Section VI: What Commandments Belong to Which Tablet, § 38.
SECTION VI: WHAT COMMANDMENTS BELONG TO WHICH TABLET
§ 38. Therefore, since the most wise Lawgiver was pleased to inscribe the commandments of His Law on not one but on two distinct tablets, let us go on to consider which and how many commandments were inscribed on each tablet. It is sure and beyond even a shadow of a doubt that no more and no less than ten commandments were engraved on those tablets by God’s hand. That is why they are called the “Ten Words” or the “Ten Statements” (Exod. 34:28, etc.). Thus it is not foolish that some describe the Law as the wisdom of God comprehended in ten words. It is also certain and beyond dispute that both tablets of the Decalogue in themselves have been described as “holders” and “keepers” [δoχεῖoν καὶ ταμιεῖoν]. However, as to what and how many commandments were put on each tablet, the opinions of both the fathers and modern writers vary. To the First Tablet some assign five, some four, and others only three commandments.
Josephus assigns five commandments to the First Tablet. Antiq. Jud. (bk. 3, ch. 4): “Moses held forth two tablets containing ten commandments, five on each.” He adds (ibid., ch. 6): “There were two and a half commandments on each ‘page,’ that is, on each side of each tablet.” The same opinion is found in Philo’s book De decalogo (p. 477): “Because they are ten, they are divided into groups of five” (commandments) “inscribed on two tablets. The first had the first five; the second, the latter five.” On Exodus 32 Lyra says: “Josephus and Philo follow the Hebrew scholars,” and he also proposes that manner of division there. Furthermore, as Irenaeus (bk. 2, ch. 42, p. 142) considers what is involved in the number five, he says clearly: “Each tablet which Moses received from God had five commandments.” In this he follows the tradition of the Jews, as Gallasius correctly points out (Annot.). However, by this reckoning, the commandment about honoring one’s parents will be assigned to the First Tablet, even though it pertains to love for one’s neighbor and thus to the Second Tablet, as Christ showed clearly when He said (Matt. 22:[37]–39): “The first commandment is: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.; and the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” What Moses calls the “First Tablet” is what Christ calls the “first commandment” about the love of God. From this we conclude that Christ teaches that on the First Tablet were written those commandments in which we deal directly with God. What Moses calls the “Second Tablet” is what Christ calls the “second commandment” about love for one’s neighbor. From this we conclude that on the second tablet were placed those commandments in which we deal directly with our neighbor. Additionally, the blessed apostle writes in Eph. 6:2 that the commandment about honoring parents is the first one in promise. This must necessarily mean that the commandment about honoring parents is the first one on the Second Tablet, seeing as the commandments of the First Tablet clearly had this promise added to them: “I am God, showing mercy to a thousand generations of those who love Me” [Exod. 20:5–6], etc.
§ 39. Therefore there is agreement among most Christian writers that the commandments about loving God should be assigned to the First Tablet, and the commandments about loving one’s neighbor, to the Second. One can also conclude even from this how wretchedly extinguished had become the lamp of doctrine among the Jews even in small matters (says the very learned and incomparable theologian Chemnitz, Loc., de lege, ch. 7, p. 73).1 Some modern writers heedlessly add to Josephus and Philo those fathers who want the commandment about the Sabbath to be the Fourth. Although they are in agreement with Josephus and Philo in this respect, they by no means assign five commandments to the First Tablet, and in this they clearly differ from the rabbinic scholars. And why should they not differ? The foundations of the division, where the First Tablet is assigned only those commandments about love for God and the Second is assigned only those about love for one’s neighbor, are very clear in the New Testament, and this division has the greatest usage. The apostles say that it is better to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Christ says that a man “cannot be My disciple” if he does not hate father, wife, children, and even his own soul (Luke 14:26). Theological rules are constructed from these statements: Obedience to the First Tablet nullifies obedience to the Second when one cannot obey both at the same time. The first mandate is greater than the second. Obedience to the Second Tablet has no place without obedience to the First. In other words, God is not pleased with any kind of external obedience shown to the commandments of the Second Tablet without inner worship, without the true knowledge, fear, and love of God which are required in the First Tablet. These rules are not understood, nor do they have a place anymore, if the commandment about honoring parents is assigned to the First Tablet.
Whether the preface to the Decalogue establishes a separate commandment.
§ 40. Those who say that the First Tablet should have four commandments can be placed in two groups. The first is of those who consider the preface to be the First Commandment: “I am the Lord your God,” etc. [Exod. 20:2]. For them the commandment about not having other gods is the Second; not taking the name of the Lord in vain is the Third; hallowing the Sabbath is the Fourth. This is the division that Philo accepts (Antiq. Bibl., fol. 12), for there he lists the Decalogue as follows: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. You shall not make for yourself a graven image nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above nor that is in the water under the earth. I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,” etc. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Preserve the Sabbath Day,” etc. For Philo these are four commandments. He asserts that the one that forbids other and graven gods is the Second. Moreover, note that Philo’s opinion cited here is not that he assigns only these four commandments to the First Tablet (which is what Christians do who accept this division), for he really attributes five commandments to the First Tablet, as do the rest of the Jews, as shown above [§ 38]; rather, [his opinion is] that he counts the preface of the Decalogue as a separate commandment. Athanasius (Synopsis script., vol. 2, ed. Commel., p. 67) seems to follow Philo on this point: “This book” (Exodus) “includes these Ten Commandments written in stone: the First, ‘I am the Lord your God’; the Second, ‘You shall not make for yourself any image or likeness’; the Third, ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain’; the Fourth, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day.’ ” This same distinction was used in the time of Cyril [of Alexandria], as is apparent from Contra Julian. (bk. 5), where Julian speaks as follows: “Let us write for him the words of the individual commandments which Moses says God Himself wrote: ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’ The second after this is: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make an image for yourselves, etc. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.’ ” Although these are the words of Julian, Cyril does not expressly reject this distinction. That enumeration is also followed by Jerome (on Hosea 10) and Hesychius (on Leviticus 26) (says Thomas, [ST,] 1.2., q. 100). Of modern writers, this division is accepted by Peter Martyr (Loc. comm., class. 2, ch. 17, fol. 376):
I think both of these statements refer to the same commandment—that we must have no other gods and that we must not make any image. Moreover, I think that the First Commandment, which is set before the rest as an introduction, is: “I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt.” For these words sanctioned the idea that we should consider Him as the true God. Furthermore, that we not think that we should worship Him along with other gods, He immediately adds the Second Commandment, which forbids us to worship other gods, graven as well as images.
