” opinions maintained
that a man was a man regardless of the color of his skin, the language
he spoke, or the country from which he came.
The philosophy of the Stoics was based on the theory that truth
for truth’s sake was the highest ideal and must never be sacrificed
to expediency.
The
Stoics
were
the first
to give the idea of world
citizenship a definite, positive meaning, and not only raised it to
historical
importance,
but molded
it into
a philosophy
that has in-
fluenced the world and been responsible for much of the mutual
understanding and progress which we now enjoy.70
Cicero, voicing the Stoic doctrine, said: “Nature ordains that a
man should wish the good of every man, whoever he may be, for
this very reason, that he is a man.” ‘l And again: “To reduce man
to the duties of his own city, and to disengage him from duties to
70Lecky,
T1 Ibid.,
Mods,
p. 101.
Vol.
1, p.
177.
572
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
the members of other cities, is to break the universal society of the
human race.” 72 Seneca said: “Nature made us relatives when it
begat us from the same material and for the same destinies. She
planted
in us a mutual
love,
and fitted
us for a social
life.”
“My
country is Rome,” said Marcus Aurelius ; “as a man, it is the world.”
With such a broad outlook, is it any wonder that he summarized his
philosophy in these words: “There is but one thing of real valueto cultivate truth and justice, and to live without anger in the midst
of lying and unjust men.” 73
The moralists of ancient India taught that we should devote our
lives to the welfare and advancement of others, without any thought
of reward, and that we should be happy in the fortune of others although we ourselves were not so fortunate.74
The Chinese moralists advocated benevolence to all men without
making
any reference
to national
distinction.
Demncritus
nf Abdera
said that every country is acceptable to a wise man, and that a good
soul’s fatherland is the whole earth.76
Diderot, the atheist, presents a question that answers itself. He
asks : “Which is the greater merit, to enlighten the human race, which
remains forever, or to save one’s fatherland, which is perishable?”
Diderot, a guiding spirit in the French Revolution, exercised a tremendous influence in making that great event a new era in the movement toward the brotherhood of man.76 The whole eighteenth century
was influenced
by the ideals of those brave men who pr4airned
to the world a new doctrine in the words, “Liberty,
ternity.”
Men
were
looked
upon
as members
Equality, Fra-
of the human
race
rather than as citizens of any particular country. To’ be a citizen of
every nation, and not belong to one’s native country alone, was the
dream of their “infidel” philosophy.
7’2Lecky,
73 Ibid.,
Morals,
p. 106.
‘4 Westermmk,
15 Ibid.,
78Zbid.r
Vol.
Morals,
pp. 176-177,
p. 182.
1, p. 101.
Vol.
2, p. 153.
THE
NINTH
COMMANDMENT
573
Our own Thomas Paine said: “Independence
is my happiness, and
as they are, without regard to place OY person; my
country is the world, and my religion is to do good.”
The great Buckle truly said: “. . . ignorance is the most powerful of all the causes of national hatred; when you increase the contact, you remove the ignorance and thus you diminish the hatred.”
These sentiments for better understanding
and equality between
the peoples of the earth are not the result of this Commandment,
but
despite it. Man is not the enemy of man, and because one man is
of a different color, or speaks a different language, or comes from
a different country, does not necessarily make him an enemy to his
fellow men. We are, fortunately,
rapidly moving toward that ideal
of the broader principles of human relationships.
Only as we break down the sectarian and nationalistic
barriers
Z view things
that block
the path will
this cherished
goal be completely
attained.
That such a goal is in sight is only too well attested by the principles
of equality which now prevail in civilized society, in contradistinction
to the narrow sectarianism as expressed in this Commandment.
If progress is to continue and man is to live in a society of mutual
understanding
and betterment, then the primary task of education is
to eradicate those instincts of tribal and clannish life as manifested
in the Decalogue that are constantly plaguing modern society with
discord, dissension and conflict.
Nor will universal justice ever be
achieved on this earth until the meaning of the word “neighbur”
as
represented by this Commandment
is completely obliterated
from our
social
and national
is eradicated
existence,
and racial
and religious
from the heart and mind of man.
sectarianism
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
If every American does his or her best for America
and for Humanity we shall become, and remain, the
Grandest of Nations – admired by all and feared by none,
our strength being our Wisdom and kindness.
Knowledge knows no race, sex, boundary or
nationality; what mankind knows has been gathered from
every field plowed by the thoughts of man. There is no
reason to envy a learned person or a scholarly institution,
learning is available to all who seek it in earnest, and it is
to be had cheaply enough for all.
To study and plow deeper the rut one is in does not
lead to an elevation of intelligence, quite the contrary!
To read widely, savor the thoughts, and blind beliefs, of
others will make it impossible to return again to that
narrowness that did dominate the view of the
uninformed.
To prove a thing wrong that had been believed will
elevate the mind more than a new fact learned.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
The Tenth
Commandment
“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.”
THE
I
HIDDEN
MEANING
OF COVETING
previous Commandment alone was sufficient to invalidate
the Decalogue as a divine revelation, this Commandment offers
conclusive proof that the Decalogue is a series of taboos based on
the primitive belief in animism and sympathetic magic.
This Commandment was never intended to prevent envying
another’s possessions, but rather to avoid the evil consequences of
“coveting” in the magical sense.
Coveting was not mentioned as an undesirable trait to’ be avoided
because it is unethical, immoral or antisocial; it was recorded and
made part of the Decalogue because the superstition prevailed in
Hebrew tribal society that envious thoughts would bring ill luck and
misfortune, through sorcery and witchcraft, to the person against
whose property the “coveting” was directed. Covetous desires, they
believed, would call into existence the malevolent spirits of the “evil
eye,” which by devious and diabolical methods would cause the loss
of the coveted possessions,
This Commandment is identical in purpose with, and differs onIy
as to subject matter from, the Second Commandment, which prohibits
the making of graven images, and the Third Commandment, which
forbids the mentioning of taboo names. It also furnishes additional
and pertinent testimony as to the clannish and tribal application of
the Decalogue. Just as in the previous Commandment, to bear false
witness was prohibited only against one’s neighbor (i.e., a fellow
tribesman, a compatriot), so coveting, as mentioned in this Commandment, is restrained only against “thy neighbour’s” possessions, “his
house, his wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his ass,” and
“any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” This restrictive prohibition
is
tantamount to a non-prohibition against those outside the clanship of
F THE
578
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
the Children of Israel, as was so conclusively proved in the analysis
of the other Commandments.
The narrow, proscribed application of this Commandment, and the
specific details of the things not to be coveted, even to “anything that
is thy neighbow’s,”
is also significant evidence that the word “coveting,” as used in this Commandment, ha,d an altogether different definition from the modern one. The real meaning of the word can only be
apparent if one understands the primitive mind. Is it conceivable
that “coveting” anything,” no matter how small, insignificant or valueless, could be so strongly and definitely prohibited unless some mysterious danger would result? If this were not so, does the boy who
“covets” his friend’s bicycle violate this Commandment? Does the
dimple-cheeked, blue-eyed little girl who “covets” her playmate’s
curly-headed doll violate this Commandment? And, if so, is she to
suffer from the wrath of this jealous and vindictive Bible Deity all the
days of her life? This is so obviously ridiculous that one wonders
how such an edict could ever have been imposed on millions of people
as an infallible precept in a divine code of morals. If a Commandment of this kind could have been accepted as an eternal truth, is
there, in the dogma of a creed, anything too improbable for religious
people to accept?
Coveting, as used in this Commandment and as it was originally
understood, was a secret treason, a hidden danger from which no
member
of the clan was safe. The Bible is replete with rcfcrcnccs not
only to this belief among the primitive Hebrews, but the penalties provided for its practices are numerous, definite and ruthless. All stood
in mortal fear of the sorcerer, and no punishment was too severe for
so diabolical a person. At the time this Commandment was formulated, coveting was considered one of the greatest of evils, and to
counteract its effect was of major concern to the people who lived in
continual fear of the terrible results they believed inevitably followed
its practice.
L&y-Bruhl, one of the foremost authorities on the thinking processesof primitive peoples, says: “Covetousness is of itself not merely
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
579
a feeling of desire but a positive and effectual action of the soul of
him who covets upon the thing coveted.”
To covet, in the primitive
meaning of the word, is just as effective as a physical action, and in
many primitive
communities
it is closely associated or synonymous
with stealing.
Casalis, another authority,
says that “covetousness
has its own proper meaning.”
Among primitive
tribes its power was
a dreaded force of evil, as they knew only too well the “ungoverned
desires of the heart.” l
This primitive
concept of the word “coveting,”
as used in this
Commandment,
is verified by the use of similar words among the
Biblical Hebrews.
For instance, keshep, the Hebrew word for “coveting,” means, according to one authority,
“a thing done in a secret
manner.”
It also means “poisoner,” or “to cast a spell.”
This same
authority says that “there is no doubt that the real meaning of this
‘magic’ is exactly witchcraft.”
Kishif, another Hebrew word meaning “coveter”
or “sorcerer,” is defined as “witchcraft”
in the Talmud.2 Another authority tells us that the medieval Hebrew believed
that a man and his wife could be so bewitched by envious persons
that they would be unable to cohabit.
The Hebrew word asar, meaning “to bind,” occurs frequently with the meaning “to tie somebody
by a knot-charm so that he cannot enjoy relations with his wife.” 3
There are numerous Hebrew words that have similar connotations,
The language of the Biblical Hebrew contained countless words denoting and characterizing
the evil spirits which inhabited
the provincial universe in which he lived.
The Hebrew word she&n means
the word ruhin or ruhntmmt means “evil spirit”;
“mystical harmer”;
ZiZiZ means “night spirits”;
telane, “shade [or evening]
spirits”;
tiharire means “midday spirits”;
z&ire
means “morning
spirits,” as
well as “demons that bring famine and cause storms and earthquakes .” So numerous were these spirits of destruction that if man
could see them “he would lack the strength to face them, though he
1 L&y-Bruhl,
Primitivs
s Hastings,
Encyclopedia,
8 Trachtenberg,
Jewish
Mm&&y,
p. 350.
Vol. 8, p. 301.
Magic
and Superstition,
p.
127.
THE
580
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
could see them by casting the ashes of the fetus of a black cat about
his eyes or by sprinkling
ashes around his bed he could trace their
cock-like footprints in the morning.” *
In many languages, as well as in Biblical use, the words “coveting,” “enviousness,”
“sickness,”
“death”
and the “evil eye” are
synonymous.
The English word “envy” actually means malignant
or hostile feeling that is said to arise from natural jealousy.6
This is
illustrated
by the action of Saul in his envy and jealousy of David
as recorded in Book Z of Samuel, Chapter 18, verse 9:
9 And Saul eyed David from that day and
forward.0
The word “eyed,” as used in the Bible, had a far more significant
meaning than merely to “see” or “look after.”
The Safer Hasidim 7 gives a clue to the Biblical Hebrews’ dread
of coveting,
as used
evil eye ; it says:
an evil angel
who
in this
“The
speedily
Commandment,
and
its relationship
to the
angry glance of a man’s eye calls into being
takes
vengeance
on the cause
of his wrath.”
The Talmud also refers to this important
phase of the religion of the
Hebrews, stating: “One-should never open his mouth to Satan,” meaning that evil talk will produce evil results.8
Perhaps the most illuminating
reference to the meaning of coveting, as used in this Commandment,
and the seriousness with which
the Children of Israel regarded it, is the words of Micah, Chapter 2,
verses l-3:
1 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and
work evil upon their beds! when the morning
is light, they practise it, because it is in the
power of their hand.
2 And they covet fields, and take them by
violence; and houses, and take them away:
so they oppress a man and his house, even a
man and his heritage.
4 JeGh Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 516 (see same for other material).
5 Hastings, o$. cit., Vol. 5, p. 608.
G See also Deuteronomy,
Cha#ter
28, verse 54.
‘An authoritative Hebrew book.
8 Trachtenberg, op. cit., p. 56.
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
581
3 Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold,
against this family do I devise an evil, from
which ye shall not remove your necks; neither
shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.
Not only was personal property subject to %oveting”
but SO
menacing was this iniquity that those who possessed the power could
“work evil upon their beds”; they could “covet fields and take them
by violence.”
A man’s house and even “his heritage” could be taken
away by coveting!
Those found guilty of this practice could not
escape the penalty, for the Lord had said: “Against this family do I
devise an evil, from which he shall not remove your necks. . . .”
Coveting was definitely the weapon of the sorcerer, the concealed
means of exercising the malign influence of the “evil eye.” It was
witchcraft
in its most diabolical
form, and that is why it was prohibited among the Hebrews.
That is why envious thoughts of “thy
neighbor’s”
property were taboo. That is why strict and stringent
penalties were provided for coveting.
Thcrc cannot be the slightest doubt that the Biblical Hebrew be-
lieved
in witchcraft.
Not only did Saul visit the Witch of Endor 0
anri seek her advice, but the Biblical injunction “Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live” lo is conclusive proof of the prevalence of this
belief among the Children of Israel.
So great was the fear of bewitchment that anyone guilty of its practice was to be put to death!
And this injunction
carried with it the same authority as any of the
Commandments
of the Decalogue.
The belief in witchcraft is one of the most damnable the Bible is
responsible for perpetrating
on mankind.
The fear of sorcerers was
so great that even the law took cognizance of it, and judges certified
to the exislerlce of witchcraft by Biblical
authority1
To the pages
of the Bible belongs the guilt for the innocent blood of the hundreds
91
Samuel, Chapter
28. For additional evidence of the belief in witchcraft among
the Biblical Hebrews, see: 2 Clzronicles, Ch@ter 33, vet-se 16; 2 Kings, Chapter
9,
verse 22; iwcoh,
Chofifer
5, vwse
Chapter
3, verse 4.
lo Exodus,
Chapter
22, verse 18.
12;
Dwtorononsy,
Chapter
lS,
vcrsc
10;
Nahum,
582
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
of thousands of victims shed as a result of this mad superstition.
Men, women and children were subjected to every conceivable infamy
and every conceivable torture for merely having been accused of
committing
crimes of which they were utterly incapable.
This devilish superstition has persisted almost up to our very day,ll as is proved
by the statement of John Wesley that “the giving up of witchcraft
was in effect the giving up of the Bible.”
The fear of uttering anything that offers the slightest possibility
of doing harm or exercising the slightest detrimental
influence accounts for the numerous prophylactic
expressions and measures prevaEven today they are resorted to
lent among the orthodox Hebrews.
as a means of avoiding this kind of bewitchment.
“Don’t beashrei
me” is frequently
heard.
The use of this expression reveals how
deeply rooted was this superstition
in nationalistic
Hebrew life.
It
means, in effect, “Thou shalt not covet,” or “No evil eye.” The prevalence of this expression in Hebrew culture is additional
proof that
the real meaning of the word “coveting,”
as biblically
used, is “employing witchcraft.”
Orthodox Hebrews still avoid mentioning
the
words “evil eye,” and substitute a reverse expression, gut&g
(“good
eye”), so as to avoid the implications
and dangers involved in uttering
the dreaded words.12 This taboo against mentioning
the dreaded
words is identical with the one which forbids mentioning
the name of
the Hebrew Deity and calls for the use of a substitute, as revealed in
the analysis of the Third Commandment.
COVETING,
WITCHCRAFT
PRIMITIVE
It is only by lifting
AND THE
CULTURE
EVIL
EYE
IN
the veil of the past that we are able to reveal
the truth to the present.
Just as there are problems in mathematics
that cannot be solved by simple arithmetic,
but require algebra, geometry and trigonometry,
so there are primitive
problems of conduct
11 For
Rationalism
details
of
in Europe,
the
infiucncc
Vol.
1, pp.
12 A. A. Roback, Psychological
and
prcvnlcncc of
witchcraft,
see
Protective
Phrases,
ZZhtory
Lecky,
l-50.
Aspects
of
Jewish
p.
5.
of
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
583
and social customs that cannot be explained or solved by present-day
standards of ethics or morals, but require a knowledge of social anthropology.
The primitive
mind, such as was the Biblical Hebrew’s, was not
only unacquainted
with the natural “laws of the universe,” but was
utterly incapable of comprehending
the orderly connection of one
event with another; it was believed that everything
was the result
of good or evil forces, and that these forces operated through the
medium of sorcery and witchcraft.
Health and disease, famine and
abundance, drought and rain, sorrow and happiness, ugliness and
good looks, misfortune and success, storms and sunshine, all these and
every minor event in life were thought to be the result of unseen
forces. It was also believed that these forces for good or evil could
be influenced by one’s acts. Even death was attributed
to some
evil
power
seeking
retaliation
and
revenge
for
snme
“sinful”
act..
Tt.
was this superstitious
belief, formulated
by the Hebrews into a religious system, that corrupted and stultified
the minds of all who
came under its blighting influence.
Thus, when misfortune came to the members of the early Israelite
tribe, whether it was illness, the loss of cattle, the unfaithfulness
of a
wife, the death of children, the lack of rain for crops, it was believed
that all were due to the malign influences of evil-wishing, the envious
thoughts of others and the work of sorcerers.
How else could the
primitive
lightning
reason
mind
explain
destroyed
could
these
bewildering
houses and killed
be given
for the
tragedy?
rnanilesl&ons?
innocent
When
Wh~Il
men and women, what
tornadoes
and
earth-
quakes devastated the earth, when famine stalked the land, how else
could primitive
man explain such horror, except that evil forces were
wreaking vengeance on someone for some act that had provoked their
anger?
To the primitive
mind, there was no such thing as an “accident.”
If a tree fell on a person and killed him, the act was due to some evil
influence.
If one tripped and fell, injuring himself, it was attributed
to some ill wishes. If a child was deformed, mentally or physically,
584
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
it was believed that some malign impulse was responsible. If one
broke a dish, spilled milk or dropped food, the cause was a covetous
wish or evil eye.
“All ailments of every kind,” says a noted authority, “from the
simplest to the most serious, are without exception attributed to malign influence of an enemy in either human or spirit shape.” l3
The Biblical Hebrews believed that the death of women in childbirth was due to three sins: negligence during the periods of separation, carelessness in respect to the consecration of the first cake of
the dough, and improperly lighting the Sabbath lamp. It was their
firm conviction that “there is no death without sin.” I4
Nowhere was this superstitious belief so strongly entrenched as in
its application to sickness and disease. The primitive mind did not
know the nature of disease and was unable to comprehend its “mysterious” ways. It could not conceive of one being afflicted other than
through the medium of a malign influence. How could the primitive
explain
his “catching”
a contagious
disease?
With
the best of in-
tentions, he visited a neighbor to comfort and aid him, only to find
that
shortly
after
he became
afflicted
with
the same
illness.
How
could he explain this except on the supposition that he had been
bewitched
for something
he had done nr had failed t-o do?
What
else
could he believe except that someone had cast an evil eye on him or
coveted his good health, thereby transferring the disease to him? On
a larger scale, it is easily understandable how an epidemic was believed to be a revenge on a whole people for some ritual disobedience.
The Bible did not help him in his perplexity. It contains no more
information on the nature of disease than it does on morals; and just
as the Bible does not contain the word “morals” or “morality,” so
it does not mention the causes and cure of disease. There is not a
scientific fact within its pages concerning the nature of a single disease or a single remedy for its cure ! How could the Bible be helpful
lSLCvy-Bruhl, op. cit., p, 39.
14 Hastings, Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 757.
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
when it decidedly states that disease is a punishment
ordained
God for failure to do “that which is right in his sight.”
I quote Exodus, Chapter 15, verse 26:
585
by its
26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken
to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt
do that which is right in his sight, and wilt
give ear to his commandments, and keep all
his statutes, I will put none of these diseases
upon thee, which I have brought upon the
Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth
thee.
The belief in the power to injure by the medium of thought and
intensity of the wish-the
efficacy of coveting-prevailed
in nearly
all tribes whose cultural level was similar to that of the Hebrews.
“Thus, in regard to the aborigines of Australia,”
says Frazer, “the
number of supernatural
beings that they acknowledge is exceedingly
great, for not only are the heavens peopled with such, but the whole
face of the country swarms with them; every thicket, most watering
places and all rocky places abound with evil spirits.
In like manner,
every natural phenomenon is believed to be the work of demons, one
and all apparently
striving to do all imaginable
mischief.”
“The
Negro,” says another writer, “is wont to regard the whole world
around him as peopled with invisible beings to whom he imputes
every misfortune
that happens to him, and from whose harmful influence he seeks to protect himself by all kinds of magic means.” l5
If a Kikuyu or Kamba cattle owner hears that a man has been
admiring one of his cows, he will send for him and insist on his removing the enchantment;
this is done by the man wetting his finger
with saliva, and touching the beast on the mouth.16
The Gallas are
very jealous of their livestock;
a stranger’s admiration
of it would
be attributed by them to a covetous heart and would instantly excite
their ire.
The belief prevails in many primitive
societies that merely “wishing” evil on someone, even momentarily,
is sufficient to cast a spell
1s Frazer, Golden
Bough,
Part VI, The Scapegoat,
aSLevy-Bruhl, op. cit., p. 349.
pp. 73-74.
586
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
and bewitch him. In the Congo district and in West Africa, the natives believe that everyone has the power of making a wish come
true.17 The wives of a late king of the Niger are supposed to have
come in a procession to drink poison at his bier because of a belief
that they had wished his death. In Calabar, a woman was found tied
to a log near the ocean. When the tide came in, she would be dragged
into the sea, a prey of the voracious sharks. She was the wife of a
chief who had recently died. The chief’s brother had selected her as
having wished her husband’s death.lB
The North American Indians imagine that anyone who wishes the
death of another often obtains the realization of his desire. In British Columbia, when one Indian is vexed with another, he will say, to
show his anger: “By and by, you will be dead.”
This often so terrifies the victim that he soon succumbs.
The evil-wisher is then
charged with having bewitched his friend and is invariably
shot.19
In South America, among the Lenguas of Grand Chaco, when a
man expresses a desire for rain or for a cool south wind, his neighbors, if they do not share the desire, protest strongly and implore
him not to persist in his wish. When it rains in Northern India and
it is desired that the rain continue, anyone who runs out of doors
bareheaded is ordered in at once, for it is believed that a bareheaded
man wishes involuntarily
that the rain cease. Because words were
supposed to possess magic powers, taboos were placed on uttering
expressiurls
that could possibly be construed as producing evil results.
“We can now better understand,”
says Levy-Bruhl,
“why it is that
primitives
are so afraid of arousing anger and ill will among their
fellows. . . . They fear that they may thereby provoke a bewitchment.” 2o
When a person has been injured and is unable properly to retaliate, he sometimes resorts to a curse, wishing that some harm befall his assailant.
If the object of the curse should meet with the
1’ L&y-Bruhl,
09. cit., p. 343.
Is Ibid.,
pp. 343-344.
I9 Ibid., pp. 345-346.
2°LCvy-Bruhl, The Primitives and the Supernatural,
p. 168.
,
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
587
misfortune,
the results are attributed
to the revengeful wish of his
victim.
This belief not only prevailed among primitive
peoples, but
A “cheeky”
only recently such a case was reported in Bangala.
urchin in Bengala received a box on the ears from his uncle. The boy
resented the chastisement
and said, “I will bewitch you.”
