The Ten Commandments and Religious Humanism
David Shasha
“For on this Day the Tablets have been Broken”: The Ten Commandments as a Paradigm of Religious Humanism
In the classic 1953 Hollywood Western “Shane” a mysterious figure appears on the screen and eventually helps to rid a town of corruption and violence. As American settlers moved into the West, conflicts began to arise between cattle ranchers who used the wide open spaces of the range, and dirt farmers who fenced off the land and the water in order to grow their crops. Shane arrives as a gunslinger whose aims are not quite clear at first. But he soon sees an opportunity to atone for what we assume are his many crimes by staying on as a hired hand working for one of the persecuted farmers. Shane stands up to the town bully and saves the farmers from dispossession.
In a more recent film, 2010’s “The Social Network,” another social misfit is presented on the movie screen. This time, by contrast, the Harvard undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg is caught up in a social world that he cannot seem to properly navigate. His difficulties stem from his inability to connect positively with his girlfriend. Zuckerberg is presented in the movie as arrogant, alienated, moody, despondent, frustrated, and prone to violent emotional outbursts. His girlfriend dumps him and he goes ballistic. He immediately goes to his computer where he blogs the most vile things about the girl. As this blog goes viral, other students take notice of Zuckerberg’s technical genius and a fully-blown campus event is born. A bunch of rich kids approach Zuckerberg to help them with an idea they have to form a social networking site on the Internet. Zuckerberg essentially takes up their offer and then goes out on his own – taking a friend as his financial partner – and looks to make what is called “The Facebook” his own private property. Once Zuckerberg’s duplicitous scheme is found out by the others mayhem and lawsuits ensue.
Shane and Mark Zuckerberg are prime examples of the American loner. Each of them emerges on the scene in a startlingly dramatic way and influences the social landscape in a profound way.
But the difference between the two characters could not be more obvious: Shane uses his social cachet to rid the town of a gang of toughs who want to send the farmers and their families packing, while Mark Zuckerberg – paradoxically – “invents” a massively successful social networking site on the Internet while he himself remains a social pariah; lost and alienated and full of bile and hatred for others.
Zuckerberg violates the Biblical sin of Covetousness: He wishes to hurt the people he sees as his enemies and take from them their dignity and resources which he will then deploy to his own personal advantage.
Shane sublimates his own anti-social and criminal tendencies and transforms them in a way that allows them to become socially useful.
Shane and Zuckerberg present to us two opposing paradigms of morality.
In the Hebrew Bible the most impressive paradigm of morality is the presentation of the Ten Commandments to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. We would do well to recall two other Biblical verses that will aid us in better understanding the Commandments.
The first verse is to be found in Genesis 1:27:
“And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
The second verse is found in Deuteronomy 22:4:
“If you see your fellow’s ass or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him raise it.”
As is known, the Ten Commandments are divided into two groups: The first five commandments regulate the relationship between human beings and God while the second set of five commandments regulates relations between human beings.
The first set of commandments begins with three laws that seek to affirm the identity of God. The great medieval sage Moses Maimonides composed his philosophical study The Guide of the Perplexed (Arabic, Dalalat al-Ha’irin) in large part to explain what is meant by the identity of God. Tellingly, Maimonides begins the very first chapter of the book with an analysis of the term “Zelem” which is the “image” of God that is used to create human beings.
The first commandment asserts the identity of God as totally transcendent. He is the God of history – who has taken you from Egypt – and the God of unity – there are no other gods beside Him.
Humanity is required to understand that there is a reality beyond what can be seen. It is not a reality that we are privy to, but it forces a certain reflection on the part of human beings that they do not fully control or fully comprehend their universe. It demands that we attain a critical humility and not arrogate for ourselves the role of the Deity.
In the Arab-Muslim tradition, which was an important factor in the development of Maimonides’ teachings, this Divine unity was promoted by the Ahl-al-Tawhid, the People of the Unity. Abraham, the son of Maimonides, brought to Egyptian Jewry an ancient liturgical ritual which he called Seder Tawhid that aimed to promote this precious idea of God’s unity.