Sohnius (Disp. de primo et secundo praecepto, in Opus thesium, fol. 167) follows Martyr: “In the First Commandment, He affirms that He is the God of the Israelites, that is, that He revealed Himself to that people and that He must be acknowledged and considered as the true God. The Second Commandment forbids the making as well as the worshiping of other gods, that is, idolatry.”
§ 41. Burgensis (Addition. ad Lyram, Exodus 20) disapproves of this enumeration of the divine Commandments:
There are two things to note on this topic. The first is that the full sense of the letter agrees with the well-known opinion of our teachers (who do not consider the preface of the Decalogue as a separate commandment). Second, the reasons of the Hebrews who declare the opposite have no weight. The first is clear, for when it says, “I am the Lord your God,” etc., there is set no commanding or imperative word. Rather, these are only declarative statements with which God tells the people that He who is speaking is the God who brought them out of captivity. There is nothing in this to give them a command, as is quite obvious to anyone who studies this. But in the other commandments of the Decalogue there are clear words of command as well as prohibition. The second point is also clear, for the Hebrews give two reasons. One is that to keep all the divine commands one must presuppose that he believes without a doubt that He who was commanding or speaking was his God. Such believing, or faith, was the strongest way of obligating them to keep His Commandments. Aben Ezra gives this explanation in his Glossa. Others claim that when it says “I am the Lord your God,” there is an affirmative command that the God who is speaking should be considered by them as God, so that they would be bound to obey His Commandments. They say that this commandment must necessarily come before all other commandments. They clarify this with the comparison of a king who cannot establish laws in a new province before he is accepted as king. This is the explanation of the rabbinic scholar Moses Gerundensis in his Glossa. However, these explanations
(Burgensis says)
are inconclusive, for the children of Israel believed in God before they came to receive the Law. Thus there was no need for them to be given an express commandment, for it is the presupposition of the commandments of the Decalogue that, of Himself [per se], He is known to him who has faith. Likewise, the children of Israel obviously had accepted the yoke of obedience. Therefore there was no need for another general acceptance to obey the Commandments.
Although these responses of Burgensis are rather feeble, since the Commandments were given about things which are known to some extent from the law of nature, nevertheless he does argue correctly that the introduction to the Decalogue cannot satisfactorily be understood as a separate commandment. This is because: (1) It is an indicative speech rather than imperative; it properly shows who is doing the commanding but not what He is commanding. (2) A little later another commandment would have to be established when He says, “I, the Lord, am a jealous God” [Exod. 20:5], etc.
Whether the commandment about graven images should be separated from the First.
§ 42. The second group of those who assign four commandments to the First Tablet make the First Commandment be about not having other gods; the Second, about graven images; the Third, about profaning the holy name; and the Fourth, about the Sabbath. There are many sources for this enumeration: The Chaldaic interpretation of Exodus 20. Josephus (Antiq., bk. 3, ch. 4): “The First Commandment is that there is one God and that we must worship Him alone. Second, we must not worship the likeness of any animal.” Origen (on Exodus, bk. 3, homily 8): “The First Commandment is ‘You shall not have any other gods beside Me.’ The Second is ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol nor any image.’” Nazianzen (Carm.), Jerome and Ambrose (on Ephesians 6), Chrysostom (on Matthew, homily 49, vol. 2, fol. 110). The author of QQ. V. et N. T. (which we find in the works of Augustine, vol. 4; but Erasmus thinks that they do not belong to Augustine) (q. 7): “You shall have no other gods beside Me—this is the First Word. The Second adds: ‘You shall not make any likeness of things in heaven above or on earth below.’” Sulpicius Severus (Hist., bk. 1), Zonaras (Histor. Byzant., vol. 1).
Of modern writers, almost all who embrace the doctrine of Calvin approve this enumeration of the divine Commandments: Calvin (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 8, sects. 13ff.), Catech. Heidelb. (q. 93), Zacharias Ursinus (Explic. catech., part 3, p. 684), Chassanion (Loci, bk. 1, ch. 20, § 2), etc. However, at the same time note that some Calvinists accept this division in such a way that they do not completely condemn the other, of which we will speak a little later [§§ 43–44]. Calvin writes (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 8, sect. 12): “It is not bad to devote one’s interest to learning the division of the Commandments, provided that you remember that this is a matter where everyone ought to have his free judgment. Because of this, people should not fight about it contentiously with a lack of harmony.” Zacharias Ursinus (Catech., p. 686): “As long as the doctrine and meaning of the Decalogue about the true God and the true worship of God are soundly kept, one should not fight bitterly over the numbering of the commandments.” Musculus (Loci, p. 43): “I know that it does your pursuit of godliness little good if you number God’s Commandments correctly but guard and keep them poorly. I would have registered no disapproval if they were given to the people without any division, provided that any mutilation of them is rejected.”
