B: 3rd Sun in Lent (7 March 2021) - BEYOND BEING PROHIBITIONS (Exo 20:1-17)

There is one incident in my elementary days that reminds me of the formulation of the Decalogue. As part of our periodical examination in the subject Good Manners and Right Conduct, our teacher asked us to enumerate the Ten Commandments as found in Exodus 20 in proper sequential order. As far as I know, there was only one among us who made the list correctly (it was not me). It was my classmate Wilfredo (who already joined our Creator some years ago). However, our teacher did not give him a perfect ten. To the complaint he soon raised concerning his grade, our teacher responded that she had to mark his answers wrong because, instead of using the Filipino word “Huwag” (i.e., “Do not”), he used its colloquial slang equivalent “Wag”. Meanwhile, this scene left a lasting stamp on me until now: Never to take lightly the lexical importance of every biblical word, even the seemingly trivial ones.

In a close reading of the Decalogue in the Exodus, one can notice that a real emphasis is given on the negative marker “Do not” (Greek: ou; Hebrew: lo’), repeated eleven times in the first seventeen verses of Exodus. This detail informs us of the intent of the biblical author to prohibit the Israelites from performing the actions listed, lest they offend God, their great deliverer from Egypt (Exo 20:2). Yet, there is something more beyond a simple implementation of Yahweh’s rules and regulations. Prohibitive commands can also be a powerful mechanism in group identity, i.e., things-that-people-do-not-do contradistinguish their agents from others who used-to-do-these-things, creating, ipso facto, distinguishing parameters of their community-identity.

This dynamic of affiliation/disaffiliation is formally employed in the Social Identity Theory. Its pioneer, Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1970s), recognize that group members tend to sustain a strong adherence to their own group when their traits and practices are held in contrast to non-members’ attributes. In effect, the ingroup’s qualities become markers of their common identity: they describe who they really should be, different from non-observing outsiders.

Seen in the same way, the Ten Commandments are not only Yahweh’s strict ordinances per se; they, more importantly, define God’s own people. In the pre-monarchic period, most peoples of the Ancient Near East were tolerant of actions that we classify as immoral or sinful in today’s moral standard. They would have multiple gods and idols, handily kill enemies (even kinsfolk), live promiscuously, manipulate the truth when serviceable, and be greedy with material wealth. While the Code of Hammurabi was already practiced in the greater civilization, its philosophical basis is the so-called lex talionis or the law of retaliation, i.e., an eye for an eye, that institutionalizes killing as a deterrent for societal disorder and as means in seeking justice.

Conversely, the Decalogue mandates a set of counter-cultural ordinances for Yahweh-believers, protecting not only the value of human life (v. 13), but love for and integrity of religion (vv. 3-8), creation (vv. 17), work (vv. 10-11), family (vv. 12, 14, 17), property (vv. 15, 17), and community (v. 16). Thus, the crux is by looking at the Ten Commandments not as a meticulous suppression of human freedom, but as an authentic marker of our identity as God’s children, we can easily appreciate and observe each of them. The words of Jesus echo well this point: “Love one another…. By this everyone will know you are my disciples” (Jn 13:34-35).

- Rex Fortes, CM