The wording of the commandment, as taught by my teacher Rabbi Jose Faur, is unique as it establishes not the ontological or metaphysical presence of God, but asserts God as linguistically accessible. The first word of the commandment is the Hebrew “Anokhi” – I am.
As is known, Hebrew does not contain – like the Western languages – the copula “is.” “Anokhi” is an assertion that God is a grammatical figure. As Rabbi Faur teaches this means that God may only be accessed via language. This is the reason that God’s revelation is presented in the form of a written text. In Maimonidean hermeneutics it is our job to parse this text and affirm God’s unity by acknowledging His absolute difference.
In contrast to the ideality of the Enlightenment and Romantic philosophers, Biblical reality holds that God and humanity are two different elements in the universal scheme of things. By denying the unity of God and His difference from us, modern thinkers have elevated human beings to the point of being gods themselves.
The verse in Genesis teaches us that God created human beings out of His own template. But this template is, as Maimonides teaches in The Guide, a transfer of God’s wisdom to humanity and not the transfer of God’s essence:
“As man’s distinction consists in a property which no other creature on earth possesses, viz., intellectual perception, in the exercise of which he does not employ his senses, nor move his hand or his foot, this perception has been compared – though only apparently, not in truth – to the Divine perception, which requires no corporeal organ. On this account, i.e., on account of the Divine intellect with which man has been endowed, he is said to have been made in the form and likeness of the Almighty, but far from it be the notion that the Supreme Being is corporeal, having a material form.”
“Anokhi” is the mark of God’s otherness, His difference from mankind. It means that the Ten Commandments take on the form of a contract between two parties, each having obligations to one another. If both parties were the same, there could be no contract. “Anokhi” means that God is a grammatical subject that can be accessed linguistically. Man’s knowledge is thus constructed out of language and his communicative skills, as Maimonides alludes, comprise his intellectual capacities.
Human beings are thus like God in one way, but are different from God in another. This sense of difference from God establishes the basic foundation of the Covenant between God and Israel. It instills in the Jew an elemental form of humility that controls the ego and its hubris. Humanity looks to something outside itself in order to process reality. Processing reality as an exclusively human affair enables the commission of anti-social and anti-moral actions that exalt one human being over other human beings. It is the aim of God’s teaching here to break the haughty spirit of human arrogance that can rupture the social contract.
The following two commandments are a natural outgrowth of the predication of God’s unity. We are instructed not to make plastic images of gods and worship them. God is not an anthropomorphic entity as the Greeks and Romans believed. Beyond this, the signifying element of the physical idol points to an equally untenable idea: that of a metaphysics where the presence of God might be magically accessed by human beings. Idolatry understands the plastic image to be a representation of a spiritual entity that is accessible during worship.
As Maimonides teaches us, God remains totally other and can be accessed only in the context of language, through the intellectual faculty. The formation of a mystical metaphysics implies the possibility of magic and divination. Idolatry is predicated on the idea that human beings can access the Divine by manipulating signs and symbols in a magical manner. Ritual is utilized to supernaturally bring mankind into the spiritual world. It is not the linguistic forms which generate knowledge and intelligence that make human beings spiritual, but the totems of the gods that manifest the holy and sacred.
The second commandment demands that plastic images and their metaphysics have no effect on the world of the spirit. God is totally other from humanity. Magic has no valid place in the Covenant.
The third commandment tellingly returns to God’s linguistic status and forbids improper manipulation of His name. As God has identified Himself as “Anokhi,” as a grammatical subject, we must be very careful not to profane that grammatical subjectivity by crookedly making use of His holy name to achieve immoral ends.
Again, the first three commandments affirm that God is a totally separate reality from humanity. His reality is not material, but linguistic. Presented in written form, the Ten Commandments are a formal contract between two parties who maintain their own obligations.
The fourth commandment is the recognition of God’s creation. As we read in Genesis 1, God creates the world in six days and rests on the seventh. In the human federation there is a requirement for us to recall in our lives God’s creation of the world.