Shortly
afterwards the uncle became ill. The boy was accused of causing
the illness and was forced to endure the penalty provided for such
acts of sorcery.21
In the Loango, the natives believe that whatever happens to a
person is caused by an enemy’s wishes. If a person falls into the
water and is drowned, he has been bewitched; if he is devoured by a
wolf or tiger, it is because his enemy, by virtue of his magical powers,
has been transferred into a wild beast. In Sierra Leone and among
the DeChagge of East Africa, it is believed that no death is natural
or accidental, but is brought about by the malign influence of some
individual
who employs witchcraft for that purpose.22
When a Samoan was ill, a special inquiry was made of his sister
and her children as to whether any of them had cursed him and thus
caused his illness. To prove her innocence and remove the spell, she
would take some cocoanut water into her mouth and eject it toward
or over the body of the sufferer.23
The first night after a Narinyere
man has died, his nearest relative sleeps with his head on the corpse in order that he may be led
to dream of the sorcerer who caused the death.
In the West of England, the baneful influence of envy or ill-wishing is evidenced in the common remark after any tragic occurrence,
bereavement or serious misfortune,
such as a widow being left unprovided for-“
‘Tis a wished thing for her, sure enough!” 24
When lightning
struck the house of a native Basttos, killing his
wife, injuring
his children and burning all his belongings, he was
firmly convinced that it had been sent by a neighbor who bore him
Zl LCvy-Bruhl,
22 Ibid.,
28 Idem,
pp.
The
op. cit., Primitive
Mentality,
p, 239.
42-U.
Primitives
z4 Hastings, Religion,
and
the
Supernatural,
Vol. 5, p. 809.
p. 184.
588
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
a grudge.25 How far removed from the savage Basttos was the civilized Englishman
who told the eminent novelist, Thomas Hardy, that
the reason why certain trees in front of his house did not thrive was
that he looked at them before breakfast on an empty stomach1 26
During the Middle Ages, the Russian subject was forced to take
an oath that he would not resort to sorcery, witchcraft or any other
magical means to cause harm to the Czar.27
Says the noted authority Levy-Bruhl:
“In support of these views
of the essential nature of witchcraft,
as the primitive
mind usually
imagines it, we can bring forward a vast number of facts in which
the injurious influence attributed
to envy, covetousness, malevolence
and the like appears.” 28
“To the Bergdama the safety of the social group depends upon
the sacred fire. Should this be profaned, it loses its virtue and misfortune overwhelms the Bergdama.
Now it may happen that the
persistent good luck of a zealous and experienced hunter excites the
envy of one of his companions who employs magic means to wrest it
from him. If it be ascertained that such a crime has been committed,
it is essential that a fresh fire be prepared if the whole village, and
especially the fortunate hunter, are not to be attacked by dire misfortune, for the crime has defiled the fire in such a way that only its
complete renewal can turn aside the calamities
that are imminent.
They do not need to look far for the guilty person, for it is assuredly
a relative.
Envy has thus been the instigator
of witchcraft,
and
the person possessed by it has become a sorcerer.” 2Q
One of the most effective weapons of the covetous person is the
evil eye-a potent agent of the sorcerer.
Among primitive,
superstitious peoples, if one merely stared at another it was considered
that he was planning mischief or actually causing some evil.
The
foremost authorities
in the field of primitive
culture acknowledge
*EGL&y-Bruhl,
Primitive
Mentality,
p. 48.
**Frazer,
The Magic Art, p. 130.
21 Hastings,
Encyclo&zdin,
Vol. 3, p. 466.
**L&y-Bruhl,
The Primitives
and the Supernatural,
29 Ibid.
p.
170.
THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT
589
that the evil eye and the power to bewitch are often synonymous
terms.30 In Arabia Petraea, it is believed that if anyone looks at an
animal as if he desired to possess it, the animal will die unless the
owner sells it. In the same way, if a man covets a woman, a child,
articles of clothing or anything else, his soul has the power to injure
the object coveted.31 The evil eye was believed to have its impulse
in envy, and thus it was unlucky to have any of one’s possessions
praised.32
In a detailed description of the Bantu belief with regard to the
evil eye, an authority states: “It gradually dawns upon the people
that So-and-So possessesthe power, owing to the fact that if a person
audibly admires a beast belonging to a neighbor, the animal shortly
becomes sick. This occurs several times, the various owners compare
notes, and it becomes generally known that So-and-So is kittamengo
(has the evil eye’). It would therefore seem,” he concludes, “that the
idea is not based on an evil glance, but upon an envious thought.” 33
The eye was merely used as an instrument, a vehicle of the envy he
feels for the owner of the thing coveted.
Among the Shilluk, the power to harm is made operative by looking fixedly at the victim. The person who is bewitched says: “The
eye went into me.” Again, they consider the eye merely the instrument of their envy and their covetousness. It is the same among the
Azande. By a wizard they mean one possessing the evil eye, who,
by an inhcrcnt
power,
exerts
a baneful
influence,
occasions
misfor-
tune, brings about illness and death.34
Even
to be looked
at while
eating
was
considered
dangerous,
as
the eater was subject to the malign influence of others who might
covet the repast. It was thought that those who were hungry would
excite envy, the mainspring of malignant and evil glances. For this
reason, it is said, the Pope always takes his meals alone. The kings
“OIAvy-Bruhl,
The Primitives
and the Supernatural,
p. 167
31 Idem,
Primitive
~“E‘ncyczopmdia
Mentality,
Dritannica,
s3LCvy-Bruhl, The Primitives
s4 Ibid., p. 167.
p. 350.
14th
and
Ed.,
the
Vol.
8, p.
915.
Supernatural,
p. 166.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
590
of Kacongo, in West Africa, may not be seen eating. It is a capital
offense to see the king of Dahomey at his meals. When the king of
Tonga eats, all turn their backs. Anyone who saw Muato Jamwo, a
great potentate of the Congo country, eating would be put to death.36
Turks of all classes object to being looked at while eating.
In Wadai the sultan always speaks from behind a curtain so
that no one may see him and cast an envious glance on him. The
practice of veiling the faces of the women throughout the East is considered to have originated from the fear that evil and envious glances
would have a blighting effect on them.3c
In Shoa, one of the southern provinces of Abyssinia, the doors of
the houses are scrupulously barred at meals to exclude the evil eye,
and every time an Abyssinian of rank drinks, a servant holds a cloth
before his master to guard him from the evil eye. The Thompson
Indians of British Columbia think that a shaman could bewitch them
most easily when they are eating, drinking or smoking.37
Plutarch observed that envy exerts an evil influence through the
eyes. Heliodorus implies that nearly all people have an evil eye,
and that if anyone looks at that which is excellent with an envious
eye, he fills the surrounding atmosphere with a pernicious quality
and transmits his own envenomed exhalations into whatever is nearest
to him.as
The Greeks and Romans erected statues to Nemesis, whom they
adored and invoked to save them from the covetousness
and envy
of others.39
In the time nf Elizabeth, “eye-biting”
witches
were executed in
Ireland for causing diseases among cattle. It was also believed that
they were the cause of cows losing their milk. In the West Highlands, it is believed that if a stranger looks admiringly at a cow,
she will waste away unless some of her milk is drunk to break the
35 Frederick Thomas Elworthy,
36 Ibid., pp. 427-429.
“7Frazcr,
Taboo
am?
the
Perils
T6e Evil Eye, pp. 425, 426.
u/
38Hastings, Encyclopcedia of Religion
3s Elworthy, Tke Evil Eye, p. 14.
Lhr.
Soul,
and
pp.
Ethics,
116-117.
Vol. 5,
p. 610.
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
591
spell. Turks and Arabs have the same belief as to their horses and
cattle; seldom are they seen harnessed without some protective amulet
on them.
Westermarck
observes that in Morocco the havoc which
the evil eye is supposed to have caused is tremendous.
In some parts
of Calcutta it is usual for a mother to blacken her child’s face with
a burnt stick to preserve it during the day from the evil influence.40
Animals have been accused of possessing evil eyes. The peacock, the symbol of Juno, the most envious and ill-natured
of the
deities, has always been, and is still held to be, a potent mischief
maker.
Even today there are many people who are horrified if peacock feathers are used as ornaments because the feathers contain a
design which to the superstitious appears to be an eye. They become
terrified if such feathers are brought into the house, as they believe
that death will surely follow. The Irish believe that the hare casts
evil eyes on their cattle, and begin a general slaughter of them on
May Day!
Today, in many parts of England, the hare is looked on
as an omen of bad luck, and many refuse even to mention the word
“rabbit”
for that reason. Pregnant
Chinese women dare not look
at a hare lest its eye, falling on them, should cause their child to be
born with a “harelip.”
In Brazil there is a tradition
that there is
a bird with an evil eye that kills with a look.41
Is not the raven
almost universally condemned as “a bird of ill omen”?
Nor should
we fail to mention the erudite nonsense of Thomas Aquinas on this
subject.
He said: “The eye is affected by the strong imagination
of
the soul and then corrupts and poisons the atmosphere so that tender
bodies coming within its range may be injuriously
affected.” 42
When King Ferdinand
of Naples used to appear in public, he
would put his hand in his pocket from time to time.
Those who
understood his ways knew that he was clenching his fist with the
thumb stuck out between the first and second fingers, to avert the
effect of a glance of the evil eye that someone in the street might
4oHastings,
En~yclupwdio
u/ Religion
11 Ibid.
42 Trachtenberg,
op. cit., p. 56.
untl
EL&s,
Vul. 5, p. GlO.
592
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
have cast on him.43 Perhaps Ferdinand got his formula to overcome
the effects of the evil eye from the orthodox Hebrews:
“Whoever is
on the point of entering a city and is afraid of the evil eye should
stick his right thumb in his left hand and his left thumb in his right
hand and say, ‘I am of the seed of Joseph, whom the evil eye may
not touch.’ ” 44
Today we know that there is no such thing as an evil eye, except
it be the smiting of a youth by the dreamy and seductive eyes of a
maid; that envious thoughts harm no one but the person who envies,
as mere envy is wasteful and fruitless; peacock feathers are no more
unlucky than the feathers of any other bird, and all the anger in
the world cannot bewitch the object that is hated.
COVETING
AND
COUNTING
As the Bible furnished evidence to substantiate
our analysis of
the previous Commandments,
we now find Biblical evidence in support of our premise in the analysis of this Commandment,
Counting was prohibited among the Children of Israel for the same
reasun that coveting was corzdemned. The superstitious basis of sympathetic magic for fear of counting is the foundation of the fear of
the evil conscqucnccs of coveting.
The seriousness with which counting was looked on among the Biblical Hebrews cannot better be illustrated
than by the narrative
dealing with the taking of the census
of the Hebrew people.
This was considered such a heinous sin by
the Bible Deity that he punished them with a great pestilence which
caused the death of 70,000 sons of Israel!
No wonder the Biblical
Hebrew associated direful results with counting! 45
Even today orthodox Hebrews use a form of propitiation
before
counting, such as “May it please God,” or “God willing.”
In addition to this and similar expressions, they use another form of pro4sTylor,
Early History
of Mankind,
p. 53.
Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Vol. 5, p. 280.
46 For a better comprehension
of the event,
24, and the First Book of Chronicles,
Chapter
44
see the Second
21.
Book
of Samuel,
Chapter
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
593
pitiation, the words umbeschrien and umberufen, when telling the age
of a person, counting the number of children in a family, or the days
before a wedding.46
This is supposed to counteract whatever evil
might result from mentioning
the time, number or things that are
precious to their owners. Hebrews also avoid counting money unless
the protective words are used.
This superstition,
with its attendant propitiatory
ceremonies and
phrases, was not confined to the Israelites, but was prevalent among
all primitive
groups.
The propitiation
used by primitive
peoples is
identical in ceremonial form and purpose with that of the Hebrews.
The natives of the Oran colonies, before counting, start with a supplication, “In the name of God,” “one, two, three,” etc.:* to prevent
harm from befalling any one of the number counted.
Among the Bakongo of the Lower Congo, it is considered unlucky
for a woman to count her children.
The Masai of East Africa count
neither men nor beasts for fear lest some should die. Among the
Akarnba
tribe,
these animals
pear.
whcrc
the wclfarc
are never counted
The Gallus
of East
of the cattle
is of great
concern,
for fear that many will die or disap-
Africa,
and the peoples
of North
Africa,
believe that counting one’s cattle will cause evil. It is reported that
a missionary who through ignorance counted his workpeople was ceremoniously killed.
The Cherokee Indians of North America will not
count melons and squashes for fear lest they should cease to thrive.
The Omaha Indians keep no account of their years for fear that some
evil will result if they do so.
Similar superstitions
survive to this day in “civilized”
communities. I remember as a lad being told by a playmate that if I counted
the carriages
in a funeral
procession
someone
in my family
would
die.
In the Highlands
of Scotland, it is considered unlucky to number
the people or cattle belonging to any family, or for fishermen to count
the number of fish they catch. In Germany, it was the popular be40 Roback,
47 Frazer,
Psychological
Aspects of Jewish
Folk-Lore
in the Old Testament,
Protective
p. 307.
Phrases,
p. 5.
594
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
lief that counting one’s money caused it steadily to decrease. Even
today, it is said on excellent authority that the Arabs of Syria are
averse to counting their tents, horsemen or cattle, lest some misfortune befall them.48
In Shetland, England, it was the common belief that an outbreak
of smallpox always followed a census. In Lincolnshire, no farmer
counts his cattle; it is thought that the powers of evil would cause
some to die if he did. In Denmark, the eggs of a brooding hen are
never counted, else the mother will tread on the eggs and kill the
chickens. In North Jutland, the people do not count the mice for
fear that they will increase. The Greeks and Armenians believe
that if you count your warts, they will increase; and, in the Upper
Palatinate, a district in Bavaria, people think that loaves in the oven
should not be counted, or they will not turn out we11.49
Some people
fear to tell their
age because
of the belief
that
it
will cut off their years, This superstitious belief among the orthodox
Hebrews is so ingrained tha.t. many times it causes both amusement
and bewilderment in our courts, When an orthodox Hebrew who
has been called to testify is asked his age, the judge cannot understand why he refuses to answer the simple question. The witness is
silent because he is afraid to mention his age unless the protective
word is spoken first. Generally someone in the courtroom acquainted
with this orthodox belief asks the attendant to reframe his question
in this manner: “Umbeschrien,
how old are you?” and the witness
readily gives his age. This expression has been somewhat facetiously
corrupted, and usually, when asking the age of an elderly person,
the question is framed in this manner: “I hope you live to be one
hundred and twenty years, but how old are you now?”
Just as the Hebrews used a form of propitiation to protect them
fro111
the evil results of “counting,” so they had protective measures
and phrases to guard them against the evil of coveting.
48Frazer,
“QZbid.,
Folk-Lore
in the Old
pp. 310, 311, 313.
Testament,
pp. 307-313.
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
PROPITIATORY
595
PHRASES
The very existence of presumed magical methods as a protection
against coveting sorcery and diabolical
bewitchment
by the evil eye
is proof of the intensity of the belief, in Biblical times, in the potency
of “coveting.”
Perhaps the most common expression used by orthodox Hebrews
as a prophylactic
against the evil that might result from a “covetous”
or praiseworthy remark is Kmanhore.
They say, “Kenanhore,
what
a beautiful,
or healthy, or smart child!”
The word kelzanhore is
believed to be a protective shield against the evil spirits that might
cause the child to lose its beauty, its health, its intelligence,
or cause
it harm in some other way. The same word is used when mentioning a happy marriage, a fortunate event, recovery from an illness, a
successful venture or any number of good things that might be reversed through a “covetous” expression.
There are many other propitiatory
gestures and phrases used by
the Hebrews.
Marriages are constantly in danger of being wrecked
by the dreaded evil of coveting.
The bridegroom,
whose conjugal
happiness is envied by someone, is considered especially susceptible.
He may protect himself, however, by walking backwards.
A glance
at the left side of the nose is also protection
against the evil eyeW60
One method of bewitching the bridal pair is to tie three knots during
the ceremony;
the bride will be forbidden to her husband as long
as the knots remain untied.
To break the spell, one must kill a hen,
drop the blood on the knots, and untie them.5i
Children are constantly in danger of being coveted, particularly
those who are healthy and good-looking.
To counteract this, a piece
of ma&oh (the unleavened bread used during the Passover) sprinkled
with salt is put in the pocket of the child.
The sex of the child is
also a factor in coveting.
If the first child is a girl, this is considered
a good omen for the succeeding boys, because it is believed that the
50 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, pp. 280-281.
51Hastings, Encyclo@dia, Vol. 2, p. 656.
596
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
evil eye is then not irritated, If the first child is a boy, the evil eye
never ceases its malign influence.52
An example of the efforts of the Biblical Hebrew to avoid the
influence of the evil eye is found in the story of Joseph. When he
inquired of his brothers about the welfare of his father and his
grandfather, they replied: “Thy servant, our father, is well, he is
yet alive.” From this answer Joseph would know that his grandfather, Isaac, was dead, and at the same time the sympathetic implication of mentioning death was avoided.
To mention the sins of a sick person was prohibited for fear that
it would cause the evil influence to affect his condition adversely. It
was forbidden to repeat a conversation in which a curse was included.
In fact, orthodox Hebrews are sometimes quite perplexed as to
whether they should repeat audibly the imprecation of Jeremiah calling down bitter maledictions on the Children of Israel! It is said
that a student fell ill and died while studying aloud this portion of
the Bible.63
The tefillin or phylacteries is an amulet to protect the pious Hebrew from the covetousness of others. It is believed to possesspower
to ward off demons arid the “unwelcome ministrations of Satan.”
The wearer of the phylacteries was supposed to be immune to all
the powers of evil .54 Only male Hcbrcws wear them, and when worn,
“the left hand is surrounded by a thousand and the right hand by
tens of thousands of guardian angels.” 85 It is believed to be the
duty of every pious Jew to use the tefillin 56 every morning to assure
him protection throughout the day.
At a marriage among certain orthodox Jews, the bride is taken
into an upper room after the religious ceremony, accompanied by all
her friends, who remain with her. She is then seated on a chair.
Her mother-in-law unveils her, and with a pair of scissors cuts off
62Jewish
Encyclopedia,
Jewish
~54 Ibid.,
D. 146.
65 Jewish Encyclopedia,
KsTrachtenherg,
Vol. 5, pp. 280-281.
Magic and Superstition,
Vol. 4, p. 519.
66 Their use today is more widespread
p. 59.
than is generally supposed.
THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT
597
the ends of her hair. This ceremony is supposed to be of great importance in driving away evil influences that might harm or enter
between the newly married pair.57
Another method of counteracting the effects of the evil eye among
orthodox Hebrews is the following: Take a handful of salt, pass it
around the head of a child that has been bewitched, then throw a
little of it in each corner of the room and the balance over the threshold. Another is for the mother to kiss her child three times, spitting
after each kiss.“* Knotting the strings of the orthodox Hebrew’s
prayer shawls is also a measure against witchcrafL60
Common among orthodox Hebrews is the custom of bringing salt
and bread into a new house as a sympathetic form of protection that
anyone who lives there shall never be without salt and bread, two
essentials for the sustenance of life.
As
mentioned
in the
discussion
of the
Third
Commandment,
changing one’s name was done to avoid the evil eye and the covetousness of envious people.60
Josephus records that Eleazer, who came before the Roman Emperor Vespasian, was able to drive away an evil spirit by using the
ring of Solomon and some herbs.61
The number and variety of charms and amulets used by the
Hebrews to counteract the malign influence of coveting, and as a
protection against the evil eye, are too numerous to mention here.
They are as plentiful
as the unrestrained imagination of a superstitious people could invent. Nor, as stated before, were the Hebrews
alone in this superstition;
it prevailed
among
all peoples
of a
low intellectual and cultural level.
As frequently used as the word Ken.ankore is the gesture “knock
wood” among other peoples. It is also supposed to prevent the evil
Thomas Elworthy, The Evil Eye, p. 42.5.
Vol. 11, p, 598.
Vol. 5, p. 614.
~“Insta~~ce~ ww related In the analysis of the Third Commandment.
B1Hastings, op. tit., Vol. 8, p. 301. Attributed to Josephus’ Antiquities,
pp. 11-15.
s7Frrderick
68 Jewish
Encyclopedia,
69 Hastings, op. cit.,
Vol. 7,
598
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
spirits from hearing good news and thereby avoid arousing their
jealousy and provoking them to covetous designs. So widespread is
this superstition that it has become part of our daily habits. Who
has not seen people “knock wood” whenever they speak of a fortunate event? Some facetiously tap their heads when a piece of wood
is not handy, believing thereby that the same effect will be achievedthe inference being that they are “blockheads.” That this gesture continues despite the fact that its original meaning is no longer understood by those who still indulge in its use is only another instance
of how tenaciously useless superstitious customs cling.
Another practice of sympathetic magic is to cross two fingers,
which is supposed to prevent the crossing of one’s plans by those
covetous of the objective, and to check temporarily the evil eye until
the event has been culminated. This gesture has the same purpose
and is as widespread
as “knncking
wood” and saying “kcnanhorc.”
Spitting is also used as a prophylactic against the evils of coveting,
sorcery and the evil eye. When speaking of evil and of evil things,
the early Hebrews would press one thumb on the ground, repeat the
word “Pip?’ nine times and spit. O2 Another method is to spit at the
object and utter the word “il4aris.”
Spitting on one’s breast was
supposed to avert the jealousy of the gods.63 The Bible records innumerable instances of its superstitious use by the Hebrews and its
symbolic personification. It states that if the father of Miriam (the
wife of Moses) had spat in her face when she was born, she would
not have contracted leprosy.64 In parts of Ireland even today, a
newborn
child is spat on by its father;
neighbors
spit on the child
for luck the first day it is brought out; and the older women spit on
the ground all around it to ward off evil.
As part of the baptismal rite of the Roman Catholic Church, the
priest anoints the ears and nostrils of the child with spittle as a measure of protection to ward off evil. Among the Greek Catholics, the
oZTrachtenberg,
op. cit., p. 162.
6B Hastings,
op. cit., Vol. 3,
464.
64 Numbers,
Chapter
12, verse 14.
p,
THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT
599
baptismal rites have a similar purpose. While the priest opens the
service by swinging his tenser to exorcise all evil spirits and influences from the four corners of the room, one of the godparents, to
make doubly sure, accompanies him by spitting into each suspected
nook.s6
In parts of Wales, it was the custom to spit before the name of
the Devil was mentioned. The Mohammedans believe in a demon
called “Kninzab,” who is supposed to cast doubts on prayer, and in
order to avoid his evil influence they spit three times over their left
arm1.66
The Armenians spit on a stone and turn it under, or make cakes
of dough, wet them with water and throw them into a fire, the spell
of the evil eye being broken as the cakes crack asunder.67 Another
custom to prevent the evil eye from affecting children was for the
mother to spit three times on their bosoms, three being a sacred number. Hence it is recorded that Damoetas, having praised himself,
adds that on the advice of old Cotyttaris he had spat thrice into his
bosom to prevent fascination.88
Hebrews spit on the money collected for the first sale of the day,
believing it will bring a good day’s business. It is a common custom
in Great Britain and Ireland, and also among the Southern Negroes,
to spit on money that is receivedee The Negro spits on the money
he receives as a protective measure, fearing that otherwise that money
and any on his person with which
it comes in contact
will not remain
long with him. Some people spit on dice “for luck” before they roll
them.