These writers follow the moderation of the fathers. Thus Jerome (on Ephesians 6) says that the Second Commandment is about not making idols, yet elsewhere he acknowledges that the commandment about profaning God’s name is the Second Commandment. Origen (commentary on Exodus) says that some conjoin the commandments about not having other gods and about graven images. Bede (on Exodus 20) explains the distinction by which the commandment about graven images is conjoined with the First Commandment, and then he adds: “The commandments can also be divided in a different way, so that the First is: ‘You shall not have other gods’; the Second: ‘You shall not make for yourself a graven image.’”
On the other hand, some of the Calvinists hold the opinion that the commandment about graven images is the Second and is separate from the First—and hold this opinion so tenaciously that they accuse those who think differently of some kind of sacrilege. Thus Gentillet (Apol. pro Christ. Gall., ch. De imag.) calls the omission of this commandment “a nefarious sacrilege and terrible crime.” The Anhalt theologians (Apol. contra quosd. nobiles, fol. 28) refer Christ’s statement to this: “Whoever breaks one of the least commandments will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” The neo-Marburgers call this a combining together [redintegrationem] of the Decalogue, and they threaten (Resp. suo Apolog., fols. 111, 112, 143) the terrifying sentence of the final judgment upon those who disagree with their side, “because such people horrifically contradict the mouth of the Most High, teach a mutilated and incomplete Decalogue, mislead the church, and provoke the Holy One of Israel. They shall be received no more gently than the unfaithful servant of Matthew 25.” What one should think about this we shall tell a little later [§§ 45–51], after we have first explained the enumeration of the Decalogue which has been accepted in our churches.
Three commandments belong to the First Tablet, and the command about graven images belongs to the First Commandment.
§ 43. Three commandments belong to the First Tablet, and the commandment about graven images is related to the First Commandment about not having other gods. Seven commandments belong to the Second Tablet, and the commandment about not being covetous is divided into two separate commandments. This is the common practice in almost all the churches that sincerely embrace the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s catechism. This division was not recently thought up by Luther and introduced into the church; it, too, was asserted in antiquity. (Wolfgang Musculus’s words are false in his Loci, under the title De divisione decalogi, p. 42: “None of the ancients proposed the division by which three commandments are assigned to the First Tablet and seven to the Second.”) Clement of Alexandria (Στρωματ., bk. 6, fol. 140 in the Latin edition, fol. 290 in the Greek):
The First Commandment of the Decalogue shows that there is only one God, omnipotent, who took His people out of Egypt through the wilderness into their own homeland in order that they might understand His power as best they could through His divine works. Furthermore, they should abstain from idolatry of that which is finite, placing all their hope in God, who is God in truth. The Second Saying meant that they should not use or apply His great and venerable power, which is His name, to things that are born or inanimate. The Third Saying is that which indicates that the world was created by God, who gave us the seventh day to rest.
Augustine (Confess., bk. 3, 8): “Men live badly against the three and seven, that ‘psaltery of ten strings’ [cf. Ps. 33:2], Your Ten Commandments, O God, most high, most sweet.” Quaest. 71 on Exodus: “It seems more fitting to me to take them as the three and the seven; for the former, which pertain to God, seem to insinuate the Trinity when one examines them carefully. Also, when it says, “You shall have no other gods,” this is explained more completely when images are forbidden to be worshiped,” etc. (He repeats the same thing in Letter 119 ad Januarium; Contra Faust., bk. 15, ch. 7; De decem chordis, chs. 5–6.; commentary on Psalm 32; sermons 95 and 148 de temp.) Augustine is followed by Bede (commentary on Exodus 20 and on Romans, etc.). Bernard (Serm. sup. Salve Regina, 4, col. 1361): “The First Commandment is: ‘You shall worship your Lord, and Him only shall you serve.’ The next is: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.’ ” (Others who number in this same way are the Gloss. ordinaria; Lyra; Cardinal Hugh [of St. Cher], on Exodus 20; Lombard, Sent., bk. 3, dist. 37; and many modern writers.)
** The same division of ours has the approval of [Peter] Martyr (Loc. comm., class. 2, ch. 14, sect. 3), Oecolampadius (De confessione auric., f. 116), Hemmingius (Enchir., class. 2, locus de lege, qq. 4 and 8; and in his Catech., p. 26), Szegedinus (Loci, p. 50). Our theologians list and explain the words about not making graven images to be worshiped in their explanation of the First Commandment (as can be seen in Luther, vol. 3 of the Jena edition [1560], fol. 38b, Wider die himmlischen Propheten; also in Die Auslegung über die zehn Gebote, vol. 4 [1560], f. 500b;2 Brenz, Catech., p. 473; Chemnitz, Loci, part 2, fols. 40, 43, and 46;3 Hemmingius, Enchirid., p. 152; Hunnius, Catech., p. 52; Pflacher, p. 290). **
Why there is a fight for this division.