The Sabbath is God’s day. We commemorate the Creation not by marking the days that the world was made, but by marking the day when work ceased. The sacralization of rest enables us to retire from the toil of daily life by setting aside one day a week to devote to God. It is not simply freedom from the struggle to make a living that is being asserted here, but an affirmation of God’s dominion over the world.
The fifth commandment to honor parents is the final mark of our formal ties to God in the Covenant. Just as the Sabbath links us to the Creation, so too does filial devotion affirm that we have been created by God. Parents are a surrogate for God. God has created generic humanity, but each individual traces their own existence to their parents. Just as God has committed Himself to the Covenant, so too are our parents obligated to teach us and socialize us in the ways of that Covenant. As the rabbis wisely explain, parents are to be respected at all times with a single exception: When your parents command you to violate the Law, you are obliged to disobey them. Parents, like God, are signatories to the Covenant and must fulfill its terms.
We then move to the five commandments that regulate human relations. God’s domain is the foundation of the world of mankind and the verse in Genesis relating to how man was created in the image of God colors the commandments that are called in Hebrew “Ben adam le-habero,” the obligations that human beings have to each another.
The first set of commandments, as I have said, serves to humble human beings in the face of their Creator. Without this humility humanity is lost in what we might call a “Darwinian” thicket of social struggle where human beings are no more than wild animals who contend with one another for resources. In this moral jungle there is no single authority that can control the actions of human beings. There is no transcendent law to which we are obliged. Human beings are responsible not to the collective, but to themselves as individuals. The Darwinian concept “Survival of the Fittest” is a rejection of the idea that we must not kill, rob, covet, cheat, or generally maltreat one another.
The final five commandments create an orderly and federated society whose rules are designed to protect and ensure the continuity of humanity and demand the dignity of the individual.
The sixth commandment forbids the killing of another human being. If we were free to wantonly kill one another, we would have no society at all. Killing others leads to the profanation of the Divine image and the destruction of society. Killing allows the pathological mind to assert its supremacy over humanity. It destroys the dignity of the individual by inculcating in us the notion that one human being is more worthy than another. But each human being according to the terms of the Sinai Covenant is equal to every other human being.
In the Biblical tradition it is only God that has the power to take life. Human beings cannot take it on themselves to usurp this Divine authority. The Sages add to the concept of blood murder the idea that one is not permitted to embarrass his neighbor. According to the rabbis, embarrassing your neighbor is akin to murdering him. This brilliant Midrashic gloss on the commandment ties together the depredations of physical harm with the intensely personal psychological and emotional aspects of human dignity and integrity.
The exaltation of mankind over God – in the name of religion, or in the name of humanism – violates the distance that separates man from God. It creates an occult universe where humanity sees itself as Divine; having the power to control human existence in contravention to the will of our Creator.
The seventh commandment outlaws adultery. The family unit is a microcosm of the Creation itself. The fourth commandment demands that we respect our parents as bearers of the Covenant. One who violates the sanctity of marriage serves to undermine the very basis of our social contract. Adultery undermines the integrity and dignity of the marital unit and destroys the children of that union by ripping apart their family. Without the dignity of the family unit the social contract is just so much hot air.
The eighth commandment prohibits theft. In an interesting interpretation of the commandment, the Sages add the idea that theft is not limited to material objects, but also the theft of human “souls” (Hebrew, Goneb Nefashot). This idea presents us with a lofty moral concept that is inclusive of the dignity of humanity. We are obliged to maintain the dignity of each individual and their property. Without this integrity we would not be able to achieve fairness and justice in our societies.
The ninth commandment forbids bearing false witness. In a way that supplements the third commandment, this prohibition goes beyond the physical damage of theft, adultery, and murder. Those three things have very real material manifestations. They violate the sanctity of our property and our families; our very ability to live and breathe in the world.
Bearing false witness speaks to the critical importance of social justice to Covenantal ethics. When people go into court bearing ill-will towards their neighbor, a neighbor who bears within them the image of God, and swear falsely under oath, we lose the ability to build a society that is based on mutual trust.
The truth of God is founded on Justice.