The fear of coveting, in the Biblical sense of casting an evil
eye on the possessions of a neighbor, led to all manner
of ways
and
means to avoid its consequences, such as expressing one’s approbation in unflattering terms. A handsome boy is referred to as gro65 Hastings, op. cit., Vol. 11, p. 101.
se Ibid.,
=‘Ibid.,
68 Elworthy,
esHastings,
Vol.
Vul.
10, p. 102.
5, p. 615.
The Evil Eye, p. 413.
op. cit., Vol. 10, p. 101.
600
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
tesque. Counting money is avoided for fear that it will diminish.
Things that normally make one feel proud are subdued. For instance,
when a father took his child to school for the first time, he generally
tried to screen him with his cloak for fear that he would receive a
“kenalzhore” and some evil would follow. A double wedding is avoided
for the same reason.‘O
In some cases a curse, rags, dirt and filth are supposed to exert
beneficial and protective influences over a person, and divert him
from the evil eye, which is attracted by beauty and good fortune.
If a herdsman, among the Huzels of the Carpathians, suspects
himself of having the evil eye, he will ask one of his household to
call him vile and vicious names, thinking that this will undo the effect
of the evil eye.‘l Esthonian fishermen believe that they never have
such good luck as when someone is angry and curses them. There
was a popular
beIief in parts
of Germany
that if you wished
a hunts-
man good luck when he went out to shoot a deer, he would not be
successful. To avert the ill luck caused by such a wisher, the hunter
had to throw a broomstick at him. If he was to have really good
luck on his venture, one had to wish that he would break his neck
or his Ieg.73
The Romans were so firmly convinced that they would call forth
evil spirits if they spoke favorably about a person that it became customary, when praising and complimenting, to preface remarks with
lhe propitiatory
words “Fend evil, I should say.” 73 In Italy, it is
the custom, before making a ‘%ovetous” or praiseworthy remark, to
say: “No evil eye take effect.”
In England, at one time, it was so
feared that praise would have an evil effect that it has now become
a tradition not to overpraise. In the Highlands today, as well as in
many parts of this country, it is a common thing for a mother whose
child has been admired to say that she hopes that no evil will come
because of the praise it has received, Undue praise is thought to
70Trachtenherg, op. cit., pp. 56, 57.
‘IFrazer, The Magic AYE, Vol. 1, p. 280.
fZ Ibid., p. 281.
?s Hastings, og. dt., Vol. 5, p. 611.
THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT
601
be followed by ill luck. How often do we hear people say that because they have boasted too much, something will surely happen to
cause them regret.
AMULETS
AND CHARMS
Wearing amulets and charms as a prophylactic against coveting,
sorcery and the evil eye is indicative of another form of belief in
animism and sympathetic magic. A famous talisman was the caduceus used by Mercury the messenger, which was supposed to protect
him from being hindered in his flights by envious eyes when on
errands for rival deities. The caduceus is now a medical decoration.
In Italy, double walnuts and almonds are carried as amulets
against the evil eye, witches and headaches, and to bring good luck.r*
The custom of touching the threshold and doorpost with a sprig of
the strawberry plant to drive away evil spirits is still widespread in
Italy.7G The gargoyles on churches were originally used to frighten
demons and evil spirits away. The more obnoxious they were, the
more efficacious they were believed to be. For the same reason, the
phallus-shaped object was used as an amulet. It was believed that
the very nature of the object would deflect the evil eye. Many Italians
today, if they pass or see a person whom they suspect of exercising
an evil influence, will touch their genitals as a prophylactic measure.
Pope Pius IX was reput.ed to be possessed of the evil eye, and the
women, while kneeling for his blessing as he passed, would make a
counteracting sign under their skirts.76
Changing from male to female attire, and vice versa, was a method
of escaping the evil eye. Among the Egyptian Jews, during the
Middle Ages, the bride led the wedding dance with a helmet on her
head and a sword in her hand, while the bridegroom adorned himself
as a woman and put on female attire. Other superstitious people practised similar methods. In Cos, where the priest of Hercules wore fe‘@Hastings, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 394.
T6 Ibid.,
p. 463.
TeTrachtenberg
op. cit., p. 54.
602
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
male attire, the bridegroom was likewise attired.
In Southern Celebes
a bridegroom,
at a certain point of the long and elaborate marriage
ceremonies, put on the garments which his bride had just taken off.
Argive brides wore false beards when they slept with their husbands
for the first time.
Among the Bharias of the Central Provinces of
India, the bridegroom puts on a woman’s ornaments and carries with
him an iron nut cutter or dagger to keep off evil spirits.
Similarly,
a Khangar bridegroom, in order to avert the evil eye, carries a dagger,
and a smudge of lampblack
is put on his forehead to disfigure him.
If he did not do this, it is thought that his fine appearance in his
wedding garments would be too attractive to escape the evil eye.
After a Bharia wedding, the bride’s mother dresses in the groom’s
father’s garments and also puts on a false beard and mustache.
She
dances, holding a wooden ladle in one hand and a packet of ashes in
the other.
Every time she approaches the bridegroom’s
father on
her rounds, she spills some of the ashes over him, and occasionally
gives him a crack on the head with her ladle. This is considered
potent against the evil forces.77
KNOTS
The belief in the efficacy of knots as an amulet to prevent the
evil of coveting was not only prevalent among the Biblical Hebrews,
but was also widely practised by other primitive
peoples.
The Hebrews made use of knots in their round shawl-the
tallith.
In Syria,
before a bridegroom puts on his wedding garments, extreme care is
taken to see that no buttons are buttoned and no knots are tied, for
they believe that if a button is buttoned or a knot is tied, it will put
him in the power of his enemies who would deprive him of his nuptial
rights by magical means. In Lesbos, the malignant person who would
injure the bridegroom on his wedding day ties a thread to a bush while
he utters his envious imprecations.
Another method of rendering the
bridegroom impotent is to tie a handkerchief
which has touched some
part of his body in a knot.
77 Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Vol. 2, pp. 260-261.
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
603
Knots have also been used as mediums of bewitchment in causing
illness and disease. Among the Hos of Togoland, a sorcerer will tie
a knot in a stalk of grass, mention the name of the person he wants
to bewitch, and then utter his imprecations.
This, it is believed, will
witches were believed
surely produce the results desired. Babylonian
to have caused all manner of evil by tying knots in a cord, muttering
the evil and mentioning
the names of their victims.
As late as 1718 the parliament
of Bordeaux sentenced someone to
be burned alive for having spread desolation through a whole family
by means of knotted cords, and in 1705 two persons were condemned
to death in Scotland for stealing certain charmed knots which a woman
had made in order thereby to mar the wedded happiness of Spalding
of Ashintilly.
Within the past hundred years, it was still the custom
in the Highlands
of Perthshire
for both the bride and groom to unloosen all knots on their garment.s before the wedding and until the
ceremony was over; immediately
thereafter, the couple withdrew to
adjust their disordered clothes. The less superstitious thought that it
was sufficient merely to leave the bridegroom’s
left shoe unbuckled
“to prevent witches from depriving him, on his nuptial night, of the
power of loosening the virgin zone.” ‘*
Unusual things in nature are presumed by the superstitious
to
have homeopathic qualities, Hunchbacks
are thought to possess something that counteracts malign influences.
It is not uncommon to see
some people touch a hunchback’s hump under the belief that it will
bring good luck or protect them from harm.
A fox’s tail and a crimson thread were hung on the forehead of a
horse to protect him from the evil eye.7g Many today still use the
tail of a rabbit or fox on a bicycle or motorcycle.
Even toda.y it. is
a common sight to see horseshoes nailed to barns and houses for “good
luck.”
Countless people carry a rabbit’s foot for the same reason.
Bells were placed around the neck of cows to drive away envious
and evil spirits.
78 Frazer, Taboo of the Soul, Vol. 1, pp. 299-302.
79Trachtenherg
op. cit., p. 133.
THE
604
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
It was believed that the sign of the cross, a few drops of holy
water or the name of Mary or Jesus could put evil spirits to immediate
and ignominious
flight.80
The use of watch charms, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, rings and
many other forms of decorations today is but a survival of the primitive custom of using amulets and charms to ward off evil. Is it not
time that sensible, educated people discontinued imitating
savages and
stopped this kind of tomfoolery?
NOISE
AS A PROPHYLACTIC
AGAINST
EVIL
Noise is also supposed to be a prophylactic
against the evil eye
The purpose of blowing the slzofav (discordant
and covetous spirits.
sounds from a ram’s horn) on the Hebrew New Year was to drive
away evil spirits.*l
When an epidemic occurs in Burma, the whole
population
makes as much noise as possible to scare away the evil
spirits that supposedly brought the disease. Bell ringing, drum beating and playing loud music are resorted to for the same purpose.82
It was a German custom to make a great deal of noise on the evening
before a wedding and to shoot and crack whips during the bridal
procession to frighten away evil influences.
For the same reason,
orthodox women cry at weddings.
They believe their tears will mask
their true feelings of joy and thus delude the demons or evil spirits.
During eclipses of the sun and moon, great noises were supposed to
prevent magicians from doing harm to the stars.83
The Sulomor~ Islanders of Bougainville
Straits believe that epidemics are almost always caused by evil spirits.
Accordingly,
when
the pcoplc of a villngc have been auffcring from an illness, they beat
tins, shout and knock on the houses to expel the demons and so cure
the ailment.
Whenever
soLecky, op. cit., Vol.
slIdelsohn,
Ceremonies
82Hastings, Encyclopadia
es Ibid., p. 424.
cholera
breaks
out in a Burmese
1, p. 14.
of Israel, p. 14.
of Religion and Ethics,
Vol.
3,
p.
449.
village,
the
THE
TENTH
COMMANDMENT
605
able-bodied men scramble on the roofs and beat them with bamboos
and billets of wood, while all the rest of the population,
old and
young, stand below and thump drums, blow trumpets, yell, scream,
beat the floors and make as much noise as possible.
This uproar,
repeated on three successive nights, is thought to be very effective
in driving away the cholera demon.84
It is still the custom in China to fire off crackers on the last day
and night of the year for the purpose of terrifying
and expelling the
devils. The people vie with one another as to who can fire the greatest number of crackers and make the most noise. The louder the
noise, the more agreeable the sound, as this is supposed to have a
beneficial effect by driving the demons away.s5 In Corea, the devils
are also driven out of the town on New Year’s Eve by firing guns and
popping crackers.*0
It is quite probable that the present New Year
custom,
observed
noise-making,
perstition
almust
hilarity
concerning
universally
is a survival
Hemisphere,
of
of this primitive
su-
noise and its effect in driving
In Siam, the banishment
last day of the old year.
of demons is annually
A signal
answered from the next station,
till the firing
in the Western
and revelry
has reached
gun is fired from
away
carried
out on the
the palace;
and so on from station
the nuter
evil spirts.
gate of the cityV87
it is
to station,
Among
the
heathen Wotyaks of a Finnish village of Eastern Russia, all the young
girls of the village assemble on the last day of the year or on New
Year’s day, armed with sticks, the ends of which are split in nine
places. With these they beat every corner of the houses and yards,
saying: “We are driving Satan out of the village.” 88 The Cheremiss,
another Finnish people of Eastern Russia, chase Satan from their
dwellings by beating the walls with cudgels of limewood.
For the
same purpose they fire guns, stab the ground with knives, and insert
*‘Frazer,
a5 Ibid.,
p.
Sca@goat, p. 116.
147.
“Rlbid.,
p.
148.
81 Ibid.,
88 Ibid.,
p. 120.
The
p. 149.
606
THE
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
burning chips of wood in the crevices. They also leap over bonfires,
shaking out their garments as they do SO.*~
Incense and foul odors are supposed to have the same effect as
In North India, a mixture of food
noise in driving away evil spirits.
and spices, and sometimes the eyelashes of the patient, are waved
seven times over a sick child; when these are burned, the foul smell
is supposed to free the child from the effects of the evil eye.g0
In some parts of Silesia, the people burn pine resin all night long
between Christmas and the New Year in order that the pungent smoke
may drive witches and evil spirits away from their homes. They also
fire shots over fields and meadows, into shrubs and trees, and wrap
straw around the fruit trees to prevent the spirits from doing them
harmmgl In some parts of Scotland, it was the custom at the end of
the year not only to “burn out the Old Year,” but also to make a
bonfire to burn out all the witches. In the year 1644, an eyewitness
saw nine persons, condemned as witches, burned to death.g2
Church bells were originally
rung during storms to drive away
evil spirits, and until quite recently this was considered a protection.
F. T. Elworthy relates that near his home are two churches that ring
their bells on their respective “saint’s day” to drive the devil over
to the other parish.g3
Just as the “blessed” St. Christopher’s
medal is a poor substitute
for careful driving, so the cross, statues of saints, sacred relics and
ringing
church
bells are poor substitutes
for the lightning
rod to pro-
tect the church from the “demons of the air” and the “wrath of God.”
When Benjamin
Franklin
invented the light.ning rod, the church
was incensed at the “impious”
arrogance of attempting
to circumvent
the “tokens of divine displeasure.”
As late as 1783, it was declared
that in Germany alone, within the thirty-three
years after Franklin’s
great invention which the church so bitterly
opposed as a piece of
*gFrazer, The Scapegoat, p. 156.
90 Hastings, Encyclopcedia,
Vol. 3, p,
91
Frazer,
92 Ibid.,
op.
cit., p.
161.
p. 165.
BsHastings, op. cit., Vol. 5, p.
615.
445.
THE TENTH
COMMANDMENT
607
blasphemy and condemned as the “heretical rod,” four hundred towers
of churches had been damaged and one hundred and twenty bell
ringers killed. In Roman Catholic countries, the opposition to the
lightning rod was so bitter, the consequent destruction to churches so
frequent, and the loss of lives so great, that peasants feared to attend
church services.94
A significant illustration of the impotence of propitiatory prayers
and sacred amulets as a means of protection against the elements of
nature and the “wrath of God,” is the case of St. Mark’s Cathedral
in Venice. In spite of the angels at the summit of the church, the
consecrated bells in its tower and the sacred relics with which the
church was so richly blessed, it was hit repeatedly by lightning. This
seemingly incongruous situation caused consternation and theological embarrassment when the question was asked by parishioners:
“Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples or
suffer Satan to strike them?” After a lightning rod was erected above
its steeple,
it was never
struck
again!
OS
But perhaps the most striking instance of the uselessnessof amulets
and charms
is to be found
Nazaro, at Brescia, in Italy.
sacred
relics,
relics that were
in the case of the Church
of San
This church boasted some of the most
supposed
to possess
extraordinary
pow-
ers in warding off evil and the demons of the air. The government
of Venice
had stored
in the vaults
of the church
over two
hundred
thousand pounds of explosive powder. This was in 1767, seventeen
years after Benjamin Franklin had invented the lightning rod, but
both the government officials and the church authorities had greater
faith in the sa.cred relics than in this infidel invention. During a
storm, the church was struck by lightning, the powder in the vaults
exploded, one-sixth of the entire city was destroyed and over three
thousand lives were lost! OB
94While,
Q5 Ibid.
QQIbid.,
Warfare
Vol.
2,
of
Science
p. 368.
wZtlz
Theology,
Vol.
1,
p. 367.
608
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Could there be a better illustration of the comparison between the
superstitions of religion and the benefits of science?
The discovery of the indifference of nature to the morality of the
person subject to its laws is as great an achievement of the human
mind as was the discovery of the evolutionary process of life. The
earth will revolve on its axis, the sun will rise and set, the rains will
fall, the seasons will pass according to their accustomed time, men
and women will love, and children will be born, regardless of belief
or disbelief in the Bible or its God, regardless of prayers or sacrifices.
The force of gravity acts alike on the good and bad; poison kills the
purest-minded, as well as the most vicious; cold will chill and heat
will warm all alike; electricity lights our houses and runs our machinery with the same unconcern as it snuffs out the life of an innocent person; the planted seed will grow according to the soil and
moisture, and not according to the social position of the one who
planted it; water will drown irrespective of the character of the person unable to swim; fire burns the tender flesh of the child with the
same intensity as the hardened criminal; disease attacks the innocent
and guilty alike; and death comes to each and all “when it will come”
-the inevitable ending of all that lives-as evidence of the inexorable
law of life. There will be no mark to distinguish between the devout
and the infidel. The atheist and the religious believer will suffer
from the same ills and will enjoy the same fruits.
The discovery of the indiffercncc of nature to the individual subject to its unvarying laws has liberated the minds of men from the
myriad unseen forces which gripped them in fear. This emancipating
discovery drove the evil spirits and demons from the sky, the malign
agencies of a jealous and wrathful god; it was a warning to the
ghosts “to cover their eyeless sockets with their fleshless hands and
fade forever from the imaginations of men.” It was the “Emancipation Proclamation” for the human mind.
THE TENTH
NEITHER
COMMANDMENT
609
A SIN NOR A CRIME
The authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia
says that “even when
indulged, covetousness is not a grievous sin.” O7 This statement is
made despite the fact that the Catholic Church’s arrangement of the
Decalogue makes coveting the basis of two Commandments instead
of one1 Nor does the law recognize coveting, in the modern meaning
of the word, as a crime.
Law applies to those acts of the individual in the social group
which are ascertainable and possess some definite technical or moral
relationship. To apply legal regulations and restrictions to the present-day meaning of the word “coveting” would be like penalizing
dreams or the imagination. John M. Zane, in discussing this Commandment as law, dissociating it from its taboo antecedents, says:
“The Tenth Commandment is an injunction against a state of mind.
It is not a workable law.” OS It is because this Commandment was
not founded on either ethics or morals that makes it, in a legal sense,
an unworkable law. It is because this Commandment was founded
on a superstitious belief that makes it impossible to give it status in
the light of present-day legal standards of conduct. Does not the
very fact that coveting is not condemned as a sin according to the
dogma of the Church, and is not considcrcd a crime according to
Iaw, make it obvious that the word “coveting,” in the Biblical sense,
meant something entirely different from what it is understood to mean
today?
Coveting at its worst can be classified only as a personal shortcoming, a harmless indulgence in wishful thinking. Everyone knows
that it is better to achieve a goal than to envy the accomplishment
of another; yet, very often coveting can become the instrument of
achievement. The desire to possess things which our neighbor has
and which are improvements over our own possessions is often the
mainspring of progress. On what authority can coveting honor, re07 Catholic
Encyclopedia,
98 J. M. Zane, The Story
Vol. 4,
of Law,
p. 462.
p. 100.
THE
610
TEN
COMMANDMENTS
spect and admiration of one’s fellow man be condemned either as a
sin by the dogma of the Church or as a crime by law? Shakespeare
poetically expressed it thus:
‘(By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desire;
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.”
-King Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3.
Not being acquainted with the primitive meaning of “coveting”
as biblically used, even the clergy have been more confused and bewildered concerning the meaning of this Commandment than all the
others, particularly when trying to evaluate it in a legal, ritual or
moral sense. Dean Farrar, in seeking a legal connection of this
Commandment with the laws of society, sadly admits his failure. He
says: ‘Search all the laws of all the world, and you will not find one
which resembles it.” O0 A very good reason why such a law cannot
be found is that “it is an injunction against a state of mind.” Even
the prophet Jeremiah admitted this when he said: “For from the
least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to
covetousness.” loo A law for the suppression of thinking can no more
be enforced than a law for the suppression of breathing.
The Rev. Frederick David Niedermeyer said, concerning this
Commandment: “A government could not enforce it, for there is no
way to prove what a man’s thoughts are unless they are expressed
in word or action.” lo1
R. H. Charles admits that “this Commandment hit widest of the
mark because it adds no fresh province to the area covered by the
preceding Commandments.” io3
99
Dean Farrar, The Voice
100 .Immink,
Chofiter
6,
of Sinai,
Y~YS~ 13.
p. 277.
101 Niedermeyer, The Ten Cownandments
102 Charles, The Decalogue,
p. 2.59.
Today,
p. 174.
THE
TENTH
611
COMMANDMENT
The Rev. G. Campbell Morgan, however, in his analysis of this
Commandment,
says: “This Commandment
may be broken without
the knowledge of any human being.“lo3
If this is so, then how can a human being know whether he is
or is not violating this Commandment?
Surely, if a person is unable
to tell whether he is conforming
to or disobeying a command, then
how can he regulate his conduct?
What he may think is perfect conformity may be a flagrant violation,
and what he may consider a
violation will restrain him automatically
from observing it!
If this
is so, how is it possible either to reward or punish for either obeying
or violating its precepts?
If no one knows the result of his actions,
then of what value can such a Commandment
be?
The Rev. J. C. Masse says: “The Tenth Commandment
is God’s
demand that man shall put the reins of government
of his life into
the hands of God.”
How applicable are these words of Professor Tylor to the “learned
nonsense” of Biblical
“authorities”:
“To ingenious attempts at explaining by the light of reason things which want the light of history
to show their meaning, much of the learned nonsense of the world
has been due.”
If the purpose of this Commandment
was to prevent covetousness,
then it should have counteracted this dcsirc by stifling the impuIse for
the things which do not rightfully
belong to us, or condemning it in
unmistakabIe
terms as a base impulse.
The writers of the Bible, however, were not only wholly ignorant of such a code, but such a conception was utterly beyond their limited comprehension.
“Coveting”
is not mentioned in this Commandment
as if it were
one of the “seven sins” to be avoided as a plague.
There are far
worse “sins” than “coveting,”
as we understand
them today, that
could have been made the basis of one of the Commandments.
Meanness, hatred, revenge, duplicity, faithlessness, arrogance and innumerable other obnoxious traits are far greater evils than mere coveting.
If
ethical
principles
and moral
con&4cl
IO3Morgan, The Ten Commandments, p. 107.
were
the
objective
of
tlze
,
612
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Decalogue, there could have been recorded in the place of this ancient
superstitiolz and antiquated
taboo a veritable dictionary
of acts regarding human behavior that would have been of immeasurable
benefit
in regulating human conduct for the promotion of peace and happiness among m,ankind.
As long as the Decalogue is generally accepted as a code of morals
based upon a supernatural edict, is any further evidence needed to
prove Sir James G. Frazer’s observation that “some of the old laws of
Israel are clearly savage taboos of a familiar type thinly disguised as
commands of the Deity”?
Could there be a more striking example of such “savage taboos”
than the Ten Commandments?
Epilogue
con-
HOW could this study of the Decalogue be more appropriately
cluded than by quoting these words of Sir James G. Frazer?-
“It is indeed a melancholy and in some respects thankless task
to strike at the foundations of beliefs in which, as in a strong tower,
the hopes and aspirations of humanity through long ages have
sought refuge from the storm and stress of life. Yet sooner or
later it is inevitable that the battery of the comparative method
should breach these venerable walls, mantled over with the ivy and
moss and wild flowers of a thousand tender and sacred associations.
At present we are only dragging the guns into position; they have
hardly yet begun to speak. The task of building up into fairier and
more enduring forms the old structures so rudely shattered is reserved for other hands, perhaps for other and happier ages. We
cannot foresee, we can hardly even guess, the new forms into
which thought and society will run in the future.
Yet this un-
certainty ought not to induce us, from any consideration of expediency or regard for antiquity, to spare the ancient moulds,
however beautiful, when these are proven to be outworn. Whatever
comes
of it,
wherever
it leads,
we must
follow
the
truth
our guiding star.” l
IFrazer,
The
Golden
Bough,
Vol.
1, “The
Magic
Art,”
p. xxvi.
alone.
It
is
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
Bank of Wisdom
The Bank of Wisdom publishes all works of
human interest, we scorn no ideas of serious thought.