§ 44. Before we go on to our opponents’ arguments with which they attack this division and set down our supports for it, we must note carefully the following hypotheses: (1) The establishment of an ordinal number in the commandments of the Decalogue is of itself and by its nature an adiaphoron. It is certain that there are ten commandments, that is, the cardinal number of the commandments is certain; but nowhere did Moses add which one is the Second and which is the Third Commandment. (2) Therefore it is a sin against Christian liberty when our adversaries foist as necessary their enumeration by which the commandment about graven images is made the Second. (3) It is also a very serious sin against Christian love and unity when well-established churches are disturbed by an untimely battle over this division. (4) Our adversaries, who contend that the commandment about graven images is the Second, believe that images themselves are utterly forbidden, and not just their worship and veneration; they work hard to push their false interpretation on the church in the same effort. (5) Attributing a mutilation of the Decalogue to Luther’s catechism, they try to eliminate his catechism from the church by secret schemes. These cases are quite pressing, and, because of them, that enumeration of the commandments of the Decalogue is nowhere accepted in our churches.
The arguments of those who contend that the commandment about graven images should be separated from the First: First, because they differ in meaning.
§ 45. Now that we have stated these things in advance, let us listen to Ursinus, who sets down the more powerful arguments of the adherents of his confession in this matter. As we respond to those arguments, we shall at the same time make clear the foundations for our division.
(I) [They argue:] The commandments are distinct and are distinguished by their meanings. Because God Himself gave the Decalogue in ten words, He undoubtedly wanted them to differ from each other in meaning. Therefore they are distinct commandments if they differ in meaning; they are not distinct but one commandment if they do not differ in meaning. The commandment about having no other gods and about not making graven images differ in meaning. The former forbids us to worship any other deity except the one true God; the latter forbids the one true God to be worshiped in a way different from what He Himself commanded. We respond. (1) If the meaning of the commandment about graven images is that we are forbidden to worship the one true God in a way other than what He commanded, it does not follow that the making of idols is simply forbidden, but forbidden if they are made for the purpose of worshiping God through them. This is something that other Calvinist champions do not concede. They teach that the Second Commandment simply forbids images.
(2) The First Commandment forbids all idolatry. But now, there are two kinds of idolatry: the first with respect to the object, when that which is not the true God is worshiped religiously; the second with respect to worship, when the true God is worshiped—that is, claimed to be worshiped—but not divinely, that is, not in the way which in His Word He commanded Himself to be worshiped. Therefore both kinds of idolatry are forbidden by the First Commandment, and the commandment about graven images should not be torn apart from the First.
(3) Therefore we invert the argument. A species is included in its genus. But now, the First Commandment forbids other gods in general, and the commandment about graven images expresses a certain species of other gods. Therefore the prohibition of idols is also contained under the prohibition of other gods as a species under a genus.
(4) The following observation pertains to this place: Nowhere are painted, carved, and molded images absolutely and simply forbidden. [They are forbidden] to the extent that they are made for and take the place of worship, as we shall show in its own place [§§ 63–64]. For this reason, idols—that is, all those things to which divine worship is attributed though they are not God, whether natural creatures or man-made things—are all called “other gods.” In Gen. 31:19, Rachel stole her father’s idols. When Laban searched for them, he said, “Why did you steal my gods?” (v. 30). Jacob answered him: “Anyone with whom you find your gods will not live” (v. 32). In Gen. 35:2, Jacob told his household: “Put away the foreign gods that are among you.” “So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had in their hand and the rings that were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak” (v. 4). Exod. 20:23: “You shall not make gods of silver to be with Me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.” In Exod. 32:8, after the Israelites had molded the calf, they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” Lev. 19:4: “Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods; I am the Lord your God.” Deut. 28:36: “You will worship other gods, wood and stone.” In 1 Sam. 7:3 Samuel told the people: “If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth.” Verse 4: “So Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtaroth.” 1 Chron. 14:12: “The Philistines left their gods there, and David gave command, and they were burned.” From these and similar passages of Scripture we draw the following conclusions. Whatever is another god is forbidden by the First Commandment. Idols—that is, all those things to which divine worship is shown, even though they are not the true God—by the interpretation of Scripture itself are “other gods.” Therefore the First Commandment forbids idols, and, as a result, the section about graven images does not constitute a new commandment.
(5) The making of idols is forbidden for no other purpose than this: so that divine worship would not be given to that which is not the true God and so that people would not, by doing so, have other gods. Another god is not created by man’s hand but by the reverence and trust of his heart, whether that be given to a natural or a man-made thing. Indeed, whatever is given the worship and glory that is due to God alone, that becomes “another god.” In Gen. 30:2 Jacob told Rachel, who was demanding children rudely: “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” In 2 Kings 5:7, the king of Israel says: “Am I God, to cure a man of his leprosy?” 1 Cor. 8:4: “We know that an idol has no real existence and that there is no God but one.” In 2 Cor. 4:4 the devil is called “the god of this world,” namely, of those who have abandoned the true God and serve and obey the devil in the world. In Phil. 3:19 the belly is called the god of the false apostles. In the same way avarice is also called idolatry (Col. 3:5). From this it is again apparent that the command about graven images is an appendix to the First about not having other gods.
(6) Finally, observe here that when the prophets are going to rebuke the worship of images, they draw their argument from the First Commandment. By doing so, they show that that appendix about images belongs to the First Commandment. Exod. 20:23: “You shall not make with Me” (before Me) “gods of silver or gold.” You can recognize the words of the First Commandment in Lev. 19:4: “Do not make for yourselves molten gods; I am the Lord your God.” Isa. 42:8: “I am the Lord; that is My name. My glory I give to no other nor My praise to graven images.” Therefore to give to graven images the glory due to God is to have other gods.