As stated in Deuteronomy 16:19:
“You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just.”
Man is subservient to what is right and moral. When we seek to transcend our place in the world and oppress our neighbor we reject the contract with God. Lying under oath serves to undermine the integrity of our human relations in order to assert our individual supremacy and mastery of society.
The false oath not only, as stated in the third commandment, profanes the name of God. It serves to destroy other human beings and thus destroy the social contract. When people are free to bear false witness against one another, the world is caught in the throes of a Social Darwinism where survival of “fittest” is our primary cultural value. Those who swear falsely are ensured of their success, just as those who kill, commit adultery and steal are ensured of their success. Violation of the rule of Law can lead to social dysfunction and evil consequences.
A court of justice is obliged to accept the sworn testimony of witnesses as valid evidence. It is for this reason that the rules of testimony and evidentiary procedure are carefully discussed and formulated in the Talmudic literature. The rabbis detail these rules with great attention and remain intently aware of the possibility that others may lie and seek to undermine justice.
The tenth and final commandment is perhaps the most important commandment of all.
While it is true that the first set of commandments relates the vital truth of God’s unity and His dominion over the world, and the next four commandments outline the ways in which human beings must not violate each other’s ability to live in dignity and with integrity, the final commandment speaks to the concept that the rabbis have called “Lifnim mi-shurat ha-din,” the need to go beyond the letter of the Law.
The previous four commandments have made it clear that we are not to violate the personal space of our neighbor. We are forbidden to murder, commit adultery, steal or swear falsely. The tenth commandment goes beyond this to forbid any and all covetousness that would victimize our neighbor.
The commands against murder, adultery, theft, and lying would seem to cover the basic points of human dignity. The command against covetousness is intended to teach us that it is not just acting criminally against our neighbor that is the issue, but also the idea that we would seek to covet what our neighbor has that is equally damaging. This is an idea that speaks not just to direct action, but to intent.
It is here that the verse from Deuteronomy 22:4 comes into play:
“If you see your fellow’s ass or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him raise it.”
Covetousness can only be remedied by taking a personal interest in the affairs of your neighbor. The commandment states that we must not want to possess what belongs to our neighbor. Deuteronomy 22:4 acts as gloss on this command and forces us to engage with our neighbor’s reality. We cannot just build walls of exclusion and protect what is ours. We are obliged, as we tragically learned in the story of Cain and Abel, to look after the welfare and well-being of our brother.
The tenth commandment seems quite simplistic. It is a generic command that obliges us to keep our distance from others in order to respect their private domain. But in the Biblical tradition it is not enough to keep away from others; we are taught that if we are to have a society with integrity and human dignity, we must look out for the other guy. Ignoring the needs of your neighbor means that your own needs will likely be ignored by him. And that is no way to establish a healthy and prosperous society.
When you are innocently walking down the road tending to your affairs and you see another person in trouble, you are obligated to help them. We are prohibited from coveting our neighbor’s property and from destroying their family, but so too we are obliged to put aside our own selfish interests when we see another human being in distress.
The tenth commandment speaks to those who seek to take away the property of others and throw them out into the street in order to enrich themselves.
On the one hand the Bible is quite clear on the sanctity of private property, but is also just as clear on the inviolability of our human obligations to one another. You may have your property, but are prohibited from enriching yourself at the expense of others. The deeper meaning of the tenth commandment is to be understood when we see the economic dysfunction generated by an unregulated marketplace that allows or even encourages one group of individuals to exploit those they consider their inferiors.
The tenth commandment equally rejects the fundamentalism of both Capitalism and Marxism.
Capitalism asserts the absolute supremacy of the market and the unfettered and amoral practice of personal dominion. The Bible expressly forbids us to enrich ourselves at the expense of another human being.
Marxism rightly chastises those who consolidate their wealth in the economic exploitation of the resources and labor of others. But Marxism goes one step further and removes from us the capability of holding private property.
The Bible puts severe limits on the practice of an unfettered Capitalism as it also rejects the idea that all property can be shared under the rubric of a unitary government.