Ideas and beliefs some may think “dangerous” and would
hide, we seek to reproduce and distribute for the
consideration and intellectual development of every
human mind. When peace and understanding is
established throughout the world it might be said that
humanity has achieved an acceptable degree of
civilization, but until that longed for time we must never
cease to search for greater truth and a higher morality for
humanity.
The wealth of thought hidden in obscure books of
bygone ages makes fascinating reading, and as much of
this great original thought was suppressed by the sheer
power of the established systems of the time, these ideas
may well be the ones needed to bring peace and human
progress to our world. One thing is certain, the belief
systems we have are not the ones we need.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
www.bankofwisdom.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Roy H. Preachers Present Arms. New’ York: Round Table Press, 1933.
Adams, Robert Chamblet. Good without
God.
New York:
Peter Eckler,
1902.
Allen, Grant. The Evolution
of the Idea of God:
An Inquiry
into ‘the Origins
of
Religion.
London: Watts & Co., 1897.
Ankles, T. M. A Study of Jealousy
as Differentiated
from
Envy.
Boston:
Bruce
Humphries, Inc., 1939.
Asbury, Herbert. Up from Methodism.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926.
Banks, Louis Albert. The New Ten Commandnrents, and Other Sermons. New York:
Fleming H. Revel1 Co., 1922.
Barnes, Harry Elmer. Twilight
of Christianity.
New York: The Vanguard Press, 1929.
Baron, Salo Wittmayer.
A Social and Religious
History
of the Jews.
3 ~01s. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1937.
Bartlett, George A. Men, Women and Conflict.
New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1931.
Bedborough, G. Arms and the CZergy. London: Pioneer Press, 1934.
Bellamy, H. S. Moons, Myths and Man: A Reinterpretation.
London: Faber & Faber,
Ltd., 1936.
Bible, The Douay
Version.
New York: P. J. Kenedy 8-zSons.
Bible, The (Hebrew
Version). New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1922.
New York:
Americsn
Bible Society.
Bible, The (King James Vo’ersion).
Bloch, Iwan.
Sex Life in England.
New York: The Panurge Press, 1934.
Blue Laws of Connecticut,
The.
New York: The Truth Seeker CO., 1930.
Bonner, Hypatia Bradlaugh. Christianizing
the Heathen.
London: Watts & Co., 1922.
Bonner, Hypatia Bradlaugh. Humanity’s
Gain from Unbelief.
London: Watts & CO.,
1922.
Bonner, Hypatia Bradlaugh. Penalties
Upon Opinion. London: Watts & CO., 1913.
Borchard, Edwin M., with the Collaboration of E. Russe!l Lutz. Convicting
the Innocent: Sixty-Five
Actual
Errors
of Criminal
Justice.
Garden City, N. Y.: Garden
City Publishing Co., 1932.
Rowen, Marjorie.
Ethics in Modern Avt.
London: Watts & Co., 19x9.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
Breasted, James Henry. The Dawn of Conscience.
1934.
Briffault, Robert. The Mothers:
A Study
of the Origins of Sentiments
and Institutions.
3 ~01s. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1927.
New York: Freethought Press Assn., 1933.
Brook, D. M. The Necessity of Atheism.
Bryan, William Jennings. The First Commandment.
New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1917.
Buck, Peter Henry. Anthropology
and Religion.
New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1939.
Buckle, Henry Thomas. History
of Civilization
in Enr;land.
3 ~01s.
New
York:
Oxford University Press, 1925.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt.
London: Humphrey
Milford, Oxford University Press, 1934.
615
616
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Study
of Primitive
Elements
Eli Edward.
Taboo, Magic,
Spirits:
Religion.
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1931.
An Inquiry
into Its Origin
and Growth.
Bury, J. B. The Idea of Progress:
tion by Charles A. Beard.
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1931.
Burr&
in Roman
Introduc-
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1938.
Cabot, Richard
C. Honesty.
Including
chapters
by Boas, Frazer,
WesterCalverton,
V. F., ed. The Making
of Man.
marck,
Rivers,
Lowie,
Sumner,
et al. New York:
The Modern
Library,
1931.
Carles, R. H. The Decalogue.
Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark,
1923.
Catholic
Encyclopedia.
New York:
The Encyclopedia
Press, Inc. (Knights
of Columbus
Edition),
1914.
Chassell, Clara Frances.
The Relation
Between
Morality
and Intellect:
A Compendium
of Evidence
Contributed
by Psychology,
Criminology,
and Sociology.
New York:
Teachers
College,
Columbia
University,
1935.
Clodd, Edward.
Animism:
Religions,
Ancient
and Modern.
London:
Constable
& CO.,
1921.
Coffin, Henry
Sloane.
The Ten Commandments,
With a Clzristian
Application
to Present
Conditions.
New York:
Doubleday,
Doran
Co., 1929.
Cohen, Chapman.
Blasphemy:
A Plea for Religious
Equality.
London:
The Pioneer
Press, 1922.
Cohen,
Chapman.
Religion
and Sex: Studies in the Patltology
of Religious
Development.
London:
T. N. Foulis,
1919.
Cohen,
Chapman.
Religion
and tka Clzild.
London:
The Pioneer
Press.
Cohen, Chapman.
Theism or Atlzeism?
London:
The Pioneer
Press, 1921.
Colson, F. H.
The Week:
An Essay on the Origin and Development
of the Seven-Day
Cycle.
London:
Cambridge
University
Press, 1926.
Crafts, Wilbur
F. The Sabbath
for Man.
New York:
Funk & Wagnalls.
Crawford,
M. D. C. The Conquest
of Culture:
How Man Invented
His Way to Civilization.
New York:
Greenberg
Publisher,
Inc., 1938.
Cmwlcy,
A. E.
Tho Mystic
Rose: A Study
of Primza’tivo
Marriaao
and of Primitive
Thought
in Its Bearing
on Marriage.
2 ~01s. New York:
Boni & Liveright,
1927.
Crawley,
Ernest.
Oath, Curse and Bible Blessing.
London:
Watts & Co., 1934.
Darrow,
Clarence.
Crime, Its Cause and Treatment.
London:
Watts & Co., 1934.
Darwin,
Charles.
The Descent
of Man.
New York:
A. L. Fowle.
Dayal, Har.
Hints for SeZf-Culture.
London:
Watts & Co., 1934.
De Ford, Miriam
Allen.
Love-Childre~z:
A Book of Illuszrious
Illegitimates.
New Yurh;
Dial Press, 1931.
De Givry,
Grillop.
Witchcraft,
Magic
and Alchemy.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin
Co.,
1931.
de Montesquieu,
M. de Secondat.
See: Montesquieu.
Doane,
T. W. Bible Myths,
and Their Parallels
in Other
Religions.
New York:
The
Truth
Seeker Co., 1910.
Donaldson,
James.
Woman:
Her Position
and Injluence
in Ancient
Greece and Rome,
and Among
the Early Christians.
London:
Longmans,
Green & Co., 1937.
Dorsey,
George A. Man’s Own Show:
Civilization.
New York:
Harper
& Bros., 1931.
Douglmty,
Gccwge S. The Crimird
us ~1ZZumwz Ll&~.
New Sork:
D. hpplcton
& Co.,
1924.
Draper,
John William.
History
of the Conflict
Between
Religion
and Science.
New
York:
D. Appleton
& Co., 1919.
Draper,
John William.
History
of tke Intrlteclual
Development
of Europe.
2 ~01s.
New York:
Harper
& Bros., 1904.
RIRLIOGRAPHY
Durant,
Will.
Schuster,
The
Story
of
Civilization:
Our
Oriental
ZZeritage.
New
York:
Simon
&
1935.
Earle,
Alice Morse.
The Sabbath
in Puritan
New
England.
New
York:
Charles
Scribner’s
Sons, 1891.
Edwards,
Chilperic.
Hammurabi
Gods.
London:
Watts & Co., 1921.
Ellis, Havelock.
Psychology
of Sex: A Manual
for Students.
6 ~01s.
Philadelphia:
F. A. Davis
Co., 1931.
Ellis, Havelock.
The Criminal.
New York:
Charles
Scribner’s
Sons, 1930.
Encyclopedia
Bib&a.
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1914.
Chicago:
University
of Chicago
Press,
Engberg,
Robert
M.
The Hykson
Reconsidered.
1939.
England,
F. E. Kant’s
Conception
of God: A Critical
Exposition
of Its Metaphysical
Development.
New York:
Lincoln
MacVeagh,
1929.
Farmer,
Henry
George.
Heresy
in Art:
The Religious
Opinions
of Famous Artists and
d4usicians.
London:
The Pioneer
Press, 1918.
New York:
Thomas
Whittaker,
1892.
Farrar,
Dean.
The Voice From Sinai.
Farrington,
M.
The Sabbath.
Denver,
Colo., 1881.
Fay, Sidney Bradshaw.
Smith College Studies in History.
Vol. XIV, Nos. 1-4, October
1928-July,
1929.
Harold
Underwood
Faulkner,
Editor.
Northampton,
Mass.:
Smith College, 1928, 1929.
Fielding,
William
J.
The Shackles
of the Supernatural.
Girard,
Kansas:
HaldemanJulius,
1938.
Foote, G. W. Philosophy
of Secularism.
London:
The Pioneer Press.
Tho Story
of Prophecy
in the Life of Mankind
fr-om Early
Forman,
Henry
James.
Times to the Present Day.
New York:
Farrar
& Rinehart,
1936.
Foxe, Arthur
N.
Crime
and Sexual
Development.
Glens Falls,
N. Y.: Monograph
Editions,
1936.
Frank,
Jerome.
Law and the Modern
Mind.
New York:
Brentano’s,
1930.
Frazer,
James George.
Folk-Lore
in the Old Testament.
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1923.
Frazer,
James George.
The Golden Bough:
A Study in Comparative
Keligion.
12 vols.
New York:
The Macmillan
Co., 1935.
Freeman,
C. R. Boyd.
Priestcraft:
A Study of the Exploitation
of the Religious
Sentiment.
London:
The Pioneer
Press, 1929.
Freud,
Sigmund.
Modern
Sexual
Morality
and Modern
Nervousness.
New
York:
Eugenics
Publishing
Co., 1931.
Friedell,
Egon.
A Cultural
History
of the Modern
Age: The Crisis of the European
Soul from the Black Death to the WorZd War.
New York:
Alfred
A. Knopf,
1930.
Friedlander,
Gerald.
Laws and Customs
of Israel.
London:
Shapiro,
Valentine
& Co.,
1921.
Fricss, IIorace
L., and Schneider,
Herbert
W.
Religtons
tn Vartous Cultures.
New
York:
Henry
Holt & Co., 1942.
C. Benefit of Ckrgy
in Fngtand
in. the Zater Middle
Ages. Northampton,
Department
of History,
Smith College,
1929.
Gallichan,
Walter
M.
The Religion
of Kindness.
London:
Watts & Co.
Gardner,
Helen,
Men, Women
& Gods.
Belford,
Clark
& Co., 1885.
Gasparri,
Cardinal.
The Catholic
Catechism.
New York:
P. J. Kenedy
& Sons, 1932.
Gillis, James M.
The Moral
Law.
New York:
The Paulist
Press, 1931.
GiIIis, James M.
The Ten Commandments,
New York:
The Pauhst Press, 1931.
Gabel.
Leona
Mass.:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
618
Givler, Robert Cbenault. The Ethics of Hercules.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1924.
Gorham, Charles T. Christianity
and Civilization.
London: Watts & Co., 1914.
Gorham, Charles T. Why We Do Right.
London: Watts & Co., 1924.
Graham, William Creighton, and May; Gordon, Herbert. Culture and Conscience: An
Arckaeological
Study
of the New Religious
Past in Ancient Palestine.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936.
Gfitz, Bernard. History
of the Jews.
6 ~01s.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891.
Gregory,
J. W. Race as a Political Factor.
London: Watts & Co., 1931.
Groves, Ernest R. Personalities
and Social Adiustment.
New York: Lonamans,
Green
& co.,
1925.
Guyon, Rene. The Ethics of Sexual Acts.
New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1934.
Introduction
and
Notes
by Norman
Haire.
Hadzsits, George Depue. Lucretius
and His InfEuence.
New York: Longmans, Green
& co., 1935.
Haggard, Howard W. Devils, Drugs and Doctors.
New York: Harper & Bros., 1929.
Hall, Jerome. Tkeft, Lew and Society.
Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1935.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1930.
Hamilton, Edith. The Greek Way.
Hardwicke, W. W. Sunday and tke Sabbatk
Question.
London: Watts & Co.
Harris, Louis. The Story of Crime.
Boston: Stratford Press, 1929.
Hartshorne, H. and M. A. May. Studies in Deceit.
New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1028.
Hastings, James. Encyclopaediu of Religion and Ethics.
12 ~01s. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1928.
Hayes, Ellen. How Do You Know?
New York: Nation Press Printing Co., 1923.
Hayes, John Alexander.
Tke Ten Commandments.
A Present
Day
Interpretation.
New York: Fleming & Revell, 1931.
Healy, William. Honesty:
A Study of the Causes and Treatment
of Dishonesty
among
Clrildrcrc.
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
The
Bulbs-Merrill
Cu.,
1915.
Hertz, Emanuel. The Hidden Lincoln.
New York: The Viking Press, 1938.
Hires, Harrison. For My Children.
New York: Freethought Press Assn., 1943.
2 ~01s.
New
York:
Henry
Holt
RT Co., 1926.
Hohhouse, L. T. Morals in Evolution.
Hollander, Bernard.
Psyckology
of Misconduct,
Vice and Crime.
New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1922.
Holy Scriptures,
The.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1943.
Hughes, Kupert. Wky 1 Quit Going to Ckurck.
New York: Freethought Press Assn., 1924.
Idelsohn, Abraham 2. The Ceremonies of Judaism. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Federation of Temple Brotherhoods, 1929.
Ingersoll, Robert G. Tke Works of Robert
G. Ingersoll.
Dresden Edition.
12 ~01s.
New York: The Dresden Publishing Co.; C. P. Farrell, 1901.
James,
E.
C.
Or&m
of
Sacrifice.
London;
John
Murray,
Publisher,
1933.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious
Experience. New York: Longmans, Green
& Co., 1916.
Jastrow, Morris. The Day After the Sabbath. American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literature, 1914, XXX, p. 104.
Jastrow, Morris.
The Origin
of tke Hebrew
Sabbatk.
New York: American Journal
of Theology.
Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York:
Funk
& Wagnalls, 1910.
Josephson,Matthew. The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1934.
Josephus. Complete
Works.
Cleveland, Ohio: World Publishing Co., 1938.
BIBT,IOGRAPHY
Kahn, Eugene.
Psychopathic
Personalities.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press,
1931.
Kastein, Joseph. History
and Destiny of the Jews. New York: The Viking Press, 1933.
Keller, A. G. Man’s Rough Road: Backgrounds
and Bearings
from Mankind’s
Experience. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1932.
Kiefer, Otto. Sexual Life in Ancient Greece.
New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1935.
Kittredge, George Lyman. Witchcraft
in Old and New England.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1929.
Krafft-Ebing, Richard. Psychopathia Sexualis: A Medico-Forensic
Study.
New York:
Eugenics Publishing Co., 1943.
Kropotkin, Peter. Ethics.
New York: The Dial Press, 1924.
Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1915.
New York: Longmans, Green & Co.,
Laing, Gordon J. Survivals of Roman Religion.
1931.
Lea, Henry Charles. History
of the Inquisition
of the Middle Ages.
3 ~01s. New
York: The Macmillan Co., 1922.
Lea, Henry Charles. History of the Inquisition
of Spain.
4 ~01s. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1922.
Lea, Henry Charles. History
of Sacevdotal
Celibacy.
London: Watts & CO., 1932.
Lea, Henry Charles. The Inquisition
in the Spanish
Dependencies.
New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1922.
Leclcv.
William
Cavlemagne.
Edward
Hartpole.
History
2 ~01s. Loidon: Watts &
Lecky, William Edward Hartpole. History
of
Rationatism
in Europe. 2 ~01s. London:
Leuba. James H, God or Man?-A
Study of
He&y Holt & Co., 1933.
Leuba, James H. The Psychology
of ReZigious
& co.,
of
E~opean
Mnralr
from
Aupustus
to
Co., 1930.
the Rise and Influence of the Spirit
of
Watts & Co., 1910.
the Value of God to Man.
New York:
Mysticism.
New York: Harcourt
Brace
1929.
L&y-Bruhl,
Lucien. Primitives
and the Supernatural.
Authorized translation from the
French by Lilian A. Clare. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1935.
I.&y-Rrnhl,
1.wkm.
P&nit%.
Mentnlity.
New York: The Macmillan Co., 1923.
Levy-Bruhl, Lucien. The “SOUP of the Primitive.
New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1928.
Lewis, Joseph, The Bible Unmasked.
New York: The Freethought Press Association,
1944.
Lippmann, Walter. A Preface to Morals.
New York: The Macmillan Co.
MacLaren, A. D. The Christian’s
Sunday.
London: The Pioneer Press.
MacCulloch, J. A. Medieval Faiths and Fables.
Boston: Marshall Jones Co., 1933.
Maine, Henry James Sumner. Ancient Law. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1864.
Malinowski, B. The Sexual Life of Savages. New York: Eugenics Publishing Co., 1944.
Mangasarian, M. M. The NegZecLcd Buuk;
UT, Tke Bilrltz Unveiled.
New York;
The
Truth Seeker Co., 1926.
Mantegazza, Paolo. Sexual Relations of Mankind.
New York: Eugenics Publishing Co.,
1935.
Marett, R. R. Sacraments
of Simple Folk.
New York: Oxford University Press and
Clarendon Press, 1933.
Margolis, Max L., and Marx, Alexander. A History
of the Jewish People.
Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1927.
Marshall, Charles C. The Roman Catholic Church in the Modem
State.
New York:
Dodd, Mead & Co., 1928.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin,
Kingsley. French Liberal
Thought
in the 18th Century:
A St@& Of PoUicd
Ideas from Bayle to Condorcet.
Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1929.
Massee, J. C. The Gospel in the Ten Commandments. New York: Fleming H. Revel1
Co., 1923.
Masters, Edgar Lee. The Serpent in the Wilderness.
New York: Shelden Dick, 1933.
MAY, Geoffrey.
Social Control
of Sex Expression.
New York: William Morrow
& Co.,
1930.
McCabe, Joseph. The Existence of God. London: Watts & CO., 1913.
McCabe,
Joseph. The Sources of the Morality
of the Gospels, London:
Watts 8~ co.3
1914.
McCabe,
Joseph. The Story of Religious
Controversy.
Boston: Stratford Press, 1932.
Mead, Margaret.
Sex and Temperament
in Three
Primitive
Societies.
New
York:
William Morrow & Co., 1935.
Mencken, H. L. A Treatise on the Gods. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.
Mcncken, H. L. Treatise on Right and Wrong. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934.
Brooklyn, New York: Physicians & Surgeons
Mercier, Charles. Criminal Responsibility.
Book Co., 1926.
Meslier, John. Superstition
in All Ages. New York: The Truth Seeker Co., 1920.
Michels, Robert. Sexual Ethics:
A Study
of Borderland
Questions.
London: George
Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1914.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty.
London: Watts & Co., 1938.
Mill, John Stuart. The Subjection
of Women.
New York: E. P. Dutton L Co., 1929.
Mochlnqn,
Charles
Henry.
The
Chrktiun-Jewish
Tragedy. Rochester, N. Y.: The
Printing House of Leo Hart, 1933.
Moehlman, Charles Henry. The Story of the Ten Commandments.
New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1928.
Montague, William Pepperell. Belief Unbound:
A Promethean Religion for the Modern
World.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1930.
Montesquieu, M. de Secondat. The Spirit of Laws. 2 ~01s. London: George Bell &
Sons, 1~7x.
Moore, J. Howard.
The Law
of Biogenesis:
Being Two Lessons on the Origin of
Human Nature. Chicago: C. H. Kerr & Co., 1914.
Morgan, G. Campbell. TIzc Ten Conzrmmdntcnts.
New York;
Fleming
H. Revel1 Co.,
1901.
Motley, John Lothrop.
The Rise of the Dutch
Republic.
New York: A. L. Burt Co.,
1909.
Munsterberg,
Hugo. On the Witness Stand. New York: Clark Boardman Co., 1933.
Muth,
Pesesh. Religion in Vedic Literature.
New York: Oxford University, 1933.
New Standard Bible Dictionary.
New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1936.
Newberry, John Strong. The Rainbow
Bridge:
A Study
of Paganism.
Boston
and New
York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934.
Niedexmryrr,
Frederick
David.
The Ten Commandments Today.
Boston: The Stratford Co., 1928.
Paine, Thomas. Age uj Reason.
New York: Freethought Press Assn., 1944.
Parshley, H. M. Science and Good Behavior.
Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill
1928.
Paulsen,
Friedrich.
System
Perrycoste, Frank Hill.
co., 1913.
of Ethics.
Influence
New York:
Charles Scribncr’s
of Religion
Upon
Truthfulness.
Sons,
Co.,
1903.
London:
Watts &
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Perrycoste, Frank Hill.
Historical
Enquiry
621
Religion
and Moral
Civilisation:
Being the Protegomena
into the Influence
of Religion
upon Moral Civilisation.
Watts & Co., 1915.
Perrycoste, Frank Hill. Ritual
Phelips, Vivian. The Churches
Powell, John Henderson, Jr.
co., 1932.
Faith in
& Modern
The Ten
to an
London:
Morals.
London: Watts & Co., 1910.
London: Watts & Co., 1915.
Commandments.
New York: The Macmillan
Thought.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Taboo.
(The Frazer Lecture.)
Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge
University Press, 1931.
Reinach, Salomon. Orpheus:
A History
of Religions.
New York: Horace Liveright,
1930.
Rhys, Jocelyn. The Reliquary.
London: Watts & Co., 1930.
Riggs, Arthur Stanley. The Romance of Human Progress.
Indianapolis, Ind.: BobbsMerrill Co., 1938.
Riley, Woodbridge.
Men and Morals: The Story
of Ethics.
New York: Doubleday,
Doran & Co., 1929.
Robach, A. A. Psychological
Aspects of Jewislz Protective
Phrases.
New York: Jewish
Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1938.
Robertson, J. M. A Short History
of Morals.
London: Watts & Co., 1920.
Robinson, William J., ed. Sexual Truths Versus Sexual Lies, Misconceptions
and Bxaggerations. New York: Eugenics Publishing Co., 1922.
Rusk, Rogers D. Atoms,Morz and Stars. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1937.
Russell, Bertrand. Free Thought and Oficial Propaganda. New York: B. W. Huebsch,
1922.
Russell, Dora.
1925.
Hypatia, or Woman and Knowledge.
New York:
E. P. Dutton & Co.,
Sabatini, Rafael. Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition.
Boston and New York:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1930.
Sachar, Abram Leon. A History
of the Jews.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.
Saltus, Edgar. The Anatomy of Negation. New York: Brentano.
Sanger, William. Uistnrjr
of Prostitution.
NPW Vnrk: Fxgmirs
Publishing
Co.,
1944.
Santayana, George. The Genteel Tradition
at Bay.
New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1931.
Schroeder, Theodore. Obscene Literature
and Constitutional
Law. Privately printed,
1911.
Selbie, W. B. Religion and Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930.
Seton, Ernest Thompson. TIze Ten Commandments in the Animal World.