(7) It cannot be countered that only the first species of idolatry—by which one worships as God that which is not God—is forbidden by the First Commandment, but the prohibition of the second species of idolatry—by which the true God is not given His divine worship, that is, according to the inventions of the heart rather than according to the prescription of the Word—establishes a new and second commandment. In fact, the prohibition of self-chosen acts of worship [ἐθελoθρησκείων] is referred to the First Commandment specifically. Num. 15:39–41: “Let the Israelites not follow their own thoughts nor fornicate after their own eyes, but let them be mindful of My commandments. I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God.” In Rom. 1:23 the heathen are accused and convicted of idolatry because, “though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God”; that is, they did not worship Him according to the prescription of the Word but pursued the vanity of their own thoughts.
I add the obvious argument: The First Commandment commands us to fear and honor God above all things. But now, whoever does not worship God according to the direction of His Word neither fears nor honors God above all things, seeing as he prefers the inventions of his own heart to the Word of God; he prefers the leadership of blind reason to the light of the heavenly Word. Therefore whoever does not worship God according to the direction of His Word sins against the First Commandment.
(8) We also point out this: If the commandment about not having other gods and about not having graven images differ in meaning, and if God wanted them to differ in meaning, why then do [Peter] Martyr and Sohnius conjoin the two, though in other respects Ursinus agrees with these followers of his?
** (1) Images which are made and used for worship are called “other gods” in Scripture (Gen. 31:30; 35:2; Exod. 32:3; Jer. 2:27–28; 1 Kings 12:28; Ps. 135:15, etc.). Therefore it can only be the case that when other gods are forbidden, images are forbidden at the same time and are treated as another and, in fact, more crass kind of idolatry. (2) Commandments that have one and the same immediate purpose cannot be distinct in number but are necessarily subordinated the one to the other. But now, the words about not having other gods and about not making graven images aim directly at one common aim, which is to forbid idolatry and, on the other hand, to command the true worship of God. (3) If, as in each commandment of the Decalogue, so also the First entails at the same time interior and exterior sins and good works, then in no way can the idolatrous manufacture of idols be removed from the First Commandment because it is a species of sin against the First Commandment.
(4) There is a permanent and useful axiom regarding the commands of the Decalogue: in every negative an affirmative is contained, and in every affirmative a negative is contained. Therefore because to both negative declarations here only one affirmative command corresponds—that is, that you shall acknowledge and worship the Lord as your one and only God—it then follows that the negative declarations denote the same thing and constitute just one commandment. (5) Because God directly conjoins the promises and warning to the text about images, it is apparent that that text cannot be torn away from the First Commandment and set up as a separate commandment, second in order; for it is quite befitting of the truth that God placed the promises and threats that He wanted to be understood about the entire Law and the individual commandments in the First and not the Second Commandment because they are read neither ahead of nor after the Decalogue. (6) Because the First Tablet clearly requires love for God, who is triune in person, there had to be three commandments, neither more nor less, about that love on the First Tablet (Augustine, Letter 119). Bede and others who study the matter claim that this is not so much a matter of arguing a necessity as of establishing an elegant arrangement which we can also observe in the arrangement of divine worship, that we might reveal Him with our hearts, lips, and work. (Backmeister) **
Second, because the commandments about not coveting agree in meaning.
§ 46. (II) Ursinus’s second argument is as follows.
Commandments that do not differ in meaning are not different commandments but only one. The commandment about coveting [concupiscentia], which some divide into the Ninth and Tenth Commandments, is one in meaning. They themselves show this by how often they conjoin the Ninth and Tenth in their explanations. Furthermore, Paul teaches this when he speaks about coveting as if about one commandment, saying, “I would not have known that coveting was a sin if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’” [Rom. 7:7]. Therefore they are only one commandment. Additionally, if they ought to be divided into two because it distinctly forbids coveting your neighbor’s house and his wife, then, in the same way, it ought to be divided into more commandments, and as many should be made as kinds of things are listed that can be coveted.
We respond. (1) The ancients often have recourse to the diversity of objects; they believe this is sufficient to establish a diversity of commandments. Augustine (q. 71 on Exodus):
Lust [concupiscentia] for another’s wife and lust for another’s house differ only in sinning as to Him who said, “You shall not covet [concupisces] your neighbor’s house.” Other items were added as Scripture spoke: “nor his field nor his slave nor his maidservant nor his cattle,” etc. Moreover, it pleased Him to have separated lust for another’s wife from a coveting of anything that belongs to someone else, inasmuch as the two begin: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.” To the latter are added the other things. But He did not say, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” and then add to this the other things, saying, “nor his house nor his field,” etc. Rather, all these things appear to be connected here as if contained in one commandment and separated from the other in which the wife is named.
Those are Augustine’s words. Therefore some people have followed the order observed in Deut. [5:21] and say that the Ninth Commandment forbids coveting related to the Sixth Commandment and that the Tenth forbids coveting related to the objects of the Seventh Commandment. On the other hand, some follow the order kept in Exod. [20:17], that the Ninth Commandment forbids coveting the neighbor’s house; the Tenth, his wife and the rest. They say that the former expresses the whole while the latter expresses the parts. Lyra (on Exodus 20):
The reason why two commandments are given to restrain coveting is that good is divided into the useful and the delightful, and the essence [ratio] of a useful good is different from that of a delightful good. Thus it happens that someone may have ownership of the one and not of the other, just as someone covets someone else’s wife, though he does not covet his other property. Therefore it was proper that a double commandment be given to repress such double coveting.