What the tenth commandment seeks is to balance the needs of private ownership with the need for human beings to assist and not exploit one another. Just as murder takes life, adultery destroys the family, theft deprives us of our possessions, and false oaths undermine our justice system, so too does coveting what others have lead to a social system that sets human being against human being.
More effective and more humane is the requirement that we all put in with one another and lend that helping hand to our neighbor whenever it is needed. Those who see their neighbor struggling on the side of the road and do nothing to help, violate the integrity of the Covenant with God.
Shane came to a town that was struggling with the ills of violence and exploitation. The inhabitants of that town were in the process of having what they worked for taken and destroyed by one man who arrogated for himself the role of God. He sought to violate the basic rules of the Ten Commandments by coveting what his neighbors owned.
The paradox of Mark Zuckerberg is that by seeking to bring people together in their social relations, his selfish aims and intentions served to undermine the social contract of Covenantal ethics. The Facebook network that he created has served as a double-edged sword: The new technology allows people to connect with each other, a positive thing, but can also expose the cruelness and inhumanity that we can sometimes display to each other. The powerful technology is value-neutral: Without the morality of the Covenant, Facebook, as we have seen time and again, can become a vehicle of oppression and persecution.
The Ten Commandments are not divided into two separate categories that isolate God from humanity. In the modern age we have suffered the twin depredations of religious fundamentalism and secular humanism.
Religious fundamentalists act as if only the first set of commandments is operative. Once they are armed with the authority of God, these extremists believe that the second set of commandments does not apply to them. In the name of God such people believe that they are immune from the moral Law of humanity.
As God values only them and not the rest of us, the religious fanatics feel that the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, false oaths, and covetousness do not apply to them. In the very name of the God who blessed us with all Ten Commandments – not just five – they seek their own religious dominion over those who they deem “unbelievers.”
So too do we have the case of those who abide by the moral laws of humanity embodied in the second set of commandments, but reject the humility and dignity generated for us by God’s otherness. For the secular humanist there is no God and thus it is only man that is empowered to make moral decisions. Though secular humanism holds us responsible to create a wholesome society, human beings alone lack the decisive authority to enforce the necessary laws that would permit such a society to exist and thrive.
At times the State becomes the sole authority of maintaining the social contract, but more often than not the State slides into various forms of authoritarian repression as it can become the mechanism of injustice and oppression.
Once God’s dominion is rejected, humanity is left alone to its own devices. It is theoretically possible for society on its own to find constructive ways to balance these competing forces, but more often than not this struggle devolves into a primal struggle between human beings who seek to exploit one another and do harm to the weakest among us. The strong decimate the weak as they reformulate and manipulate the laws of the State in order to protect their malignant hegemony.
The synthesis of the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments is that of Religious Humanism: The combination of the strictures of God with the legitimate human needs of the individual. The two sets of commandments cannot be torn asunder from one another. Each set of commandments is a necessary component of the just society; a society where human beings can live with dignity and integrity.
Religious fanaticism inevitably leads to the fanatics seeking to become God.
Secular Humanism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads naturally to a form of Social Darwinism where the powerful crush the weak like a tiny bug. The consolidation of material resources in a few hands promotes a centrifugal action insisting that those who cannot raise their ox when it has fallen should simply cease to exist as human beings.
Both religious fundamentalism and Secular Humanism create an elite group of human beings who refuse the synthesis of Religious Humanism as embodied in the Ten Commandments. Such people see themselves as ennobled and empowered to behave in ways that undermine and endanger the well-being of others. They promote their own personal value-system in a way that takes from God His dominion over humanity.
Such hubris robs human society of compassion and integrity. It asserts that only certain people are entitled to live well; those who are not included in the “right” group are plum out of luck.
The Ten Commandments teach us that each and every human being has value and dignity. Each of us is the equal of the other and no one person has the right to elect themselves as a tyrant who can control the lives and resources of others.
Such is the powerful social value system that is encapsulated in the Religious Humanism of the Ten Commandments.
David Shasha
From SHU 497, October 5, 2011