New York:
Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1923.
Shakespeare, William. Complete
Works.
Smith, G. Elliot. The Diffusion of Culture.
London: Watts & Co., 1933.
Smith, G. Elliot. Human-History:
New York: W. W. Norton Co.,. 1929.
Smith. G. Elliot. Human Nature.
London: Watts & Co.. 1927.
Smith; J. M, Powis. The Origin and History
of Hebrew’Law.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1931.
Snowden, Kerghley. Myth and Legend “in the Bible.”
London: Watts & Co., lYl5.
Summers, Montague. The History
of Witchcraft
and Demonology.
New York: Alfred
H. Knopf, 1926.
Solis-Cohen, Emily, Jr. Woman in Jewish Law and Life. New York: Jewish Welfare
Board Publications, 1932.
Steiner, Franklin, Religion 6 Roguery.
New York: The Truth Seeker Co., 1924.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Swancara, Frank. Obstruction
lishing Co., 1936.
of Justice
Denver, Cola.: Courtright
by Religion.
Pub-
Taft, Donald R. Criminology. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1942.
New York: The Truth Seeker Co., 1938.
Teller, Woolsey. The Atheism of Astronomy.
Thoinot, L., and Weysse, Arthur W. Medicolegal Aspects of Moral
Offenses,
Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Co., 1927.
Tichenor, Henry M. The Life and Exploits
of Jehovah. St. Louis, MO.: Phil Wagner,
1915.
Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion.
New York: Behrman’s Jewish Book House, 1939.
Trattner, Ernest R. The Autobiography
of God: An Interpretation.
New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1930.
Trattner, Ernest R. Unravel&g the Book of Books:
Being the Story
of How
the
Puzzles
of the Bible
Were Solved
and Its Documents
Unravelied. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929.
Tulchin, Simon H. Intelligence
and Crime: A Study
of Penitentiary
and Reformatory
Offenders.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.
Turley, L. A. History
of the Philosophy
of Medicine.
Norman, Okla.: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1935.
Tyler, Edward B. The Early History
of Mankind.
New York: Henry
Holt
& Co.,
1878.
Tyler, Edward B. F’rinaitivo Culture.
New Pork:
Unurin, J. D. Sexual Regulations
Press, 193s.
Cultural
and
Henry Holt bi Co., 1874.
Behavior.
London:
Oxford University
Valentin, Hugo. Antisemitism
Historically and Critically
Examined.
New York:
Viking Press, 1936.
Verrill, Hyatt. The Inquisition.
New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1931.
Volney. The Ruins of Empires.
London: The Pioneer Press, 1921.
von Krafft-Ebing, Richard. See: Krafft-Ebing.
The
Wallis, Wilson D. Religion in Primitive
Society.
New York: F. S. Crofts & Co., 1939.
Ward, H. Percy. Mayor
Thompson’s
Sunday Closing and the Clergy.
Chicago: Amcrican Secular Union.
Warsaw, I. The Broken Tablets:
A Photograph
of Life,
New York: Brentano’s, 1930.
Washburn, L. K. Sunday and The Sabbath.
Boston: J. B. Mendum, 1886.
Webster, Hutton. Rest Days: A .%dy
in Early Law and Morality.
New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1916.
Webster, Hutton.
Taboo.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1942.
Weigall, Arthur.
The Paganism
in Our Christianity.
New York; G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
1928.
Westermarck, Edward. Christianity
and Morals,
New York: The Macmillan Co., 1939.
Westermarck, Edward.
The Goodness
of Gods. London: Watts & Co., 10%.
Westrrmarck, Edward. History
of Human
Marriage.
3 ~01s. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & Co., 1922.
Westermarck, Edward. The Otigin and Development
of the Moral
Ideas.
2 ~01s.
New
Vork: The Macmillan Co., 19.24.
Wheless, Joseph. Forgery
in Christianity.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.
Wheless, Joseph. Is it God’s Word?
Published by the Author, 1926.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wheelwright,
tk CO.,
Philip.
A Critical
Introduction
to Ethics.
623
New York: Doubleday, Doran
i935.
A History of the Warfare
of Science
with
Theology
itt
2 ~01s. New York: D. Aaoleton & Co.. 1922.
White, John Baker. Criminal
Law in Action:
- New York: ‘Sears Publishing Co., 1932.
Whyte, Adam Gowans. The Natural
History
of Evil. London: Watts & Co., 1920.
Wickwar, J. W. Witchcraft
& The Black Arts.
New York: Robert MacBride & Co.,
White, Andrew
Dickson.
Christendom.
1926.
Wiggam, Albert Edward.
The New Decalogue
of Science. Indianapolis,
Ind.: The
Bobbs-Merrill
Co., 1923.
Wile, Ira S., ed. Sex Life of the Unmarried
Adult.
New York: The Vanguard Press,
1934.
Williams, Henry Smith. The Great Astronomers.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1930.
Winsor, Frederick. The Art of Behaviour:
A Study in Human
Relations.
Boston and
New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1932.
Wison, P. W. The Romance
of the Calendar.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1937.
Wollstonecraft, Mary, and Mill, John Stuart. The Rights of Women, and The Subjection of Women.
New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1929.
Zane, John Maxcy. The Story of Law. New York: Ives Washburn, 1927; Garden City,
N. Y.: Garden City Publishing Co., 1927.
In the original book this is a
BLANK PAGE
and this page is included
to keep page numbering consistent.
====================================
Bank of Wisdom
The Bank of Wisdom is dedicated to collecting,
preserving and distributing, in reproducible electronic
form, factual Historic and Classic Freethought books and
information of enduring value. We hope to again make
the United States of America the ‘Free Market Place of
Ideas’ that the American Founding Fathers intended this
Nation to be, by making those great old scholarly works
of religion, history, thought, science and progress readily
available to the general public.
NO idea is foreign, or frightening, to the thinking
mind.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of Wisdom
P.O. Box 926
Louisville, KY 40201
U.S.A.
www.bankofwisdom.com
INDEX
A
Aaron
and Moses, before Pharaoh,
71-75;
magical
pcwers of, 93
Aaron
and the golden calf, 38
Aborinincs
of Australia,
behavior,
strict
standards
of, xx
At~raham
Lincoln: The War Years, 315
Abraham,
sacrifice of Isaac, 326
Abrams,
Ray H., 371
Accidental,
irresponsible
killing,
354-359
;
examples of, 356
Acts, Hebrews,
intolerant,
fanatical,
167 ;
of the General Assemblv.
145
Adam and Eve, sin of, 129’ - ‘Adams,
George, on blasphemy,
222
Adolescent,
curiosity
of, 472
ndo&,
.Ittis,
O&is, 258, 6~2
Adrian
IV, Pope, on war, 3 70
Adulterers,
children
of, 413 ; punishment
for, 407
Adultery,
and sexual
customs,
types
of,
430-440,
472;
as a taboo,
458-465;
aspects of, 397 ; Biblical
condemnation
of, 408; Catholic
versus Protestant
marnages, 406 ; during
confessionals,
433435; erotic, 437-440;
Japanese
concept
of, 409 ; killing for, 348; meaning of, 403
-4x of Reason, The, 51, 216-221,
564
Age, respect for, 335
Alexander,
Joseph B., 105
h!lah, worship
of, I23
Awrerico.
369
American
American
-Bible Society, 2
Medical
Association,
The, xvi
Standard
Bible, on name of God,
American
211
Amiens,
Bishop
of, 446
Amos, Book of, 261
Amulcts
and charms, 601-604
Ancestor
worship,
335
Ancient
man, mentality
of, 176
Anesthesia,
opposition
to, 178, 306
Anglican
Church,Decalogue
accepted by,26
Animals,
attachment
among,
339 ; killing
among,
344; killing
by, 355; killing
of,
34.5, 367; names of, taboo,
188; social
customs of, xxii; trials for murder
of, 35.:
Animism,
belief in, 183, 189, 197, 231, 299,
355, 372, 386-394;
blood taboo,
372378
Animistic
belief, blood pollution,
386-394
;
of primitive
tribes, 378;
significance
of
names. , _-_
18.1
Antin,
Senator Benjamin,
319
Antiquities
of the Jews, 160, 166, 167, 284
Anti-Semitic
demonstration,
first, 169
Anti-Semitism,
origin of, 156-172
Aquinas,
Thomas,
on blasphemy,
2 15 ; on
celibacy,
423; on Creation,
244
Archbishop
of York,
on death penalty,
367
Aristotle,
on honor
due parents,
326;
on
sacrilege.
12 7
Armies
of Pharaoh
slaughtered,
102
Arms and the Clergy, 371
Arnold,
Abbot,
Art, destruction
on heretics,
370
of, 144, 145; of Hebrews,
156
Artists
and the two
Asbury,
Herbert,
laws, 316
Asceticism,
cnforccd
Ascetics. reliriouslv
Ashhurst,
Justice,6n
Aspects of adultery,
Aspersions
cast on
Assyrians,
religious
Atavistic
criminality,
407,
,
tables of stone, 114
stringency
of Sabbath
COW of, 420432
insane. 424
blasphemy,
219
397
Bible Deity,
213
calendars
of, 255
494 ; stealing,
493-
Atheism,
Diderot,
5 72 ; Benjamin
Franklin,
179; forbidden,
116
Athenian
law. , _-.
127
Athens,
punishment
in, 384
Atkinson,
Miles, 301
Atonement,
blood, 373
Atrocities
suffered’by
Jews, 285-288
Aomrstine,
St ) 27, 141; on prostitution,
415; on sexual expression,
429
Aumiiller,
Anna, murder
of, 435
Aurelius,
Marcus,
338, 572
Australia,
aborigines
of, xx
Australian
tribes, circumcision,
301
B
Babel, Tower of, 176
Babylon,
images of, 134
Babvlonian,
kings as gods, 109; literature,
images in, 135; Sabbath,
245-257
Backer,
Miss Dorothy
LaVerne,
xv
Balder the Beautiful, 295-297
625‘
INDEX
Bankruptcy laws, 482
Baptism, 369
Baron, Professor Salo W., on Jews in Egypt,
106
Barrett, cf. E. Boyd, clerical celibacy corrupting morals, 432
Bastards of priests, 431
Bastardy, 408-414
Bateman, Rev. Romaine, on Washington
and Lincoln being unchristian, 563
Bedborough, G., 371
Bedouins, Arabic, festivals of, 106
Behavior, Plains Indians, xx; of primitive
tribes, xxi
Behind the Mask of Medicine,
301
Belgian Congo, pygmies, social customs of,
xix; sex conduct in, 408
Beliefs, animistic! prrmitive tribes, 3 78
Benedict of Nursra, St., on celibacy, 427
Benin, King of, as a deity, 110
Better understanding, sentiments of, 57 I573
Bible Deity, and Abraham Lincoln, 55-58;
and Moses, supernatural powers of, 65;
anthropomorphic God, 175 ; brutality of,
119; demands of, 174; egotism of, 55;
Moses, and the Children of Israel, 62;
names of, 63; nature of, 12@; sacred to
Hebrews, 191; sadism of, 119; vagaries
of, 174
Bible God, 173-180; jealousy of, 120
Bible, King James Version, 2, 23, 26, 309;
morality of sexual conduct in, 441; sexual
misconduct
throughout,
Unmasked,
The, 402
475
; students
found less honest, 527
Bibles, variants in Hebrew and Douay, 16;
war, 369
Bible
Biblical, condemnation of adultery, 408 ;
evidence of Hebrew tribal solidarity, .540543 ; Hebrews, calendars of, 249: Hebrews, primitive mind of, 583 ; Hebrews,
religious taboos of, 458, 465, 479; sanction of capital punishment, 367
Birds, attachment among, 339
Birth control, opponents of, 178
Birth, on the Sabbath, 304 ; purification
after, 298-304; superstitions concerning,
178, 264, 306, 166; taboos when giving,
298-302, 307
Black, Congressman Loring M., 516
Bladgen, William, trial of, 312
Blasphemy, 212-224;
~ondrmnatiun
of,
607 ; punishment far, 212-22 1; trials for,
218-223
Blood, atonement! 373; expiation, 299;
fear of, 390; guiltiness of, 376; Hebrews
eating of, 374; life in, 376; of lamb, 95,
383; pollution, animistic belief, 386-394;
revenge, 379; royal, in primitive tribes,
382; sacrifice, 12, 142, 38.5; sacrifice,
circumcision, 300 ; shedding a taboo, 458 ;
stain of, 390; superstitions, 376; taboo,
372-386; taboo, animism, 372; taboo,
killing, 372 ; taboo in primitive tribes,
3 72 ; taboo, superstitions, 3 72 ; transfusions, 375; uncleanliness of, 38.5; used
in ceremonies of primitive tribes, 34;
water turns to, 84
Blue Laws, 31 l-320
Blue Laws of Connecticut,
312
“Blue Monday,” 258
Boccaccio, Giovanni, a love-child, 413
Bock, Frau Ida, Austrian writer, xvii
Bondage, Children of Israel in Egypt, 23,
104-107
Boniface VIII, Pope, on adultery, 407
Bonner, H. B., on blasphemy, 179, 311
Book of Numbers, on adultery, 409; on
blood spilling, 373 ; on the Hebrew Deity,
38, 553; on killing, 387, 392; on the
Sabbath, 27 5
Borchard. Edwin M.. on innocent convictions, 482
Botany, snppre~ion of, 424
Bowlby, Rev. H. L., on the Sabbath, 319
Bread, furnished by Moses, 103; unleavened, 106
Breasted, James Henry, cxistcncc of other
gods, 175; on Jews in Egypt, 105; religion apart from morals, 440; sacrilege
among Romans, 510; weakness of Decalugue, 539
Briffault, Robert, on brothels, 417; on sex
conduct, 445-453; on superstitions, 261,
294, 303 ; on use of names, 184, 186,
188,
191;
on vu-ginity 442
Broken
Tablets,
Rnltality
of
228
Brothels, institution of, 417; nunneries as,
430
Brotherhood versus sectarian, 571
Broun, Heywood, advocated withholding
Decalogue from public schools, xxiv
Rible
Deity,
110
Bryan, William Jennings, on The First
Commandment, 112
Buckle, Henry Thomas, on perjury, 236,
311
Budde, Professor K., on worshiping God, 48
Bull. svmbol of. to Hebrews, 38
Burbank, Luther, on testifying in court, 566
Burglary, kW of, 480
Burial, circumcision before, 300
Burke, Judge Joseph, on marital commandments, xv
Burma, name of sovereign taboo, 195
Burning bush and Moses, 115 ; magic of,
61
INDEX
Burr&, Eli Eduard, on magic taboos, 290
Byron, Lord, on sinners, 217
C
Cain, 373
Calendars, Assyrian religions, 2 5.5; types
of, 249-251, 255
Calieula. Roman Emueror. on statues in
Jewi& temples, 167-l 71’
Calvin, John, on creation, 244
Capital punishment, 366; Biblical sanction
of, 367
Caressing.
-, 4130
.-Carlisle, Richard, arrest of, 220
Carver, George Washington, illegitimate,
great scientist, 414
Castration to assure chastity, 425, 430
Catechism, of Council of Trent, 328; omits
Second Commandment, 27
Catholic, and Protestant marriages, adulterous, 406; Church and Ten Commandments. xiii: Church. first communion in.
446; khurchy imagk, 154; Church, indulgences, 516 : Church, outmoded instituthn,
xiii
;
6hurcb,
parnmount
over
country, 560-562;
Church, power of,
155 ; Church suicide, 361; ritual, cross,
141
Catholic
Encyclopedia,
on blasphemy,
2 15 ;
on covetousness, 609; on iconoclasm,
142 ; on images, 27 ; on monotheism,
176; on names, 210
Catholicism,
Reformation, 143
Catholic Version, versus Protestant and
Hebrew, 22-32, 205
Catltolic World, ugly sin of lust, 401
Cattle, death of, 86
Celebes, proofs of virginity, custom by, 442
Celibacy, 421-429; vows of, 401
Celibates,
erotic
dreams
of,
435
Celsus, on images and temples, 140
Celts, tests for legitimacy of offspring, 412
Ceremonies, for slain man, 392 ; mystery of,
4-12
; uf prirnilive
tribes,
12 ; of purifica-
tion in primitive tribes, 379; Sabbath,
254-268; sanctity of the Sabbath, 271298 ; superstitions, 467-469
Ceremolaies of Israel, 375, 604
Ceremonies
of Judaism, 106, 252, 467, 513
Character, of gods of primitive tribes, 120;
of Moses, 362
Characteristics, law of inherited, 466
Charlemagne, illegitimacy of, 414
Charles I, magic of, 111
Charles II, magic uf, 111
Charles V of Spain, marriage of, 442
Charles IX, image of, 135
Charles, R. H., 24, 26, 30, 45, 105, 143,
245, 282, 369, 610
Charms and amulets, 597-603; and incantations, 108
Chastity, religious rites of, 422-426
Cheating and lying, 491
Chicago, University of, 10.5
Chieftain, magician and medicine man as,
109; of primitive tribes, 109
Childbirth,
purification
after, 298-304;
superstitions of, 178, 264, 306, 466;
taboos during, 298-302, 307
Children, affection for parents, 337; and
parents, sympathetic magic between, 325 ;
and Seventh Commandment, 472-475;
filial duties of, 326; Hebrew, honor to
parents, 340; killing by, 355 ; killing of,
xii, 389 ; loss of first born, “3 ; observance
of God by, 325; observance of taboos,
rituals, 331; order by Pharaoh to destroy 211 males, xii; parents’ relationship,
32.5, 336; penalties to, 126; petty thievery of, 494; punishment of, 325 ; service
to parents, 328; sex knowledge imparted
to, 473-475; testing legitimacy of, 412
Children of Israel, and the Sahhath. 277282; blood of millions shed, 288; in
bondage, 104-107; loyalty to God, ;56;
The Bible Deity and Moses, 62; threat
to.
329
China, superstitions in, 127
Chinese, customs before marriage, 444;
moralists, 572
‘LChoscn
pcoplc,”
edicts for,, 99
Christ, bride of, 428; crucifixion of, 171;
second coming of, 227
Christianity
and Civilization,
179
Christian, Bibles during time of war, 369;
sects of Skots, 425 ; symbol of the lamb,
141
Christianity, and the Sabbath, 307-32 1;
birth of, 140, 402; blood sacrifice, 142;
Dark Ages era, 140; holy law written
for, xiv
Christianizing the Heathen,
.X1 1
Christian-Jewish
Tragedy, The, xiv
Christian Science, based on superstitions,
202
Christians’ Sunday. 3 11
Christian V of Denmark, laws against blasphemers, 2 18
Chronicles.
on blood taboo. 385
Chryaost&,
St.
John,
on
&g%ty,
422
Church Fathers, images taboo, 140
Church of San Francisco de Paula of Seville, 434
Cicero, on names, 192
Circumcision, female, 302; secret of, 298303
INDEX
Clannishness,
of tribal law, 544; of tribes,
548-<&-I
Classical
gods, secret names of, 192-195
Clemens of Alexandrinus,
I38
Clement
VII, Pope, illegitimate
son, 414
Clergy, and First Commandment,
I12 ; and
Third
Commandment,
224;
and Sixth
Commandment,
365-372;
books of, 225;
murder,
examples,
360
Cleveland,
Grover,
on capital
punishment,
368
Clothes,
purification
of, 393
Coffin, Rev. Henry
Sloane, 228, 336, 360,
538
Coins, Hebrew,
157; Siamese, images on,
136
Colorado
African
Expedition,
xix
Colson, F. H., 250, 266
Commandment,
explained,
xii, I-2 I ; forgotten set of, and second table of stoce,
43-52 ; of deat: penalty,
401; of Mussolini, Nazis, L am, xv; prologue
to, 58
“Commonwealth
of Judeans,”
I5 7
Communion
with God, 5
Condemnation
of inventions,
I79
Conduct.
before
marriage,
400;
code of
neighborly,
5;8-542
; sexual, 398- .72
Confessional.
institution
of. 433-437
Confession
df faith, 244
’ --Conflicting
arrangements
of Ten
Command-
ments, 22-32
Confucianism,
335
Confucius,
on’ punishing
the innocent,
128
Conquest,
Roman,
Jerusalem,
153
Conscience,
law and ethics, 483-493
Consistency
of Ten Commandments,
343
Constantinople,
Council of, I42
Constitution.
of the United
States. 1. -67:
philosophy
of, 567-570
’ -’
-. ’
Contradiction
on method
of presentation
of
Ten Commandments,
33 Conversos,
Hebrew
converts,
285-288
Converted
Catkolic,
The, 433
Convicting
the Innocent,
$22
Co;;lkean,
Judge Joseph E., on clannishness,
Corruption
Council,
of
by Popes and ministers,
Constantinople,
26,
Nicea,
143;
of
Trent,
catechism
43 1
142;
of
of,
328
Court, decisions,
of killing,
349; records of
sexual corruption
during confessional,
433
Court
of Domestic
Relations
of Chicago,
CoZtesans,
intelligence
of, 419
Covenant,
purpose
of, 46-49
Coveting,
and courting,
592; and the evil
eye, 582; and witchcraft,
582; hidden
meaning
of, 577-600;
in primitive
culture, 582; neither sin nor crime, 609
Crawley,
E., on superstitions,
291, 294,
463, 501, 505
Creation,
Book of, 199
Creation,
natural laws, I73 ; of world, 243247; reckoning
of! 252
Creator,
Hebrew
Deity,
I73
Creek Indians,
rituals of, 5; sexual conduct
of, 405
Crimes against Criminals,
487
Crimes in primitive
t-ibcs,
I26
crimes
of Preachers,
361
Criminal
as a Human
Being, 499
Criminal,
makeup
of a, 493-495;
sex code
law of N. Y. 406
Criminal,
The, 354, 484, 493, 530
Criminology,
529
Critical
Zntroduction
to Ethics,. 479
Cries;, f$holic
ritual,
141; rehgious
symCrucihxion
of Jesus, 171
Crucifix,
use of, 141
Crusaders,
crimes of, 531; iconoclastic,
I44
Culture,
Greek,
140; Roman,
I40
Curley,
Rev. Charles E., on attitude
toward
non-Catholics,
560
Curses placed on wrongdoers,
SO9
Customs
of primitive
tribes, xix, 12, 106,
188-197,
378, 443,
450-454;
sexual,
444-454
D
D’Alembert,
Jean, illegitimate,
mathematical genius, 414
N0rllllUl,
ten commandments
for
Daly,
engaged girls, xv
Dark Ages, chastity
during, 427; laws during, 218
Darkness
and locust, plagues of, 89-93
Darlington,
Rev. Dr. Henry,
N.Y.C.
Episcopal Church
of Heavenly
Rest, xvii.
Darwin,
Charles,
naturalist,
xxiii, 494, 514
David, building
of temple, 385; on adultery,
400
Da Vinci, Leonardo,
able, illegitimate,
413
Dax~;
of Conscience,
The, 175, 440, 510,
Day after the Sabbath,
256
Day of Atonement,
Yom Kippur,
468
Day, of prayer
and rest, 241-308;
of Sabbath, 241-308
Days of week, how determined,
250-253;
meanings
of, 256-258
Dead, name of, taboo,
189
Death, by famine, 365; by floods, 345; by
hurricanes,
345;
by lightning,
345; by
plagues, 365; by tornadoes,
345; law of
life,
346;
name,
18.5;
penalty,
367;
penalty
commandment,
401; penalty
for
images, 136
INDEX
Debts. laws for relief of., 482
.-Decalbgue, an instrument of intolerance xii,
26, 119; for Methodist Episcopal mmisters, xvii; for modern youth,. xvi; for
science, xvii; Hollywood, xvi; supernatural edict, 612
Decalowe, The, 24, 282, 369. 610; on
adultery, 456.