Thomas ([ST,] 1.2., q. 100, art. 4): “Coveting intercourse with another’s wife is related to the lust [concupiscentia] of the flesh; coveting other things is related to the lust of the eyes. Therefore two commandments about not coveting are given.”
(2) Although this distinction taken from objects does not appear to be very substantial, it is still of no less weight than that of its adversaries, who teach that the First Commandment forbids the worship of other gods completely while the Second forbids a certain species thereof.
(3) Even if an obvious reason could not be given for dividing the commandment about coveting into two separate commandments, surely one could still respond that God wanted to forbid the evil of coveting with two distinct commands because the whole Law and its true meaning depend on a genuine understanding of this commandment, since knowledge of this internal sin is very hidden according to the apostle (Rom. 7:8), and because the sin of coveting is the source and mother of all the rest. These reasons could have been enough to keep men of moderate intelligence from simply disapproving the double repetition about not coveting.
(4) However, in order that our adversaries may have nothing about which to complain, we say that the two kinds of coveting—namely, actual and original—are forbidden by the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. This division of concupiscence depends not so much on the diversity of the objects as on the difference of the mode and action. Actual coveting is the observable kind of coveting that occurs when delight or deliberate consent of the will assent to an impulse that has arisen [within one’s self]. Original concupiscence is the hidden kind of coveting that occurs when one’s nature moves, acts, or permits (in a different respect, that is) the heart to at least conceive of inclinations or the mind to conceive of thoughts, even though these are still disconnected from the intent to carry them out [πρoαίρεσις perficiendi]. We find the foundation for this division from the very words of the Law when it was promulgated and from the interpretation of it when it was handed down by the apostles. In Exod. 20:17 the word for coveting (
) is repeated twice: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” In the latter part, the Latin translator changed the word for “covet” [concupiscere] to the word for “lust after” [desiderare]. However, in the Hebrew the same word is used in both places. By that emphatic double repetition of the word, the Holy Spirit is intimating that both kinds of coveting are condemned here. Moreover, what is intimated in this passage is expressed more clearly in the solemn repetition of the Law in Deut. 5:21. For there two different words are used: 
and 
. The Latin translation plainly omits the repetition of the word. This 
means “he desired something from the mind, with consent and fervent effort in the performance thereof; he longed for it strongly.” In fact, this word is cognate with the root 
(“he burned; he seethed”). The word 
means “he caused himself to covet; he aroused himself to lust from the start [originaliter].” In fact, the word 
is used for the corruption of nature, about lust and coveting, about the carnal exertion and energy with which a person has been afflicted and by which he brings grief and violence to others or with which he himself is afflicted, according to F.rster (Lexicon, p. 13). Examples of this meaning can be seen in many places, [such as] Ps. 119:133; Prov. 6:18; etc. Therefore with the word 
Moses reproached the very root which produces the confusion of desires, the original concupiscence that produces corrupt affections even if consent is not yet present. This distinction can hardly be expressed in German, yet we shall attempt to explain it to some extent. The words 
can be translated Du sollst nicht begehren [“You shall not desire”]; 
as Lass dich nicht gelüsten [“Do not lust”] (although in his commentary on Deuteronomy 5, Dr. Luther seems to reverse this). In fact, this distinction between original and actual coveting is used in James 1:14–15, where he calls the former ἐξελκoῦσαν καὶ δελεάζoυσαν [“lured and enticed”] and the latter συλλαβoῦσαν [“conceived”]: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then, when desire [concupiscentia] has conceived, it gives birth to sin.” When consent joins desire, then occurs something like the first conception of actual sin. When one perpetrates the actual sin, then he gives birth, so to speak; but it is a snakelike birthing, for sin is the death of the soul, and thus the daughter devours her mother. Some take συλλαβoῦσαν to mean original concupiscence and τίκτoυσαν to be actual coveting. However, a careful consideration of the text shows the opposite Δελεάζειν καὶ ἐξελκεῖν [“to entice and lure”] is the characteristic of original concupiscence, but one must keep that from becoming σνλλαβo1F7Bσα [“conceived”] through the addition of consent or through delight. Otherwise the birth of actual (that is, external) sin follows next. The apostle is speaking about original concupiscence in Rom. 7:7: “I would not have known coveting [concupiscentiam] if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ ” Surely the apostle was not ignorant of the fact that concupiscence, connected with intent [πρoαίρεσις] and delight, is sin, since even the wise heathen reproached it on the basis of the light of nature. Therefore he understands that the hidden evil of original concupiscence is the first and profound corruption of concupiscence—πρoπάθειαν [“anticipation”] as some call it—which is recognized as sin only in the school of the Holy Spirit. On the basis of all this we conclude that actual coveting, as the more notorious, is forbidden by the Ninth Commandment, but that original [concupiscence] is forbidden by the Tenth.
(5) Although the commandment about coveting is joined together in the explanations of our catechisms, there is still no denial that there is a double kind of coveting, both of which are reproved by the voice of the holy Law. In Romans 7, Paul is speaking particularly about original concupiscence, the knowledge of which comes from the Law, while the knowledge of actual coveting to a certain extent comes from the light of nature. Moreover, even if the apostle had connected these two commandments there (which he does in Rom. 13:9), he still would not be denying that two distinct commandments about not coveting can be established. Christ comprehended the commandments of the entire Second Tablet in a single statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Matt. 22:39); nevertheless He did not disapprove of the distinct enumeration of the commandments.
