A reader recently asked us to critique an item by Dan Barker (famously silent atheist) he (not Barker) titled "What's Wrong With the Ten Commandments". This is quite topical in light of recent events in Alabama, though from what the reader passed to us, does not seem to have been an impetus for Barker's commentary.

It is Barker's initial mandate that only "three of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to American law: homicide, theft, and perjury. (Adultery and Sabbath laws are still on the books in some states, but they are anachronisms.)" Presumably Mrs. Barker agrees about adultery being an anachronism, but in any case, we can begin by stating the obvious: Of course only a few of the 10 C's have any direct relevance to American law. And the law itself is of only a certain amount of relevance to us anyway; on that note see here; and of interest as well this item recommended by a reader). Nevertheless, as we note in that article, beyond the laws that Barker or anyone else still considers relevant, the law remains a marker for us of what values God holds to. We no longer enforce the penalties, but we still know what actions displease God. It will not be our place here to comment on relevance of the law to American jurisprudence otherwise, or what is being made of the 10 C's in Alabama or wherever; for the nonce we will simply take a look at some of Barker's retorts, and offer comments.

First Commandment: "Thou shalt not have no other gods before me." This was spoken by Elohim (ironically, a plural name for the God El), Who is the "Lord" (Jehovah, the Jewish national name for God) and is equivalent of establishing the nation of Israel, not the United States of America. It can be taken as either monotheistic (only one God) and in any case is contrary to the American constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and against an establishment of religion.

As usual Barker is far behind the times on such issues as monotheism (see here) and the use of Elohim (despite the plurality, the name is always accompanied by verbs in the singular, indicating a plurality of power or majesty; see more here). One may also take issue with Barker's claim that the constitution "guarantees" freedom of conscience (the word is not even present in the Constitution!) and what exactly "establishment of religion" means. But that is beside the point, for in the main sense Barker is correct: The First Commandment is a rule only for the theocracy that has signed the covenant treaty with Yahweh; under the new covenant, whether to have no other gods before Yahweh is now a personal decision and is not to be legislated. Nevertheless as noted above, it does still tell us what God demands.

Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." This statement, ironically appears on a graven image monolith of the Ten Commandments in many locations. As a law it would violate free speech.

As elsewhere Barker is misinformed about the nature and purpose of graven images. But as above, he is also in the main sense correct, for the same reason as above.

Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain." This would be like prohibiting criticism of the president or other public officials. It is contrary to free speech.

Actually, taking a name in vain is nothing like "criticism" at all; but in the main sense this is correct for the same reason as the previous two. Score zero for Barker on exegesis and history, and one point for the other reasons, which are only correct by accident.

Fourth Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day." The Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. According to the Biblical application of the law, millions of Americans deserve capital punishment.

To that sound bite we point the reader here for the Sabbath issue, and for application to the first article linked above. And so, after rounding off comments on C 1-4 with more about how he reads the establishment clause, we get to more practical matters:

Fifth Commandment: "Honor thy father and mother: that thy days may be long upon the land," is the first statement in the Decalogue that approaches morality, although there are no details here explaining exactly how to honor parents. Do we obey them in everything? How long do we obey them? Until they die? There is obviously some merit in the idea expressed by this commandment, but there is precious little guidance here beyond a general principle that parents should be respected. Isn't this just another variation of the Bible's "respect authority" message? Wouldn't a moral principle suggest that you should not do anything to hurt your parents, that you should not take advantage of them, and that you should treat them with the basic respect deserved by all human beings? What if your parents are uneducated and poor advisors? What if they are evil? We all know that some parents do not deserve to be honored or obeyed. How do you "honor" a father who commits incest? Notice also that the rationale "that thy days may be long," is an appeal to self interest, not to the value of parents as human beings.

• "...although there are no details here explaining exactly how to honor parents. Do we obey them in everything?" Barker's lack of knowledge is his own problem; within the context of the ancient world, "honor" had a very specific meaning and very specific means, as it does in modern Japan and in honor-shame societies worldwide. His complaint of "precious little guidance" comes of his not living in an agonistic culture himself. We also wonder in any event whether he has a dictionary in which he can look up "honor" and whether Barker can even so figure out how to honor others, including parents.
• It is complained then, ironically, "Wouldn't a moral principle suggest that you should not do anything to hurt your parents, that you should not take advantage of them, and that you should treat them with the basic respect deserved by all human beings?" If Barker had any knowledge of agonistic cultures, he would realize that he just named three implementative principles of honoring someone.
• "What if your parents are uneducated and poor advisors? What if they are evil?" On that sort of issue goes; as elsewhere, this is Barker pretending that because he can come up with creative "exceptions" to the rule that he has somehow made the rule look inadequate. As we showed in the dialogue here between Michael Martin and Confucius, this is carping. Pestering the laws with endless "what if" questions would render "absurd" everything from the Code of Hammurabi to the Roman Ten Tables to the statutes of every state in the US.
• "Notice also that the rationale 'that thy days may be long,' is an appeal to self interest, not to the value of parents as human beings." That's rather interesting as a complaint, because there isn't a single statute that says, "obey this because your potential victim has value as a human being" and not one that does not use fines or other punishments as an incentive (i.e., appeals to self-preservation!). So presumably Barker now wants to toss all of our statutes because of their appeal to self-interest and because they do not engage in atomizing philosophy.

Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" is the first genuine moral statement in the decalogue, although it is unqualified. Does this mean that capital punishment is wrong? What about self defense? What about war? What about euthanasia requested by the terminally ill? The drawback of this law is--good laws make distinctions. Since the actions and commandments of God burst with bloodthirstiness, this commandment seems to lose its import. Besides, prohibitions or murder existed long before the Ten Commandments or the Israelites appeared on the scene. It is not as if the human race never would have figured out that it is wrong to kill without some tablets coming down from a mountain. Laws against murder and manslaughter, based on self preservation and social stability, have found their way into almost every culture, before and after Moses, and it would be odd if the Israelites did not have a similar principle.

• To answer Barker's many "what ifs" beyond the above point, see here. Barker says "good laws make distinctions" but he is obviously nitpicking in a way that also makes other ancient law codes "bad" because they do not go to the level of detail he as a low-context modern thinks they should. It is once again a good idea to remind the reader of the nature of ancient law codes, as expressed in Hillers' Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea:

  ..(T)here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them

  Therefore, Barker's expectations are as usual misplaced.

• "Besides, prohibitions or murder existed long before the Ten Commandments or the Israelites appeared on the scene. It is not as if the human race never would have figured out that it is wrong to kill without some tablets coming down from a mountain." That's also looking for any way to complain, as no doubt if there were NOT a law against murder or killing in the 10Cs, Barker would make issue of it not being in the law at all.

Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is also a good idea, though it hardly merits the death penalty: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulterous shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10) Adultery involves a broken promise between two individuals and has nothing to do with a government. In many, if not most, cases it is destructive to a relationship and affects children if the marriage falls apart as a result. (Other things, such as fundamentalism, can cause the same problem.) But adultery by consenting adults does not fall into the category of malicious or harmful felonies. It is a legitimate concern of ethics; but it is no crime. Why don't the Ten Commandments mention rape? What about incest? Why don't they tell husbands that it is immoral to force an unwilling wife to have intercourse? Why doesn't the Bible say that it is wrong for you to have sex, even with your spouse, if you knowingly have a sexually transmitted disease? Although adultery is important, does it rate the Big Ten?

• "Adultery involves a broken promise between two individuals and has nothing to do with a government. In many, if not most, cases it is destructive to a relationship and affects children if the marriage falls apart as a result." If Barker had a bit more imagination he might see how a government would take an interest in destroyed relationships and especially effects on children. If he were REALLY contextualized he might also imagine how such relationships affected the ancient world. The family unit was the key to survival. An adulterer not only was unfaithful but would have had to use time otherwise reserved for survival of the family unit to pursue their affairs. An adulterer could kill his family or harm them with such irresponsibility. Grown in effect such affairs could lead to the destruction of a society that was always on the brink of chaos, as was the case in the ancient world. Adultery is no longer this dangerous because of safeguards we now have in place (which actually bleed dry others -- welfare, social services), but it takes little thought to see that letting it go too much would result in greater destruction of the social fabric. Barker thinks it is just a "concern of ethics" because he lives in a comfortable world within which it is safe (for now!) to regard it as such. Now we wonder how he would stand on Mormon polygamists.
• "Other things, such as fundamentalism, can cause the same problem." By the note above, "fundamentalism" (whatever that is, as Barker does not define it) causes no such problems.
• "Why don't the Ten Commandments mention rape? What about incest? Why don't they tell husbands that it is immoral to force an unwilling wife to have intercourse? Why doesn't the Bible say that it is wrong for you to have sex, even with your spouse, if you knowingly have a sexually transmitted disease? Although adultery is important, does it rate the Big Ten?" In the ancient world, it certainly did; family survival was at stake; as for the rest, survival of society was not at stake, serious though such issues were. Not that these needed to be in the Top Ten to begin with. Rape was rare, because female members of the household were kept under close guard. Incest was already taboo and hardly common enough to warrant a prominent warning. Rape within marriage may be a worthy candidate, but barring Barker's access to the private sexual habits of the ANE world, how is he going to arrive at enough documentation to claim it is a "Top Ten" concern? Finally as for STDs, it is worth pointing out that the law against adultery (and by extension, fornication) if followed removes the need for such a law to begin with.
• A reader adds this note: "Regarding Barker's lack of understanding of the importance of laws against adultery to the ancient world: Has he ever heard of Helen of Troy? 10,000 ships, and all that?" Good point. The ships were a reaction to the dishonor of adultery. This raises another point: because "adultering" with another man's wife was an honor offense, adultery led to family feuds and more serious consequences. Therefore, all the more reason to make it Top Ten.

Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" is generally good advice, and makes good law. Except in wartime, most cultures, before and after the Bible, have observed statutes that respect the property of others. But what about exceptions? The Ten Commandments, couched in absolute terms, admit no exceptions. Would it be immoral to steal bread to feed your starving child? Robin Hood is a folk hero? Nevertheless, most cultures recognize that taking someone's rightful property without permission, in principle, is generally wrong. Do you think that without the Tablets from Mount Sinai it never would have dawned on the human race that stealing is wrong?

Once again Barker's demand for "exceptions" renders every ancient law code worthless by his reckoning, is disposed of by the comment of Hillers, and is just a complaint made up for the sake of creating a grievance. And as before, if it were lacking, he'd make an issue of that instead (as he did above with rape, etc.).

Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is also a generally good principle, but there is no universal law in America against telling lies. We have adequate laws against perjury and false advertising, and they are needed. But we all know that it is sometimes necessary to tell a lie in order to protect someone from harm. Lies in wartime are considered virtuous. If I knew the whereabouts of a woman who was being hunted by her abusive husband, I would consider it a moral act to lie to the man. True morality is able to weigh one principle against another and to judge their merits rationally. The Bible, on the other hand, makes absolute statements without admitting the possibility of ethical dilemmas. As with killing and stealing, most cultures through history have made honesty a high ideal, with or without the Ten Commandments.

There is tremendous irony here as Barker has elsewhere dig into Jesus for telling a lie (John 7:8-10) which in his cultural setting was the sort of virtuous act he writes of (see here). In any event, as above, Barker's manufactured grievances about statements of absoluteness renders every ancient law code worthless by his reckoning, and is again disposed of by the comment of Hillers, and as before, if it were missing, he'd complain as he did in #7 above.

Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." Notice that this treats a wife like property. It does not say, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's husband," because it is assumed that everything, including law, is directed at males. This is a plainly silly commandment. How can you command someone not to covet? Why? If stealing is wrong, then there is no need for this commandment. If I tell you that you have a beautiful house, and that I wish I had it for myself, is that immoral? (Some claim that "covet" in this verse more properly means "to cast an evil eye" or spell upon something, and should be viewed as a prohibition of sorcery. But the Hebrew word chamad, according to Strong's Concordance, means "to delight in: beauty, greatly beloved, covet, delectable thing, delight, desire, goodly, lust, pleasant, precious thing.")

• The idea that this "treats the wife like property" is false. Barker merely assumes that because the wife is listed with other items that are "property" that this makes the category of the list uniform. For a more judicious and contextually informed view, see this series.
• Re "directed at males," them presumably Barker thinks that a law like Ex. 22:1 ("If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.") means that if a woman steals and ox or sheep, she pays nothing. It IS a fact that within the social structure of the day, men were given the role of instructors within the family unit, so that in one sense it is indeed addressed to men, but this does not support Barker's implicit grievance of sexual bias.
• I do not know where Barker gets the bit about sorcery, but his classification of the command as "silly" merely demonstrates his own decontextualization. The ancient world was one of "limited good" -- resources were a zero-sum game, because there was neither the technology nor the ability to create wealth. Barker's musings about someone else's house are of little harm because he is able to go out and build one just like it, or earn the money to do so. The ancients did not have this option. Therefore, in the ancient world, the only way to receive a house like that person is to take it from them, and the result is envy, which in turn leads to social disruption, violence, and distraction from daily survival of one's self and one's family. In this setting a law against coveting was not only wise, but necessary.

In close, Barker raises the canard of a "different" set of 10Cs which we address here, and repeats the complaint that anyone could make up a list of laws like this. That much is true, but a series of decontextualized sound bites in no adequate reply. The 10Cs had their place in the ANE and represented the 10 most important aspects of order in the ancient world. They would not perhaps be our "Top Ten" but if we're going to say so, we'd best do better than Barker in explaining why.