.
DeCastro, Miguel, torture of, 287
Declaration of Independence, 1, 568
Defending oneself by killing, 348, 365, 367
DeFord, Miriam Allen, love children, 414
Deity, Bible, anthropomorphic
God, 17 5 ;
Bible, demands of, 174 ; vagaries of, 174 ;
devil, 113, 114; Hebrew, Creator, 173 ;
King of Benin as, 110; King of Siam as,
110; mentioning name of, 189; Parthian
monarch as, IO9
Del Campo, Elvira, trial of, 287
Deliberate killing, 348; by Moses, 362
Delusion, religious, homicidal mania, 351.154
Demands of Bible Deity, 174
Des Anges, see Jeanne des Anges
Descent of Man, xxiii
Destruction of art, 144, 14.5
Deuteronomy, arousing anger of jealous
deity, 32 5 ; certain acts of homicide exempted, 356; commanding Israelites to
kill,
386;
compelling
children
to
observe
taboos, 33 1; concerning the Sabbath, 49;
condemnation of adultery in, 408; glaring contradiction for Sabbath observance,
243 ; on honcaty, 505, 512 ; killer cscaping revenge of one slain accidentally,
383; on morality, 441; on sex, 438; on
tribal solidarity, 541, 552; on variant of
text, 50; punishment for aspersions on
Deity, 214; superstition of spirit of life
in blood, 374; two versions of Ten
Commandments, 13-22 ; vindictive nature of Bible God, 121
DeValdes, Fernando, adultery in confessional, 434
Devil-deities, 11.3, 114
Devotion, virtue of, 402
Diderot, atheist, 572
Dionysus, Tracain, worship of, 5
Discussion
of sea,
397
Disease, superstitions about in primitive
tribes, 12 7
Disfiguration marks of newborn, 466
Disgrace of intermarriaae. 330
Dishonesty, types of, xii, ‘484-533
Divine, names, 190-205; precepts, xii; retribution among primitive Greeks, -128;
revelation, xiv, 33y
Divorce laws, 456
Doctrine
of Indulgences,
$16
Dostoievsky, on stealing, 499
Douay, version of Bible, 25-31, 153 ; versus Hebrew Bible, 16
Dougherty, George S., 499
Douglas, Rev. C. E., 246
Draper, J. W:, 179, 218, 407, 563
Dreams, erotm adultery in, 438-440
Drew, Daniel, “robber baron,” 486
Drowning of Egyptians, 90-104
Druids of Gaul, 385
Dual personalities, 495
Duffy, Most Rev. John A., 561
Dumas, Alexandre, illegitimate son, 414
Dunn, John, King of Sululand, 408
Dworecki, Rev. Walter, murder of daughter,
360
E
Earle, Alice Morse, Puritan Sabbath, 314
Early History
of Mankind,
184-188,
300,
471, 592
“East of Suez,” primitive tribes, xix
Eating blood, warning against, 374
Ecclesiastes, proper moral code, 347
Ecclesiastical morality and sex beliefs, 422EAdnlomics social cause of murder 3.59
Edge, Govkrnor Walter E., letter bn Freethinkers, 53 1
Rdiwn,.
Thomas
A.,
Frwthinkrr,
179,
566
Educatron, importance of correct, 525-530;
in schools of the Ten Commandments.
xxiii-xxvi, 524; of sex necessary, 474 ’
Effiqics,
burning
of
images,
131
Egotism in God, 55
Egypt, Children of Israel in bondage, 104107; magicians of, 80, 82 ; on exodus
from,
62
Egyptians, calendar of, 251; circumcision
by, 300; drowning of, 99-104; human
deities of, 108; names of, 185; rule,
yoke of, 55
Egyptology, 10s
Einstein, Albert, abandoning personal God,
1Rfl
_--
Eleventh Commandment, need for a, xvii
Elijah of Chelm, created a galem, 199
Elizabeth, Queen, image of, 136; magic of,
111
Ellis, Havelock, criminals, 493; dreams,
439 ; emotional
disturbances,
408;
fanatics, 354; menstruation, 296-298;
prostitution,
415 ; stealing, 484
Elvira, Synod of, 141
Elworthy, Frederick Thomas, on power of
the evil eye, 590, 597, 606
Emancipation of the human mind, 220; of
Negro slaves, 56-58
Embezzling by churchmen, 519-522
INDEX
Encyclopaedia
Biblica, names of gods taboo,
190; worshiping
of images, 38
Encyclopaedia
Britannica,
on blasphemy,
218
Encyclopaedia
of Religion
and Ethics,
38,
132, 134, 136, 144, 175, 185, 208, 332,
590, 604
English law on thievery,
490
Enemies,
images of, 132
Enslavement
of Jews, 104-107
Environmental
conditions,
murder,
359
Envy,
57 7-600
Ephesians, obeying
parents, 328
Epiphanes!
Antiochus,
283
Erasmus, illegitimacy
of, 414
Erotic adultery,
43 7-440
Erskine,
Thomas,
on blasphemy,
218
Eskimos,, pn menstruous
women, 294; moon
cohabiting
with,
263;
sexual standards
of, 447
Establishment
of sanctuaries,
383
Ethical
and moral
value
of Ten Commandments,
xxiii-xxvi
Ethics,
coveting,
5 7 7-600 ; Hebrew
tribal
solidarity,
540-543,
5.52; law and conscience, 483-493
; negation
of, 524-533
;
UT Plaim
Indians,
xx;
value
of
Second
Commandment,
119; various
ethical sex
customs, 397-458
Ethics of Eiercules,
507
tithics, parental
love in animals,
xxiii
Ethiopian
tribesmen,
beliefs of, 140
Euthanasia,
mercy killing,
see footnote,
p.
349
Evans, E. P., on ethics, 503, 542, 547
Evil, eye in primitive
culture,
582-608;
images, 130; in primitive
tribes, 125; prevention
Evil Eye,
Evolutionary
Evolution
Examples,
of magic
and,
125’
590, 597
Ethics, 503, 542,
of A!forality,
366
accidental
547
killing,
356;
of
homicidal
mania, 357 ; of human
sacrifice, 352
Exodus,
Book
of, circumcision,
299;
deliverance
of the Commandments,
2; delusions of talking
with God, 12; killing,
348 ; Lord’s
vengeance,
8 ; Moses
and
Aaron
before
Pharaoh,
71-75;
mystical
madness,
6; plagues,
79, 89, 93, 99;
purification,
3; stealing,
503; strict Sabbath
observance,
272-273,
276,
285;
superstitions.
202;
taking
the Jews out
of Egypt,
62; Ten Commandments
revealed in, 2-13 ; textual
errors, 243; unleavened
bread,
106; use of terror
in
rituals,
10;
variant
of
text,
Deuteronomy
on Commandments,
Expiation,
heifer
for, 392
50;
males,
xii,
271
F
Fabre, Henri,
on killing,
346
Failure.
faithfulness.
336-340
Faithfulness,
determining,
411~; failure,
336-
340
False testimony,
unethical,
537
Famine,
death by, 365
Fanatical,
intolerant
acts, Hebrews,
167169
Fanaticism,
iconoclastic,
idolatry,
140-146
;
religious,
167, 420432,
562-563;
religious sexual, 420-432
Farley,
Cardinal
John, on Douay
Version
of the Bible, 24
Farouk,
King, thieves recalled during marriage of, 481
Farrar,
Dean, on the Bible, 113, 225, 307.
334, 365, 487, 610
Fasting, forbidden
on Sabbath,
279
Fathers.
Church.
images taboo. 140: mvstic
powe;
of, lOi, 183, 333; solicitation
in
confessional,
432;
thievery
of,
520;
treatment
of sex and marriage,
422-434
Fear,
and sacrifices,
64, 65; for Hebrew
God, 120; for primitive
gods, 123; of
blood, 390; of images, 128-136;
of mentioning names, 185; of parents,
327
Feast, great, 385; of Passover,
93, 106; of
Orthbdoxv,
142
Federal
Bureau
of Education.
on commandments
for school teachers, xvi
Federal
Council
of Churches
of Christ
in
America,
Federal
Female
Ferrara,
The,
of
Extermination,
of heretics, 370;
93, 389
Ezekiel,
on Sabbath
observance,
Festivals,
xvii
Trade Commission
circumcision,
302
Duke of (Niccola
of
primitive
on fraud.
D’Este),
tribes,
48.5
407
106;
sexual
celebrations,
42 1
Fidelity
and unfaithfulness,
453
Fielding,
W. J., on love and sex, 179, 428
Filial,
duties of children,
326; obedience,
tribal, sympathetic
magic, 334-336
Fire, kindling,
on Sabbath,
taboo, 2 77, 286288, 305
First born, murder
of, 93
First Commandment,
and the clergy,
112 ;
basis of morality
and worship,
114
First Commandment,
The, 112
First Deadly
Parallel,
The, 205
First Night, privilege
of, 444-447
First Tables of Stone, 32-43
verse
Flesh,
15-22
Flexibility
of moral
code, 347
Flies, frogs, and lice, plagues of, 79-84
mortification
of,
397
INDEX
Floods,
death by, 34.5
Foley,
District
Attorney,
on clannishness,
561
Folklore
in the Old Testament,
4.5, 48, 374,
413, 460, 593
Fontaine!
Mme.
Bertrand,
thesis on split
paternity,
4 13
Food, killing
for, 348
Forces of nature and primitive
tribes, 12.5’
Ford, Dr. McClellan
S., on human behavior,
507
Forgery
in Christianity,
519
Forgery,
types of, 481-487
Fornication
versus adultery,
405
Fosdick,
Rev. Harry
Emerson,
on nonreligious
people!
532
Frankfurter,
Justice
Felix,
17 1
Franklin,
Benjamin,
denied baptism,
398;
atheism,
179;
born
on Sabbath,
306;
lightning
rod, 606
Fraudulent
Conduct,
484-486
Frazer,
Sir James G., on the Old Testament,
ix, 45, 48, 108, 132-139,
187, 189, 194,
258-261,
295, 30.3. 374, 379 382, 413,
2446142)
468, 506, 555, 585, 593, 602,
Freem)an, C. R. B., on Priestcraft,
517
French
National
Assembly,
on human
brotherhood,
545
Fr;;c~7Pevolutron,
Diderot
guiding
spirit
Fre&ency
Friedlander,
F&h,
of murder,
on customs
John,
nn
Frogs, lice, and
Frolkey,
Rev.,
Full moon and
Furies, Greeks,
the
359-362
of Israel,
Sahhath,
375
308
Grwn,
flits, plagues of, 79-84
gambler,
520
Sabbath,
254-257
fear of, 159
G
Gafteri,
Abikaben,
great hero, 201
Gallagher,
Bishop, on rlhics,
527
Galois, Marguerite
L., on the Sabbath,
247
Games, images at, 161; Olympic,
160
Gasparri,
Cardinal
Peter, on the Catholic
Catechism,
23
Gaul. Druids
of. 395
Cc&al
Assembly,
acts of, 145
Genesis. Book of, on births, 179: on superstitions,
202; on taboos, 373-375
Gillis, Rev. James RI., C.S.P., on the Ten
Commandments,
24, 369, 401-403
Gilman,
Charlotte
Perkins,
on justifiable
suicide, 350
Glorified
mmishment.
153-l 56
God,
anthropomorphic,
175, - Babylonian
king
m,
109;
different
names
370; loyalty
of Children
of Israel
to,
156; magical
use of name,
196; mentioning name, taboo! 191, 230-238;
Mohammedans,
worship
of, 123;
Montezuma as, 109 ; Moses as, 107-l 12 ; nature
of Biblical,
173-180;
observance
by children, 325; of Israel, name of, 207-212;
of primitive
tribes,
39; of war,
387;
parents vice regents of, 325-334;
penalty
for worship
of, 332; plurality
of, primitive tribes,
175-177;
praise
of, 123;
priest-magician,
183 ; tribal,
113 ; vanity
of, 119; war, judgment
of, 370; worship
of, 119; wrath
of, 326
God or Man, 180
Golden Bough, Tlze, on sympathetic
magic,
108, 131, 133-139,
184-lS6,
301, 379,
382, 462-464,
469, 506, 585, 614
Golden
Calf, worship
of, 38, 42
Goldstein,
Rabbi Israel, N.Y.C.,
commandments for American
Jew, xvi
Goode&
Dr. William,
on menstruation,
297
Gorham,
C. T., on blasphemy,
179
Gospel
in the Ten Commandments,
288,
399
Gould, F. J., on honesty,
492
Gratz, History
of the Jews, 157
Great Feast, sacrificial
sheep at, 38.5
Great men, illegitimacy
of, 413-415
Greek, calendar,
250 ; Church,
406; courtesans and lovers, 420; culture,
140; names
of furies not used by, 189; primitive,
divine retribution
among,
128
for,
207;
homage to, 123 ; invoking
name of, 230238; jealousy
of, 119; kings in place of,
Mis
Anna,
nn
Gregory,
Bishop
incest, 430
Group marriage,
452
Crovcs,
R.,
Ernest
of
mktakm
Vercelli,
on
social
493
Guillaume,
Frere, inquisitor,
Guilt, types of, 480-492
Gurley,
Rev.
Charles
E.,
Commandments,
xiii
lnw,
xvii
convicted
of
adjustments,
217
respect
of
Ten
H
Haggadalz,
sacred Hebrew
book, 199
Hainault,
Marguerite
de, punished
for blasphemy,
217
Haiselden,
Dr. H. D., on mercy killing,
349
Hall, Jerome,
on theft, 490
Hamilton
Alexander,
illegitimate,
414
Hanina,
Rabbi,
on miracles,
199
Happiness,
suppression
of, 397
Hardwicke,
W. W., on the Sabbath,
308
Harmony,
achievement
of, xiii
Harriman,
William,
theft
transaction
by,
481
Hartshorne,
H. and May,
M. A., on deceit,
526
INDEX
Haskell, Walter Scott, on the Sabbath, 2 53 ;
poem “His Religious Scruples,” 253
Hastings, on religion and ethics, 38, 129,
132, 134, 136, 144, 175, 185, 194, 208,
230, 300, 334, 467, 509, 579, 584, 588,
595-601, 606
Hatred, vanishment of, xii
Hayes, Cardinal Patrick, on the Decalogue,
-9
Ht;es, Rev. John Alexander, on the Commandments, 116, 228, 397, 488
Hayes, William C., on Jews in Egypt, IO5
Healy, William, on honesty, 494
Hebrews, artistic instinct of, 1.56 ; belief in
evil eye, 390-392; calendar, 249, 252;
children, honor to parents, 340; coins,
157; deities, 173, 197, 208-211; destruction of Roman statues, 165 ; eating blood
is taboo, 374; enslavement of, 104-107;
excusable killings by, 356; expulsion of,
by Spanish Inquisition, 285-287; first
pogrom, 169; fundamental basis of religion of, 458, 465; gift of land to, 325’;
God, to be feared, 113, 120; images,
taboo by, 130, I57 ; intolerant, fanatical
acts, 167 ; language, original tongue, 176;
lore of numeral “seven,” 267-270; myriad
superstitions, 173 ; observance of Second
Commandment, 156-l 72 ; occupancy of
land, 326: privileges under Herod, 16.X:
sanctity of the Sabbath, 271-286 ; superstitions, taboos, 131, 466-468; symbol,
Magen-David,
159; tribes, superstitious
taboos, 146 : tribal solidarity, 540-543 ;
war against Midian, 388; women, status
of early, 289; the worship of many gods,
177
Hcbrcw Version, vcr?.u3
rrotcstant
and
Catholic.~~,--_
2115
Hebrew versus Douay Bibles, 16
Hebrew versus Protestant and Catholic Versions of Ten Commandments, ZZ-32
Heifer, for expiation, 392
EIenry VI, on prostitution, 416
Hy;$aw, E. M., on Juvenile delinquency,
Heresy. victories over. 142
Here&,
127, 142, 217-220, 370, 557;
extermination of, 370
Herod the Great, privileges to Hebrews,
ft$; public works of, 159; tolerance of,
---
Herriot,
Edouard,
freethinker,
Hertz, Emanuel, on illegitimate
414
Hidden
Lincoln,
The, 414
Hidden
mcanine
of covetine.
532
great men,
Hindus, images of, I34
Hinsley, Cardinal Arthur, on war, 371
History
and Destiny
of the Jews, 169
History
of Ancient
Hz~~ory
of
311
577
Literature,
in England,
Civilization
the,
236,
History
of Conflict
between
Religion
and
Science, 179
History
of Inquisition
in Spain, 286
History
of iMarriage, 455
History
of Prostitution,
415
History
of Rationalism in Europe, 138,169,
560, 582
History
of Sacerdotal
Celibacy,
422,
433,
446
of the Intellectual,
Development
of
179
of the Jews, 157, 169
Hi:tt&Dr. Philip Khurr, on Jews in Egypt,
History
Europe,
History
Hoagland, Prof. Hudson, on ethics, 531
Hobhouse, Prof., on Veddahs, xviii
Hoefler, Paul L., social customs of a pygmy
tribe, xix
Hollywood, Decalogue, xvi
Holy Bible, no table of contents in, 1
Holy, day of worship, 241-258; prostitution, 418; Roman Catholic Church, vengeance of priests against Jews, 287; Sahbath, 271-298; Scriptures, no index to,
1; Sisters of the Order of St. Mary
Magdalene, 417
Holyoake, George Jacob, convicted for
blasphemy, 221; on home colonization,
220
Homage to gods, 123
HomiGM
mar&,
examples
of, 357; religious delusion, 35 l-354
Honesty,
494
Honesty, debate on, 487;. found less in
students of Bible, 527; prmciples of, 48%
533
Honor of parents, Hebrew children, 340;
rewards for. 339: solidarity of tribe, 332 ;
tribal religious belief, 325-328, 340
Hose, Dr. Charles, on primitive tribes, xix
Hull, Cordell, Secretary of State, on
Japanese
infamy,
548
Human, deities of Egyptians, 108; ethical
relationships,
548-573;
sacrifice, examples of, 109, 352; sacrifices, killing,
9r,
YJI
Humanitarians, on killing, 349
Humanity’s
H uman
Hightower, Pro?. Pleasant R.,-on ethics of
Bible students, 527
Hebrew
Gain
from
Unbelief,
179
Nature, xix, xxi
Humboldt, Alexander von, on creation of
the universe, 173
Hurricanes, death by, 345
INDEX
I
Iconoclasts, 142, 144, 347; crusade, 144;
fanaticism and idolatry of, 140-146
Idea, of Monotheism, 173-180
Idelsohn, Abraham Z., 106, 252, 376, 467,
513, 604
Identification mark, name, 183
Idiot
Man,
301
Idolatry, iconoclastic fanaticism, 140-146
Idols, worship of, 120-154
Illegitimacy, mark of, 412-415
Illegitimate, great men, 413-415; sex relations, crime of, 443
Images, against enemies, 132 ; Catholic
Church, 154; death penalty, 136; evil,
130; fear of, 128-136; games, 161;
Hebrew taboo, 130, 15 7 ; in Babylonian
literature, 135 ; induce love, 130; making
and worshiping,
120; medicine man,
132; Middle Ages, 136; nature of, 146;
of Babylon, 134; of Charles IX, 135; of
gods taboo in early times, 131-133; of
Hindus, 134; of a person in primitive
tribes,
taboo,
129;
of Queen Fdimheth,
136; of Scottish Highlands, 136; of West
African Negroes, 134; on Siamese coins,
136; origin of, prohibited,
128-136;
DrimitiVC
tribes. 130-134 : m-ahibition of
grid sympathetic magic, i2$ ; reflections,
shadows, 136-140; sinful, 140; superstitious, 130: taboo on, 129, 140; worship, Zi, 142-154; worship, Middle Ages,
143; worship, Protestant, 144
Immorality, causes of, 432; in nunneries,
430-432
Incantations and Charms, 108
Incest, among priests, 430; in various races
and periods, 454-455
tnrpstuous unions, 403. 430, 454-456
India, Brahma’s name, sacred to, 191; ferti!itv rites in. 417
Ind&$
clan&h -tribal custom of, 5 5 5 ;
,
sexual
conduct
of,
405;
high
standard of honesty, 502; incest among,
454; North American Plains, xx, 421,
454; on menstruous women, 294 ; profanaliun to mention
divinity, 192 ; sexual
promiscuity amonE North American, 42 1;
sexual standards if, 42 1, 448, 4.51,. 454 i
superstitions of, 586
Inefable
Name, death penalty inflicted on
blasphemer for use of, 216
Infants, inherited primitive traits of, 525
Influence of Religion upon Truthfulness,
5'7-FM-l ----,
Ingersoll, Robert G., xviii, 212, 235-237,
316, 321, 330, 487
Ingersoll Works,
Dresden Edition, 213
633
Inheritance laws, 545
Inherited resemblance in primitive tribes,
126
Inhibitions, sex, 398, 421-433, 442 ; lack
of, 400-42 1,433-441
Injustice, would vanish with acceptance of
Ten Commandments, xii
Innocent, punishment of, 125128
Innocents Abroad, 228
Inquisition, accusation of blasphemy, 2 17 ;
torture by, 285288, 531
Inquisition
in
the
Spanish
Dependencies,
217
Instinct to kill, 344
Institutions, social, restriction of, 178
Integrity, moral, of promise, 153
Intellectual
Development
of Europe,
215,
407, 563
Intermarriage, disgrace of, 330
Intolerance, Decalogue, an instrument of,
119; fanatical acts, Hebrews, 167
Intoxicants for rituals, 5
Inventions, condemnation of, 179
Investigation of murders, 359
Irene, Empress, model of Christian virtue,
143
Irresponsible, accidental killing, 354-359
Isaac, sacrifice of, 326
Isadore, Saint, of Seville, 245
Isaiah, on killing, 345; on memory, 203
Israel, children of, in bondage, 104-107;
Children of, loyalty to God, 156; Chil&en uf, threat to, 329; Name of God,
204
Israelites pursued by Pharaoh, 99
Ivy, Rev. William M., 309
J
Jackson, “Stonewall,”
reverence of Sabbath, 315
Jacobson, Dr. David, on circumcision, 301
James, Prof. William, on mysticism, 6
Japaneq~, rnnrept nf ndultery,
409;
primitive morality of, 548
Jastrow, Prof. Morris, on the Sabbath, 255?<R
--Jcnlousy, 119--125, 577-600; and acts of
propitiation, 122 ; attribute of primitive
gods, 122-125; of Bible God, 119, 120
Jeanne des Anges, Sister Superior, sex tortures of, 427
“Jehovah,” magic name of, 73
Jehovah’s Witnesses, declare U. S. flag an
image and impious, 17 1; denied civil protection, 170 ; Justice
Frankfurter’s comment on Due Process Clause, 17 1; New
York Times commends Court’s reversal,
171; outlawed in Canada, 170; Supreme
634
INDEX
Court decides saluting flag not compulsory, 171
Jerome, Saint, on sexual pleasures, 426
Jerusalem, captured, Titus Caesar, 169;
Pilate in, 158; Roman Conquest of, 158;
siege of., 200
Jesuit
Enzgma,
432
Jesus, as illegitimate,
171, 345
Jewish
Ceremonial
414: crucifixion
Znstitutions
and
of,
Cus-
toms, 301
Jewish Encyclopedia, blasphemy, 2 16;
blood shedding, 385; clannishness, 538,
552; fear evil’ spirits, 590, 592,. 595598; mixing meat and milk, 464; monotheism, 174; Moses and Magrc rod,
207 ; praising Bible Deity, 191; Sabbath,
243, 255, 266, 278, 280, 305, 552;
statues, images, 156, 159, 167-169; superstitions, 188, 202, 467, 580; symbol
of bull, 38; sympathetic magic, 197, 216,
325,459, 513, 595-598; variant in Commandments. 16. 2 1: weight two stones, 40
Jewish Magic and Super&tion,
130, 19%
200, 216, 271, 579, 596
Jewish, rituals, 252, 255-257; slavery, 104107
Jewish Theological Seminary, 105
John, Gospel of, 2132, 346
John the Baptist, 518
John, Lt. E. F. (USMC.),
on ten commandments for the police, xvi
John XXIII, Pope, condemned for incest,
43
,--1
Joseph, story of, 375
Josephus, on History of the Jews, 157, 159,
l&O, lG3, 166, l-67; 168, 20% 283-2x5
Joshua, on belief in other gods, 176
Judaism, superstitious basis of, 201
Judeans, Commonwealth of, 157
.Tzldges, on belief in other gods, 177
Tulius II. Pane. instituted brothels, 416
justice, ‘miscarried because of ‘religious
bigotry, 561-570; perverted, 153-156 ;
self-defense, wars of, 365
Justified killing, 346-351
Juvenile delinquency, 527-530
K
Kahn, Otto H., on commandments for
banking, xvi
Kennedy, Dr. Foster, neurologist, impulse
to kill instinctive, 358
Kenyon, Lord, of London, on blasphemy,
218
Kilander, Dr. H. F., on superstitions, 466
Killing, accidental, examples, 356 ; accidental, irresponsible, 354-3 59 ; among
animals, 344; an atavistic impulse, 358;
blood taboo, 372; by animals, 355; by
children, 355; by stones, statues, 355 ;
court decisions on, 349; deliberate, 348;
examples of homicidal mania, 357 ; excusable among Hebrews, 356; for adultery, 348; for food, 348; for property,
348 ; homicidal mama, 35 7 ; human sacrifices, 351; instinct to, 344; justified,
346-351; mercy, 349; of ammals, 34.5,
367; of children, 389; of Jesus, 345;
primitive tribes, 344-348; religious delusions, 351; self-defense, 348, 367;
self-preservation, 343, 346; Vegetarians
on, 345; without hatred, 356
King James Version, of Bible, 2, 23, 26;
of Sabbath, 309
King Lear, on adultery, 408; on prostitution, 415
Kinns. on worshio of gods. 177
Kings; supernatural aryd magical powers of,
110 ; superslitions about, 111
Kiowa Indians, rituals of, 5
Kipling, Rudyard, “Mandalay,”
xviii
Kirsten, on history and destiny of Jews,
169
Kissing, customs of, 400
Kleptomaniacs, 497-500
Knots, belief in efficacy of. 602
Knowledge, dangers of lack of, x
Knox,
... Judge John C., U. S. Federal Judge,
XlU
Kosher meat, eating of, 374
Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia
Sexualis, 499
Kronotkin. Prince Peter. scientist. xxiii
Kudlai Khan, on spilling of blood, 383
Kulngo Ncgrocs of French Sudan, marriage
customs of, 442
Kyoto Imperial University Hospital in
Tokio, 409
La Farge, Rev. John, on war, 369
Lamb, blood of, 383 ; Chrrstian symbo!,
141; slaughter and sacrifice of, 106
Land, gift to Hebrews, 32.5
Landman, Rabbi Isaac, Hebrew authority,
208
Language, Hebrew, original tongue erroneous, 176
Law, bigoted trials of, 564-566: medieval
canon, 215 ; Ninth Commandment and
the, 567; fundamental, of self-preservation, 344; of ethics and conscience, 483493; of lift, dcnth, 346; of this country,
567; Sabbath, 272-282, 310-314
Lawn, Rabbi Jerome M., N.Y.C. Beth Israel
Temple, xvi
INDEX
Laws and Customs of Israel Compiled from
the Codes, 280, 375
Lea, on celibacy, 422, 446; on sexual desires, 422-436 : on Spanish Inquisition,
217;286
Lear, King, 339, 408, 415
Lecb, W. E. IL, 138, 169, 338, 370, 372,
$7, $
430, 484, 516, 519, 558, 560,
Legend of Orestes, 380
Legge, Llewellyn, ten commandments of
hunting, xv
Legitimacy tests for offspring, 412
Lehmann, L. H., on celibacy, 433
Lehman, Mrs. Herbert, on democracy, xvi
Leighton, Archbishop, on honesty, 487
Leonard, Rev. Joseph J., adulterer and
murderer, 436
Leuba, Prof. James H., on religious sex
suppression, 5, 180, 427-429
Leviticus,
Book of, in support of slavery,
57 ; on love, 339; on sex, 406, 437 ; on
sympathetic magic, 325-329; on superstitions, 200, 376; on the Sabbath, 146148, 271; on tribal solidarity, 542, 552;
punishment for aspersions on Deity, 213
Levy-Bruhl, on covetousness, 578, 584-589
Lewis. Toseoh. The Bible Unmasked.