(6) It should not seem strange to anyone that actual coveting is forbidden by a separate commandment, though it had already been forbidden in earlier commandments. Hence Christ (in Matt. 5:28) gives the following interpretation to the Sixth Commandment: “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Because this spiritual sense of the Law was not obvious to the carnal people of the Jews, it had to be unfolded from another specific commandment. Furthermore, there must be a distinction between the proper basis [sedes] of a prohibition and an explanation transferred from elsewhere, between a certain object and the acting cause, between a universal prohibition and a specific one. The secondary actuality4 of coveting without a specific object is properly and in general forbidden in the Ninth Commandment; in this way the efficient [cause] and form of coveting is condemned. However, when in the rest of the commandments Christ forbids coveting a certain object, then He is looking more to the material, that is, to a certain species of object—such as murder, theft, adultery—and borrows the declaration from the Ninth Commandment.
Third, because the commandment about graven images is separated from the First by a verse.
§ 47. (III) Let us look at Ursinus’s third argument: “Undoubtedly commandments that are put in different sentences and verses [periodis et versibus] by Moses are different and not the same; likewise, ones that Moses sets down in one verse are not different but are one commandment. Moses separated the commandment about not having other gods and the one about not making images into verses. Therefore these commandments are separate. On the other hand, he did not separate the commandment about coveting a neighbor’s house and his wife with sentences but included them within one verse. Therefore there is only one commandment about coveting.”
We respond. (1) There are some who say that the addition of [vowel] points and the distinction of verses did not come from Moses himself, but rather from the Masoretes. However, I do not subscribe to their position, especially insofar as regards the [vowel] points. Therefore we use another response, namely, that it is certainly a quite slippery foundation to say that commandments that are set down in different sentences and verses are distinct and, on the other hand, that those which are set down with one verse are one commandment. For in Exod. 20:2 we read: “I am Jehovah your God, who has brought you up out of the land of Egypt”; and in v. 3 it adds: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Some consider these as the First Commandment, though others would have the earlier words be the introduction to the entire Decalogue. Verse 4 reads: “You shall not make yourself a graven image nor any likeness,” etc.; and v. 5: “You shall not bow down to them nor serve them,” etc. Ursinus himself does not consider these as two commandments. Verse 8: “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” Verse 9: “Six days shall you labor and do all your work.” Verse 10: “But the seventh day will be a Sabbath to Jehovah your God.” Neither can Ursinus consider these as separate commandments.
(2) Those who know Hebrew know that quite often things separated by verses must be connected and, on the other hand, that things that must be distinguished are connected in a verse. Gen. 14:18: “King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine, and” (since he was) “priest of God Most High,” v. 19: “he blessed him.” Melchizedek did not bring out the bread and wine in this way because he was the priest of the Most High, as the supporters of the Mass claim, but he blessed Abram because he was the priest (Heb. 7:3).
(3) Although the commandments about not coveting are included in a single verse, in Deut. [5:21] the letter 
is added as the mark of an interval. The rabbinic scholars call this a 
(sethumah). Such a mark is not placed between the commandment about not having other gods and about not making idols. In Exod. [20:17] and Deut. [5:21] the athnach accent is added. Based on these it is not unknowledgeable to conclude that these commandments are distinct.
Fourth, because the commandments about not coveting are switched.
§ 48. (IV) In the fourth place Ursinus presses the switching of the commandments about not coveting: “Moses undoubtedly kept the same order of the commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. But now, he put the words of the Tenth Commandment about coveting house and wife in inverted order—for in Exodus these words come first: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house,’ followed by ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.’ In Deuteronomy these words come first: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,’ followed by ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.’ Therefore these are parts of one commandment; otherwise there could not be a new commandment, and one would have to say that in the second text Moses confused the Ninth with the Tenth Commandment and substituted part of the Tenth in place of the Ninth.”
We respond. (1) The switching of objects implies only that the distinction of coveting and of the commandments cannot be taken from them primarily (πρώτως) and uniquely. Yet the fact remains that, with respect to the act of coveting, one can establish different kinds of coveting and distinct commandments about them.
(2) The transposition of commandments should not be accused of any absurdity. [See] Matt. 19:18–19 and Luke 18:20 [Vg]. Here the commandments of the Law are listed from Christ’s mouth in this order: “You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony. Honor your father and mother.” Here we see the commandment about honoring parents placed after those while in Moses’ books it is placed before them. In Mark 10:19 [Vg] He observes this order: “You shall not commit adultery. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony. Do not defraud. Honor your father and mother.” Here we see the commandment about not killing set after the commandment about not committing adultery, even though in the Decalogue it is placed before it. The same sort of transposition occurs in Rom. 13:9. This in no way detracts from the integrity of the commandments, nor does it rob Moses of any of his authority.
Fifth, on the basis of the authority of the ancients.
§ 49. (V) He finally appeals to the authority of the ancients, where he cites the testimonies of Josephus, Philo, Athanasius, Origen, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Zonaras, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.