402
Lice, frogs and flies, plagues, 79-84 --~
Life in blood, 376
Lightfoot, Dr. John, on Creation, 245
Lightning, death by; 345
Lincoln, Abraham, and Bible Deity, 55:
emancipation of slaves by, 57, 58; his
superiority to the God of Israel, 57; his
task of emancipation versus that of God,
56; illegitimacy of, 414; modesty and
accomplishments of, 57
Lincoln,
Abraham: The War Years, 315
Li$b;r,“,“,
Charles A., crime agamst infant
Lindsey, Judge, murderous passion against,
360
Literature, Babylonian, images in, 13 5
Lloyd l;eorge, David, Prime Minister ot
England, 366
Locusts and darkness, plagues of, 89-93
Lombroso, Cesare, on immorality, 432
Lopez, Antonio, torture of, 287
Lord’s Day, taboos on, 307-310
Louis IX, King of France, punishment of
hlasphmy,
2 18
Love
Love
and Sex Emotions,
Children,
414
428
Love, conflict of murder, 359 ; induced by
in&s,
130
Lomie, Dr. Robert H., on behavior of Plains
Indians, xx
Loyalty to God, children of Israel, 156
63.5
Lucky charms, 597-603
Lunden, Dr. Walter A., criminology, 3.59
Luther, Martin, condemns celibacy, 432 ;
defends lying, 558; failure to discover
Catholic omission of Second Commandment, 26; honor thy parents not meant
for fellow men, 328, 329; summary df
divine instructions, xiv; whole creation
instantaneous, 244
Lying, 230
M
Macaulay, on trustworthiness, 558
Magen-David, Hebrew symbol! 159
Magic, and prevention of evil, 125 ; and
religion, 3, 35, 61, 107, 183; in primitive tribes, 3, 35, 61, 125, 334-336;
names of gods, 19b-196; of Charles I,
111; of Charles II, 111; of Moses, 66-72,
79, 101, 104; of number “seven,” 2662 7 2 ; power, fear of, 23 1; of Queen 1 lizabeth, 111; rod and Moses, 68-71; sympathetic, 125, 184, 299, 325, 458-465,
508; sympathetic, and prohibition
of
images, 128-136,
140; sympathetic
animism, 299 ; sympathetic, between
parents and children, 325 ; sympathetic,
name, 184; sympathetic, tribal filial obedience, 125, 334-336
Magical, origin of religion, 183 ; performances, 3; powers of chieftains, 109 ;
pnw~rs of kings, 110; powers of Moses
and Aaron, 93 ; powers of priests, 111;
use of God’s name, 196
Magic Art, 470, 600, 614
Magicians, a3 chieftains, 109; of Egypt, 80,
82; powers of, 107; as priests, 10, 107,
183
Malcolm, Sir John, on native lying, 550
Male children, destruction of, xii, 93, 389
Malinowski, B., on sexual morality, 450
Mallet, Abbe, Canon of Cambria, adultery
of, 434
Man, ancient, mentality of, 176; god of
primitive tribes, 108; slain, ceremonies
for, 392
“Mandalay”-Rudyard
Kipling, xviii
Mandigos, marriage custom of virginity,
442
Mania, homicidal, religious delusion, 351351
Manna, 104, 158
Mantegazza, on sex conduct, 412, 446
Manton, John T., convicted judge, 521
Marco Polo, vu punisllrneuta, 378
Marranos, Hebrew converts, 285
Marriage, 406, 408, 429, 443-454, 463,
471
INDEX
Marriage, conduct before, 400, 446-449 ;
customs of Belgian Congo, xix, 450-452 ;
customs of defloration, 443-447 ; customs of virginity, 441; disgrace of intermarriage, 330; institutions, 455 ; manmade institution, 409; sexual customs of,
4OC-409,416-421,44C-447,450-453
Mary, gotten with child, 402, 415, 423;
worship of, 143
Massachusetts, courts of 1631, order of,
406
Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. 531
Masse, Rev. J. C., on the Commandments,
115, 288, 368, 399, 611
Mather, Cotton, judgment of, 406
Mating, forms of, 400-455
Matthew,
Book
of, distorted view of salvation, 346; “Love thy neighbor” not
original with Jesus, 338
May, Geoffrey, on sex expression, 407, 417,
429. 448. 462
McCabe, Joseph, on purgatory, 516-519
McCarty, Congressman Paul J., Catholic
first, 562
McComb, Rev. Dr. John H., on war, 371
McCormick
1
Miiaren,
McMillin.
ishment,
Theological
Seminary,
Chicago,
A. D., on the Sabbath, 250, 311
Rev. Walter F.. on capital
_
-mm368
Meat, kosher, 374; versus milk eating, 459461
Medicine man. belief in, 108-l IO, 1.12
Mencken, H. L., on illegitimacy, 413
Mendel, Gregor, geneticist, 466
Menetrier,
413
Dr.,
thesis
on
split
paternity,
Misunderstanding, vanishing of, xii
Modesty, customs of, 450
Moehlman, C. H., on the Ten Commandments, xiv, literary forgeries, 566
Mohammedans, worship of gods, 123
Monolatrous
gion, 174
concept
Moral
24,
of early
Hebrew
reli-
Monotheism, idea of, 173-180
Montezuma as god, 109
Monuments of superstition, 144
Moon, religious superstitions of, 254-265
Moore, on adultery, 398
Moral and ethical value of Ten Commandments, xxiii-xxvi
Morality, Code of animals, xiii-xxii; Code
of Plains Indians. xx: First Commandment, basis of, li4; kexibility of, 347;
in Primitive tribes, 354, 400, 449-451;
integrity of promise, 153 ; of mentally retarded. 354: standards of. 400-472.483533; value df Second Commsndment, 119
Law,
25
Morals, 39, 123, 135. 215, 231. 257, 289,
333, 334, 338,344, 346,354, 376372,
380, 392, 400, 409, 424, 430, 443, 463,
WL4;;, 504, 516, 519, 530, 545, 558,
Mores, sexual conduct of, 456
Morgan, Rev. G. Campbell, on the Commandments, 116, 121, 226, 365, 400,
515, 611
Moriah, Mount, 163
Mnrtification
of the flesh,
397,
421,
424
430
Mosaic law, believers of, 271-298
Moses, and Aaron before Pharaoh, 71-75’;
magical
powers
of, 93;
and
Bible
De&y,
taboos during, 291-298
Mentality,
of ancient man, 176; retarded,
morality of, 354
supernatural nowers of, 65 ; and the burnini bush, 115‘; and the’magic rod, 68-7 1;
as God, 107-112; before Pharaoh, 62;
Mercy killing, 349
Meslier, Pere, Roman Catholic priest, 567
murder by, 362; Five books of, 200;
freeing the Jews, 62; furnishes bread,
103; magic of, 66-72, 101-104; as a
murderer, 362; on Mount Sinai, 103109; the Bible Deity and the Children
of Israel, 62
Mothers, The, 184, 186, 188, 261, 294,
417-420, 442-445
Motives, for murder, 359; for suicide, 362
Motley, John Lathrop, on holy war, 145
Menstruation,
Mcrcicr,
Methodist
Charles,
on ~~iminulugy,
Clergyman,
499
Northern
Illinois,
XVii
Methods and rules of warfare, 386
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
105
Mexicans, rituals of, 5
Michigan Medical Society, 358
Middle Ages, image worship, 136-143
Midian.
Hebrew
war
Mirrors,
superstitions
against,
388
Milk versus meat eating, 459-461
Miner, J. B., on morality, 526
Miracles of Moses, 101-104
of, 138
Miscarriages of justice, 218, 286-288,
370, 564-566
Misconduct in Scotland, 128
birth
of, 60; character
of, 362;
MottGmith,
Miss
May,
275;
frequency
writer,
deliberate
xxi
Murder, by Moses, 362; caused by love
---‘3:-r *rn. -1-..-.. ^-----1-9Ln. ^vironmkntal ‘condit&s, 359; .for taboo
349,
inflacliun,
investigation
of,
359-362
;
of, 359-362 ; motives for,
359; of first born, 93; on Sabbath, 31%
32C; penalty for, 359; prediction of, 359;
INDEX
priests committing, 360-362 ; social, economic cause, 359; trials for, 355, 360
Murrain plague, 85
Mursall. Dr. Georae Rex. child osvchologist, 528
’
. Mirza, Abas, Prince Royal of Persia, 408
Museum, British, 105
Mussolini, Ten Commandments for Fascist
supporters, xv
Mutual Aid, xxiii
Myriad superstitions, Hebrews, 173
Mysticism, 10-12, 111, 333
Mystic, power of father, 333; power of
Pope,
Mystic
111
Rose,The, 291, 294, 463
N
Names, animistic significance of, 183-l 88 ;
customs, 188; death, 185; Egyptian,
185: fear of mentioninrr. 185: identification’mark, 183 ; in primitive tribes, 183;
of Bible Deity, 63, 189, 207-724; of
dead, taboo, 189; of gods, taboo, 189191; secret, primitive tribes, 187; superstition, 183 ; sympathetic magic, 184;
taboos, 183-191
“Nash Manuscript,” oldest Biblical manuscript, 30
National
Better
Business
Bureau,
xvi
National Commission on Law Observance
and Law Enforcement, xiii
National Council of Catholic Men, on moral
law, 24
Natural laws, creation, 173
Nazis, (‘Ten Commandments for the German Soldier ” xv
Nebuchadne&,
siege of Jerusalem, ZOO
Negation of ethics, 524-533
Negritos of Andaman Islands, sexual conduct of, 450
Negroes, emancipation of, 14, 57, 58; not
the people of Lincoln, 58 ; of Angola,
sexual conduct of, 452; punished for
fraud, 7.11 ; sexual customs of, 449-451;
West African images of, 134
Neighbor, tribal significance of, 537-540,
5.m
---
Ah
standard ~ibk
Dictionary,
15,
85,
207, 376, 405
New York Metronolitan Museum of Art,
105
Nicea, cuuucil of, 143
Niedermeyer, Rev. Frederick David, 114,
222, 234, 366, 397, 398, 610-612
Noise as prophylactic against evil, 604
Norris, Rev. J. Frank, murderer, 3bl
North American Indians, superstitions of,
xx, 184, 385, 421, 454
Notorious prostitutes, 419
Numbers,
Book
of, see Book
of Numbers
Number “seven” superstitions, 148, 268270, 304
Nunneries as notorious brothels, 431)
Nuns, ceremonial rites of, 417 ; selfinflicted tortures of, 427-429
0
Oath,
Curse
and Bible
Blessing,
501,
505
Oaths and the Third Commandment, 229238
Obedience, filial, tribal, sympathetic magic,
334-336; to parents, reward for, 335
Obregon, Pres.-elect Alvaro, assassination
of, 370
Observance, of rituals, taboos, by children,
33 1; of Second Commandment, Hebrews,
148, 156-172; rewards for, 120, 147
Obstruction
of
Justice
by
Religion,
222,
564
Olympic Games, 160
Opposition, to anesthesia, 178, 306; to birth
control, 178; to twilight sleep, 178
Orestes, legend of, 380
Original tongue, Hebrew language, 176
Origin
and Development
oj Moral
Ideas,
65
Origin and History
of Hebrew
Law, 505
Origin, magical, religion, 183; of antiSemitism, 156-172 ; of prohibition
of
images, 128-136
Orthodox ceremonies, 467-469
Orthodoxy, feast of, 142
O’Shea, Dr. M. V., on child education, 52.5
Overstreet, Prof. Harry A., on teaching
children Lht: Ten Commandments, xxiv
P
Paganism in Our Christianity,
309
Pagans, Sabbath of, 309
Paine, ‘rhomas, on. religion. , _-_,
516. 572
_.-, : on
writing Age of Reason, 564
Palcios, Rev. Aurelio Jimenez, 370
Parallel, First Deadly, 205 ; Second Deadly,
206
Parentage, rite< for determining, 412-415;
true formula of, 409
Parental love, high among animals, xxiii,
339
P&&s,
affection for, 337; and children,
sympathetic magic between, 325 ; children, relationship, 336 ; fear of, 327 ;
honor of, tribal religious belief, 328;
honor to, 325, 332-340; obelliencc, reward for, 336; penalty for disobedience,
327; position of in primitive tribes, 326,
334; representatives of God, 328; service
INDEX
ia, 328; solidarity of tribe, 332; superstitious powers of, 334; vice regents of
God, 325-334
Parents’ Association, on commandments of
love, xv
Parthian monarchs as deities, 109
Parting of Red Sea, the, 99-104
Passion, sex.231, 400458
Passover, Feast of, 93, 106
Paternity, thesis on split, 413
Paulsen, F., on ethics, 558
Peach, Right Rev. Robert Wesley, 488
Penalty, death, 367; death-images, 136;
for blasphemy, 214-219;
for disobedience, 120, 327; for murder, 359; for
non-observance, 148; for worship of
gods! 332; to children, 126
Penalttes
upon
Opinion,
219
Pentateuch-Moses,
the Five Books of, 200
Peregrinus the Cynic, on virtue, 338
Pericles, General, able, illegitimate, 413;
love of, for Aspasia, 419
Perjury, forbidding of, 225-238
Perrycoste, F. H., on heretics, 557-560
Persius, on virtue, 338
Personalities
end Social
Adjt&mcnt,
493
Perversion of human body, 422-429
Perverted justice, 153-156
Petronius, placing statues in temples, 168
l’halaoh, and Muses, 62-75 ; armies slaughtered, 102 ; his heart is hardened, 75-79;
Moses and Aaron before, 71-75; orders
male children to be destroyed, xii; pursuit of Israelites bv. 99
Pharaohs, marriage c&ms
of, 454
Phclan, Father, on clannishness, 540
Phillips, Randolph Godfrey, refused to bear
arms, 361
Philo, on name of Hebrew Deity, “Tetragrammaton,” 208
Philosnphy
nf the
Stoics,
C71
Photographs, sinful to take, 140
Pilate in Jerusalem, 158
Pious frauds, 516-518
Pius
V,
Pope,
on
blasphemy,
216
Pius XII, Pope, not real name, 2 12
Plagues, caused by disbelief, xii; death by,
365; visited on Pharaoh, 76-93
l’lalu,
on punishing
the innocent,
128
Pliny, on virtue, 338
Plurality of gods, primitive tribes, 17.5
Pocahontas (Matokes), 184
Pogrom, tirst Hebrew, 169
Political, racial and social prejudices, 57
Polygamy, 407-409 ; Belgian Congo, xix;
practice of, 405
Pope, mystic powers of, 111
Pope, Rev. Hugh, on indu’;rcnce, 516
Popes
and Their
Church,
516
Portrait-taking
taboo among early tribes,
138-140
Powell, Rev. John A., Jr., on sins, 227, 401
Powers, of Catholic Church, 155; of magicians, 107; of parents, superstitions, 334
Praise of God, 123
Prayers and religion, 120
Preachers, crimes by, 360-362
Preachers
Present Arms, 371
Precepts
of
Ptahhotep,
334
Prediction of murder, 359; of suicides, 361
Pregnancy, taboos during, 298
Prejudices, racial, political and social, 57;
vanishing of, xii
Preservation of oneself, 343-346
Prevalence of suicide, 359-362
Priestcraft,
5 17
Priests, celibacy of, 433; magical powers
of, 10, 107, 111, 183; sexual conduct of,
422-434 ; solicitation by, in confessional.
434 ; thievery by, 520 - ’
Primitive
Primitive
Primitives
C&we.
174
Mentaliiy;%?9,
587-590
and the Supenaatuval,
560,
588
Primitive
tribes,
xviii-xx,
of
parents,
326,
11)8,
17.V177,
12,
lOG,
586l&5+
200, 378-443, 450-454; animistic beliefs, 378; and forces of nature, 125;
blood taboo, 372; ceremonies of, 12, 34,
379, 450-454; character of gods of, 1.20;
chieftains of, 109; childbirth purification,
300-304 ; circumcision
among, 300 ;
code of, 548-553; covetousness among,
576, 582; crimes in, 176; customs of
modestv. 450454:
customs of names.
189-197;
customs of virginity, 4435
ethics of, 547, 552; evil in, 12c; gods of,
34, 39, 122-125, 175; heretics in, 127;
images, 129-136; inherited resemi>lance
in, 126; justified killing,. 348; killing,
344-319; magic and rebgmn
of, 35 61;
man-god of, 108j morality, 354, 442;
names in, 183 ; nickname, 186 ; on perjury, 231; plurality of gods, 175; position
334;
privilege
uf
first night among, 444-447; religion of,
108; religious belief, honor of parents,
328; rituals of, 106; royal blood, 382 ;
Sabbath day of. 256-75X: sacrifices in.
64, 106, 124; ‘sanctuaries, 384; secret
names, 187 ; self-preservation in, 344;
sensitiveness of gods, 122; sexual standards, 127, 407, 444-450: slain man in.
392 i status of women in, 289-298; steal:
ing taboos, 501, 506-512 ; superstitions
of,
140-108;
snprditinns
of names, 189-198; sympathetic magic
in, 125; taboos against strangers, j5L
55’7; taboo on images, 129; tests of
INDEX
legitimacy of offspring, 412; “trial by
ordeal,” 411; use of blood in ceremonies
of, 34; visions of gods among, 34
Prison sentence, for book sale on blasphemy,
219
Privilege, of the first night, 444-447 ; Hebrew, under Herod the Great, 163
Profanity forbidden, 225-238
Professional preacher thieves, 5’19-523
Prohibition,
of images and sympathetic
magic, 128-136; on Sabbath, 275-282
Prologue to the Commandments, 58
Promiscuity, of animals, xxii; standards of,
399, 447
Promise, moral integrity, 153 ; threat, 146153
Property, killing for, 348; rights, 502
Prophylactics against evil, 598-605
Propitiation, acts of, and jealousy, 122
Propitiatory phrases, 595
Prospective mother, superstitions of, 466
Prostitution, sacred and profane, 415-420
Protestant, image worship, 144; versus
Catholic marriaqes, adulterous, 406 ; ‘Jersion, versus Hebrew and Catholic, 22-32,
205
Proudhon, on war, 371
Proverbs
on theft, 489
Provincial taboo, 455
Psalms, 3 76
Psalms I, Superstitions, 203
Psychic manifestations of Kiowa Indians, 5
Psychological Aspects of Jewish Protective
Phrases, 582, 593
Psychology
of Religious
Mysticism,
Psychology
of Sex, 415, 424, 439,
Psychopathin
Sexualis, 499
5, 427
498
Ptolemies, marriage customs of, 454
PubIic works, Herod the Great, 159
Punishment, Biblical sanction, 367 ; capital,
366; for sacrilege, 127; for violating the
Sabbath, 310-313; glorified, 153-156;
in Athens, 384 ; of the innocent, 125128; unto third, fourth generation, 325
Purification after childbirll~,
298-3114;
by
circumcision, 300 ; ceremony of primitive
tribes, 379; forms of, 3, 298-304, 3’3,
393; of clothes, 393; sexual, 298-303
Puritan Christians, tanatical beliefs of, $ lo314
Purity, of tribe, 329; sexual, of women,
442-447
Pythia of Delphi, rituals of, 5
R
Rabbis, taboo on images, 129
Racial and religious prejudices, 548-564;
religious sectarianism, 5 73 ; political and
social prejudices, 57
Rationalism,
519,
560
Rebuilding of Temple of Solomon, 162
Records of solicitation in confessional, 434436
Red Sea, parting of, 99-104
Reflections, shadows in primitive tribes,
136-140
Reformation, brothels in time of, 417;
Catholicism, 143
Reformed Church, 401
Refuge, towns of, 384
Relation
526
Rekion.
between
&sires,
423-428;
Morality
and
Intellect,
587
Religion; e&d magic, 107; and prayers, 120;
and thievery, 5 14-52 7 ; magical origin,
183
Religion
and Roguery,
519
Religion
in Primitive
Society,
189, 196,
290, 328
Religious, and racial prejudices, 548-564,
573 ; antipathy, 548-564;
ceremonial
rites, 417, 598; ceremonies, sanctity of
Sabbath, 271-298; strangers taboo at,
540-555;
delusions, homicidal mania,
351-354; failure in ethics, 577: fanaticism, 422-432,562-564;
festivals, women
taboo at, 290-292; killing, 351; laws
on marriage, 406 ; orders against sexual
persecution,
285-288;
prostitutes, 417 ; rites of circumcision,
298-301; sects against sex, 429; sexual
festivals, 420; superstition. 178; symbol,
cross, 141; taboos, 274-286; ware, 370
“Religious Scruples,” poem, 2 53
Reliquary,
Re.x.s;h;;i”to
The,
518
the
Early History
of Man-
Respe; for age, 335
Rest Davs:
Morn&,
A Studv
in
255, Xii-265,
Earlv
Law
and
28i
Restriction of social institutions, 178
Revelation, Divine, xii, xiv, 339
Revenge, blood, 379
Reward for obedience to parents, 336-339:
for observance, 120, 147; for virtue, 337
Rhys, Joseph, on fakery, 518
Richards, Governor John G., on the Sabbath, 316
Ricket, Charles, on circumcision, 301
Riegelman, Supreme Court Justice Edward,
on presentation of scroll, 32
Kight, wrong, understanding of, 354
Righteous, unrighteous wars, 366
Rise
of the Dutch
Republic,
The, 14.5
Ritual. Catholic, cross, 141; expiation of
sin, 298; Hebrew, 3-12; of circumcision,
298-303 ; of sexual promiscuity, 421;
taboos, observance of by children, 331
INDEX
640
Rites, ceremonial religious, 296-292, 5’98;
circumcision, religious, 298-301; fertility
ceremony, 417-420; sanctity of Sabbath,
271-298
Roback, on the “evil eye,” 582, 593
Robbery, by churchmen, 519-52’;
types
of, 480-505
Rodrigues, Engracia, torture of, 287
Roman Catholic Church, baptismal rite of,
598; on heretics, 5.57; records of sex
pleasures, 428 ; Sabbath of, 308
Roman conquest of Jerusalem, 158; culture, 140; rule, yoke of, 56; statues, Hebrews destroy, 165
Roman Emperor, Caligula, 167
Romans, adultery doctrines of, 40.5
Romans,
on lying, 515
Romulus, 60
Roosevelt, President Franklin Delano, 212 ;
on Japanese infamy, 548
Roseneau, William, on Jewish customs, 301
Royal blood, primitive tribes, 382
Ruggieri, Cosmo, accusation of, 13.5
Russia, childbirth taboos in, 304
Sabbatarians, 347
Sabath, Judge, on happy marriages, xv
Sabbath,
and Chlistiauity,
307-32 1 ; associated with numeral “seven,”
247, 266;
Babylonian, 254; born on the, 304; observance of, 49, 241-308; of Ga, Gold
Coast, called dsu, 257 ; prohibitions on,
275-280; punishment for violating, 310314; sanctity of, 271-298; sex conduct
on, 398; superstitions, 272-282, 310319; taboos of, 254, 326
Sabbatk
in PuGtaR New England,
314
Sacerdotal celibates, 433
Sa;$r, l$$am T.rnn, on Jews in Egypt,
Sacred, and profane prostitution, 415-420;
belief in moon, 254-264; names of gods,
prostitution,
Sargon the Elder of Babylonia, first Semitic
king, 60
Satan, author of sin. 368
Savages, sexual conduct -of, 45&
Savonarola, denunciation of, 431
Scapegoat, The, 605
Schmidt, Father Johannes, murderer, 435
Schools,
.*. teaching of Ten Commandments,
xx111
Scientific
Monthly,
on primitive tribes, xx
Scotland, misconduct in, 128
Scottish Highlands, image beliefs, 136
Scripture, pacifism in, 371
Second Commandment, observance of, Hebrews, 156-172 ; Catholics omit, 27
Second Deadly Parallel, The, 207
Second Tables of Stone and a forgotten set
of Commandments, 43-52
Secret, names in primitive tribes, 187; of
circumcision, 298-303
Sectarian vs. universal brotherhood, 571
Seducers,
3
199-197;
Sandburg, Carl, on “Stonewall”
Jackson
and the Sabbath, 315
Sar4r;y4y;. William W., on prostitution,
417
Sacrifices, and fear, 64, 65; blood, ?I, 142,
299, 378, 385; human, 106, 109, 351;
of Lamb, 106, 378; of primitive trit i,
G4, 106; ritualistic, 36, 64, 106-124;
sheep, 385; to primitive gods, 124
Sacrilege, punishment for. 127
Sadism of the Bible Deity, i19
“Sailors’ Ten Commandments,” xvii
Salvation, gaining of Christian, 402
Samoyeds of Siberia, rituals of, 5
Samuel, Book of, 235, 326, 377, 580, 502
Sanctification. forms of. 3-S
Sanctity of the Sabbath, 271-298
Sanctuary, establishment of, 383-385
pay
with
life,
“43
Sefer Yezirah, performing miracles, 199
Self-defense, justice, wars of, 365; killing,
348, 367
Self-mortification, 4
Self-preservation, fundamental law of, 344;
killing, 343-346
Seneca, on accidental killing, 315.5: on
punishing the innocent, 128; on virtue,
338
Sensitiveness of primitive gods, 122
Seton, Ernest Thompson, naii, 511
“Seven,” and the Sabbath, 266-268 ; superstition of number. 148, 268-270
Seventh Commandment aud Child, 472
Seventh Day Advcntiata,
308-S 10
Seventh day, birth on, 304; laws for, 272285; of worship, 241-25.5, 266; sanctity
of, 273; which , 247
Seventh General Council, 787 A.& 26
Sex, conduct of animals, xxii; conduct in
primitive tribes, 127; conduct on Sabbath, 398; discussion of, 397; inhibitions,
398; knowledge imparted to children,
473-475; knowledge of, 397; passion,
400; sin of, 397; superstitions, 397
Sexual complex, kleptomania, 407
Sexual conduct, adultery, 401, 403-415,
440, 458, 472; at confessional, 433 ; celibacy, 421-429;
chastity, 44.2 ; erotic
adultery,
437-440;
fidelity
and
unfaith-
fulness, 453; group marriage, 452; hospitality prostitution, 451 ; Incest, 412,
430, 454; in confessional, 433-437;
INDEX
modesty, 450; of bride, 441-447;
of
savages, 450; privilege of the first night,
444 ; promiscuity, 447 ; religious celebrations, 416-422 ; sacred and profane prostitution, 415-42 1; sympathetic magic,
455, 458, 462-472; taboos! 455, 458,
465 ; uninhibited, 448452 ; vnginity, 440
Sexual, corruption at Confessional, 433 ;
customs of mankind, 44&454;
hospitality, 451; morality in primitive tribes,
450, 458; perversion, 403, 430, 454456; promiscuity, 418-420; purification,
298-303 ; relation, suppression of, 422432 ; repression, 438; standards, 441450: taboos. 404
Seiiil
Life oj .&ages, 450
Sexual Relations of Mankind,
tke. 412,
425, 446
Shackles
of the Suaernatural.
Tke.
179
Shadows, reflection’s, images, i36-i4;
Shakespeare, William, on adultery, 408; on
coveting, .610; on ignorance; .307; on
illegitimacy, 414; on prostitution, 416
Shaw, Bernard, on honesty, 487
Sheep, sacrificral, 385
Shelley. Percy Bysshe, court ruling to, 223
Siamese coins, images on, 136
Siam, King of. as deitv. 110
Siam; sex conduct in, 408; Sabbath (Wan
Hra), 257
Simpson, Dr. James Y., on use of chloroform, 306
Sinai, Mount, journey of Moses to, 103109 ; tables given at, xii-xiv; thunder,
lightning of, 338
Sin. of Adam and Eve, 129: of Sabbath
violators, 275-279; of sex, 397; of stealing and removal of landmarks, 505; of
suicide, 361
Sixth Commandment,
clergy, 365-372;
war, 365-372
Size of two stone tablets, 116
SIain man, ceremonies for, 392
Slaughter, wholesale, war, 367
Slavery, 56-58, 546
Sleeman, Sir W. H., on integrity, 549
Smith, Alfred, on religion, xiii
Smith, Dr. Sidney, on Jews in Egypt, 105
Smith, C. Elliot, on human relntionship, xix,
xxi
Smith, J. M. Powis, on landmarks., 505
Smith, W. Robertson, on monothersm, 174
Smithson, James, ill&Lirnale, 414
Social, adjustment, 493; economic cause of
murder, 359; institutions, restrictions of,
178; political, and racial prejudi-es, 57 ;
status of primitive tribes, xviii
Social
and
A, 106
Religious
History
of
tke
Jews,
641
Social Background of the Old Testament,
301
Social Control
of Sexual Expression,
407,
417, 429, 448, 462
Socrates, indebted to courtesan, 419; on
punishing the innocent, 128
Solidarity of Hebrew tribes, 540, 552
Solomon, adultery of, 400, 407; as iilegitimate, 414; Songs of, 271; temple of, 162,
38.5
Sorcerer, weapon of, 581, 583
South American magicians, 109
Spanish Christian butchery of Jews, 286
Spanish Inquisition, Expulsion of Hebrews,
285-287
Split-paternity, thesis on, 413
Stalin, Joseph, Ten Commandments for the
Bolsheviks, xv
Standard Bible Dictionary, name of God,
211
Statues, Roman, Hebrews destroy, 165;
stones, held for killing, 355
Stealina. as atavism. 494-497:
kleatoman&s, 497-500; taboo in tribal society,
501; types of, 479-533
Steiner, Franklin, on crimes, 361, 519
Steinmetz, Ruth, murdered by priest, 436
Stoics, philosophy of, 571
Stone, Harlan F., U. S. Supreme Court
Chief
Jmtiw,
482
Stone, Two Tables of, inscribed by God,
114
Stones, statues, held for killing, 355
Story
of Fire,
179
Story
of tke Ten
Story of Joseph, on blood pollution, 37.5
Story of Law, 505. 609
Story oj Reli$oui
Controversy,
518
CommandmenL~,
5.58, SGG
Strabo, on ancient barbaric rites, 251
Stranger tabooed in tribal societv, 551
Streicher, Herr, fanatical anti-Semite, 563
Strife. vanishment of. xii
Striniberg, August, illegitimacy of, 414
Studies
in Deceit,
526
Slrnday
and the Sabbath
Suicide, among all ages. 361: Catholic
Church, 361; motives for, 362; prevalence of, 359-362; prediction of, 361;
sin of, 361
Question,
308
Supernatural powers, 65-108, 110
Superstitions, about kings, 111; about menstruous women, 291-798; basis of, 201203; blood, 84, 95, 142, 300, 372 396,
458; bondage of children of Egypt, 105;
guilty, adultery, 412 ; hunting, 462-464;
images, 130-138; in China, 127; mixing
meat and milk, 459-462 ; monuments UT,
144; observance of Sabbath, 266; of full
moon, 2.54-265; of Hebrews, 131, 146,
INDEX
173,285-288; of mirrors, 138; of names,
183-194; of number “seven,” 148, 266272; of primitive tribes, 108, 123-131,
254-265 ; of prospective mother, 466;
on adultery, 458-464; power of parents,
334; sex, 397; taboos, 458-464;. tyranny
;;Lyy;3of Sabbath, 285-288 ; wrtchcraft,
Suppression of happiness! 397
Supreme Council of Spanish Inquisition, 433
Swancara, Frank, obstruction of justice by
religion, 222, 564
Swearing, oath-taking, 229-234
Symbol, Christian, lamb, 141; Hebrew,
Magen-David, 159 ; religious, cross, 141
Sympathetic magic, animism, 183, 189, 197,
299, 386-394; belief in, 125-128, 230234, 325, 334, 458-464, 508, 597-599,
601; between parents and children, 325 ;
complementary examples of, 469; in
primitive tribes, 125, 386-394, 508; of
names, 184; prohibition of images, 128;
tribal filial obedience, 334-336
System
of Ethics,
558
Synod of Elvira, 141
T
Tables of Stone, First, 32
Tablet, Tke, xiv
Taboo
and the Perils
590, 603
Taboo, animism,
rnunterncting,
of the Soul,
372;
2 74 ; for
304,
555,
blood,
372-386;
thieves,
507-500
;
xvii; conflicting arrangement of, 22-32 ;
designed to hold customer good will, xvi;
for the American school teachers, xvi;
for a successful marriage, xvi; for bankers,
xvi ; for engaged girls, xv ; for housewives
with servants, xvi; for husbands, xvii;
for mothers, xv; for my master, xvii; for
the police, xvi; for social justice, xvii; for
successful wives, xvi; for “The American
Jew,” xvi, xvii; for the New Year, xvii;
for wintertime health, xvi ; for wives, xvi ;
for young girls, xvii; moral and ethical
value, xxiii-xxvi; of the animal world,
xxii, 511; of democracy, xvi; of good
posture, xvi; of hunters, xv; of love, xv;
of natural education, xv; on how to be
happy and married, xv
Ten Commandments, The, consistency of,
343 ; contradiction on method of presentation, 33 ; explanation of, xii, l-21 ; on
blasphemy, 212, 226-230;
on law of
God, 116, 121; on murder, 360; on
pumshment, 336; on sexual conduct,
399-401; prologue to, 58; revealed in
Book of Deuteronomy,
13-22; revealed
in Book of Exodus, 2-13; violation of,
488, 515-517, 611
Teraldion, R. Haninan, punishment for mispronouncing God’s name, 208
Terhune, Albert Pnysnn,
on ten rommnndments for dogs, xvii
Theft, Law and Society,
490
Thescus, on heaven-sent calamity, 128
Thievery
and
religion,
512
527
Hebrew images, 130; images, Church
Fathers, 129, 140; image of person, 129;
images in primitive tribes, 129; in tribal
Thieves, church leaders as, 519-523; King
of, marriage of, 481
Third Commandment and oaths, 229-238
society
Tlrur~wr~,
against
strangers,
551;
killing,
372; menstruous women, 291-298; of
modesty, 450, 459; name of dead, 189;
names, 140, 183, 189; of ceremonies, 4,
326, 458; of Sabbath, 326; of sexual
conduct! 4, 404; of virginity defloration,
444; prrmitive tribes, 129, 372, 458-465,
551; provincial, 455-460;
ritual, observance of by children, 331; Sabbath,
254, 272-282, 310-314;
sexual, 397458 ; stealing, 5.1 ; superstitions, among
Hebrew tribes, 146, 373-.1X6; symnathetic magic, 458-465; violating names
of gods, 191
Taboo, Magic, Spirits, 290
Taft, Donald A., on criminology, 529
Taine, Hippolyte, on Sabbath, 311
Taking God’s name in vain, 237
Taylor, Jeremy, on war, 370
Temple, David, violaliun lo build,
385
Temple, Solomon, building of, 162, 385
Ten Commandments, concerning the cow,
Sir
Basil,
on criminals,
493
Threat, promise and rewards, 146-153; to
Children of Israel, 329
Three Hundred Stories to Tell, 492
Three Plagues, The, 84-89
Tiberius, Emperor, on statues, 158
Time reckoned by moon, 260
Timothy,
Book of, in support of slavery, 57
Title versus name of God, 2 11
Tolerance of Herod the Great, 160
Torah, name of God, in scroll, 199
Toral,
Jo& de Leon, assassin, 370
Tornadoes, death by, 345
Torture, for Sabbath observance, 287; sex,
42 l-429
Totcm
bond
rclativc
to marriage,
559
Tower of Babel, confusion of languages in,
176
To&rs of refuge, 384
Trachtenberg, Joshua, on religious superstitions, 130, 198, 216, 271, 293, 579,
590, 596-601
INDEX
Trent, Council of, Catechism of, 328
Trial, condemned for relieving child-birth
pains, 307; confession of assassin, 370;
for Sabbatical observances, 286-288 ;
murder, 370; murder of animals, 355;
of unbeliever, 564; on blasphemous book,
218; on mercy killing, 349
Tribal filial obedience, sympathetic magic,
334-336; gods, belief in, 113 ; honor to
parents, 332; law, clannishness of, 544;
purity, 329 ; significance of “neighbor,”
537-540, 550; society taboos strangers,
511; sohdarity of Hebrews, 540-543
Tribute of honor, 339
Truth, guardians of, 231
Truth
Seeker,
247,
353
Twain, Mark, on saints and statues, 228
“Twilight sleep” opposition to, 178
Twins, adulterous concept of, 409
Two tables of stone and artists, 114-l 16
Tylor, Edward B., History
of Mankind,
124, 133, 184, 185, 187, 188, 195, 300,
471, 592
Tyndale, translator of Bible, 26
Tyranny
of Priestly
Celibacy,
433
U
Unchastity, penalty for, 441
Uncleanliness, of blood, 385; of childbirth,
298; of menstruation, 291-298
Understanding of right versus wrong, 354
Universal brotherhood,
571; concept of
monotheism,
173
Unleavened bread? 106
Up from
Methodurn,
316
Vagaries of Bible Deity, 174
Vanitv of God. 119
of R&i&s
Experience,
6
Veddahs, social status of, xviii
Vegetarians, on killing, 345
Veronica’s Veil, fakery of, 517
Victoria, Queen, worshiped as a divinity,
110
Victory over heresy, I42
Vincent,
Saint,
prudishness
Walker, James J., present of golden scroll
to, 32
Wallis, Wilson D., on primitive religion, 189,
196, 290
War, against Hebrews on Sabbath, 283285
War, Bibles, 369; God of, 387; Hebrew,
against Midian, 388; honors given for,
369-372; judgment of God, 370; of
justice in self-defense, 365 ; religious,
370; righteous, unrighteous, 366; rules
and methods of, 386; Sixth Commandment, 365-372 ; spoils of, 388; wholesale
slaughter, 367; World War I, 366
Warfare of Science with Theology, 179, 244,
306, 607
Wars of the Jews, 159, 163, 167, 168, 169,
28.3
-__
Warsaw, Rabbi Isaac, on reverence, 228
Washington, Booker T., illegitimate, great
educator, 414
Washinrrton. President Georee. as ereat
leader, 55; violating Sabbath,‘312 Watt, James, violating Sabbath, 313
Webster, Hutton, on the Sabbath, 255, 257,
261-265, 281.
Week,
of,
309
Violating the Sabbath, punishments for,
310-314
Virginity, customs and signs of, 42 1, 441
Virgin Mary, with child, 402, 415, 423;
worship of, 143, 144
Virtue, reward for, 337; surmounting obstacles, 411
Vision of God., 3, 7, 34
Voice of Sinat, The, 113, 225, 307, 334,
487, 610
The, 250
Weicall, Arthur, on paganism. 309
Wesley, John, on witchcraft, 582
Westermarck, on holy wars, 370-372, ,380;
on justified killing, 348 ; on marriage,
406-408; on morals, 123, 215, 195, 501,
507, 525, 545, 572; on primitive gods
and customs, 39, 530, 559-561;
on
punishment, 354, 479; on religious ceremonies,
V
Varieties
W
289
; on
religious
prostitution,
418; on sexual expression, 429, 443-455;
on superstition, 135, 231-233, 2.57, 333,
392, 463, 507, 510
Weygel, Catherine, burned for blasphemy,
217
What Constitutes a Theft, 479
Wheelwright, Prof. Philip, on stealing, 479
Wheless, Joseph, on forgery, 519
White, A. D., on religious superstitions, 179,
244, 306; on warfare, 607
Whitehead,
George,
on
warfare,
366
“Whoring,” primitive meaning, 47
Wickersham. George W.. on moral code. xiii
Willard, Daniel, on theft, 488
Williams,
Rev.
David
Rhys,
“Decalogue of
Science,” xvii
William III, on superstition, 111
Wilson, John A., on Jews in Egypt, 105
Wilson,
Leighton,
on
age,
335
Wisbart, Kenneth, on commandments
cows, xvii
for
644
INDEX
Witchcraft, belief in, 412, 581-584
Witches, determining of, 412 ; preparing of
images by, 131
Wives, and the Sabbath. 288-304: sexual
hospitality of, 444, 451; taboos ‘against,
pregnant, 280, 289-307
Women, adulterous, 412-420; during menstruation, 291-298; in early Hebrew society, 289; morality of, 412-453; promiscuity of, 420-422, 440-453 ; religious
prostitution of, 415-42 1; religious sexual
rites of, 42 7-429 ; sexual hospitality,
451; status of, 289-298, 456; stifling
sexual desires by mutilation, 427-429;
superstitious powers of moon by, 263265; suspected of witchcraft, 412 ; taboos
for Hebrew, 280, 289-293, 305-307.
W;;Fridge,
Rev. Charles J., on morahty,
World War I, made by Christian leaders,
366
Worship, First Commandment basis of, 114 ;
image, Middle Ages, 143 ; Image, Protestant, 144; of ancestors, 335; of God,
119; of gods, penalty for, 332; of images,
120-153; of primitive gods, 123; many
sods. Hebrews. 177
Wrath ‘of God, 326.
Wrong, right, understanding of, 354
Wvnne, Dr. Shirley W., N. Y. C., Health
Commissioner, xvi
Y
Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement, 468
York, Archbrshop of, on death penalty, 367
Young, Brigham, polygamy of, 408
Z
Zane, John M., on the law, 505, 609
Zenos, Prof. Andrew C., on analysis of
Decalogue, 15
Zoroaster, on menstruous women, 293, 297