We respond. (1) We, too, do not simply reject the division that they used, where the Ninth and Tenth Commandments are connected. (2) The ancients accept this division of the commandments without disapproving of the other, which is used by our churches. Our adversaries press for it as necessary. (3) Not even the cited authors themselves agree with each other in all points. Philo and Josephus assign five commandments to the First Tablet; but the rest, only four. (4) Therefore who would expect the true division of the commandments from Josephus and Philo, since they ignorantly assign the commandment about honoring parents to the First Tablet? And who would expect Josephus to acknowledge two commandments about coveting or to know how to distinguish the two kinds of coveting since he adheres to such crass ignorance of that sin that he writes (Antiq., bk. 12, ch. 13) that [Antiochus] willed sacrilege but had not yet committed it, and that this did not seem to him a matter worth punishment, not even of divine punishment? However, it cannot be denied that some of the ancient fathers thought quite ineptly about the evil of sin inherent to nature and of concupiscence. (5) In his genuine writings, Augustine follows our enumeration. Hyperius (Opusc. theol., part 2, p. 662) cites a passage of Augustine (Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, bk. 3) and presses it sharply, believing that it must be preferred to the other passages. However, there the commandments of the Decalogue are merely listed. No mention of their order occurs, though Augustine treats this order explicitly in very many other places. (6) In addition to Augustine, other ancients also favor our division, as we have seen earlier [§ 43].
§ 50. In § 43 we set forth the primary and principal reasons why we do not accept the enumeration for which our adversaries strive with such great effort. It is because that change, which by its very nature is an adiaphoron and a matter of indifference, having been adopted by the opponents of the truth, imposes a slavish yoke upon Christian liberty, claims that the use of images is simply forbidden, and accuses our catechism of the crime of mutilation. The secondary reason is this: the usual arrangement of the commandments in our churches is based on reasons which are not to be despised. Namely: (1) In the First Commandment, the prohibition of idols lies under the prohibition of other gods, as a species under a genus. (2) The promise and threat—“I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,” etc. [Exod. 20:5]—added to the precept about graven images is the common appendix which applies to all ten commandments equally; the plural 
(“My commandments”) shows this clearly. In fact, that such an appendix is placed before the commandment about not profaning the name of God actually shows that all those words which immediately precede it belong to the First Commandment. For just as the First Commandment is the font and source of all the rest and extends to each and every one of the commandments, so also the common promise and threat covers each and every one of the commandments. (3) Because the knowledge of sin comes through the Law, and because two kinds of concupiscence are reproached elsewhere in Scripture, it is very likely that two distinct commandments about this evil were given by the voice of God Himself, since the knowledge of it is very much clouded in the corruption of our nature. (4) This is not a division that Luther thought up first. Rather, it has been in use already for many centuries. Changing it is bothersome to the simple and, indeed, a stumbling block to the weak.
Whether the Decalogue has been mutilated in Luther’s catechism.
§ 51. It is frivolous to charge Luther’s catechism, that excellent treasure, with a sort of mutilation on the grounds that the commandment about not making idols is omitted in it. (1) Luther did not expunge anything, not even a single jot or tittle, from the [German] Bible, but left the entire listing of the Decalogue in Exodus and Deuteronomy complete and whole. (2) In the catechism, because of the capacity of less-educated people, he used a brevity; on account of this he cannot be accused of breaking or mutilating [the Decalogue]. (3) Some things in the Decalogue properly and primarily apply to the Jews while some things are moral and pertain also to Christians in the New Testament. Although the appendix about not making graven images is moral with regard to its genus, it was added especially for the Jews, who were living surrounded by Gentiles who kept sinning against this commandment particularly through their idols. For us in the New Testament, it is enough to know that the First Commandment forbids idolatry in general. (4) So also the benefit of being led out of Egypt is proper to the assembly of Israel. Jer. 16:14: “It will no longer be said, ‘As Jehovah lives, who made the people of Israel to come up from Egypt.’ ” The hallowing of the Sabbath—that is, of the seventh day—was abrogated in the New Testament by apostolic authority, even though its genus remains (Rev. 1:9[–10], etc.). Consequently, in the catechism that appendix is also omitted from the commandment about hallowing the Sabbath for the sake of brevity, because of the capacity of the less-educated people. (5) In Matt. 22:37[–39], Christ encompasses all the commandments of the Law within these two mandates: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,” etc. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In Rom. 13:9 the holy apostle cites the commandment about not coveting without listing the species that were added clearly in Exod. 20:[17] and Deut. 5:21. Therefore our catechism uses the same right in its quoting of the First Commandment, namely, that the genus of idolatry is set down without mentioning the species that is practiced through graven images. In Eph. 6:2–3 the apostle cites the commandment about honoring parents, but he does not add the appendix about the promise of life extended to the Jews in the promised land of Canaan because that promise of the land of Canaan belonged to the Jews. Now because of that, shall we indeed direct the accusation of mutilation against the apostle?
Allusions of the ancients to the number three in the commandments of the First Tablet.
§ 52. This concludes our discussion on the enumeration of the commandments of the Decalogue used in our churches, according to which three commandments are assigned to the First Tablet and seven to the Second. In an allusion which should not be despised, Augustine (q. 71 on Exodus and in many places elsewhere) relates the number three for the commandments of the First Tablet to the mystery of the Holy Trinity. He says, “If you examine it carefully, these commandments that pertain to God seem to make known the Trinity.” The Gloss. ordin. on Deuteronomy 5 (from Augustine, Letter 119 ad Jan., ch. 11):
The First Commandment has to do with the Father—“The Lord your God is one God”—so that hearing this you would worship the one God, the Father, and not have many gods. The Second pertains to the Son, about whom it is said, “You shall not take the name of God in vain.” That is, you shall not think that something created is the Son of God, for every creature is subject to vanity. Instead, you must believe that He is equal to the Father. The Third pertains to the Spirit, by whose gift eternal rest is promised; for because the Holy Spirit is called “sevenfold,” God hallowed the seventh day. Therefore the commandment pertains correctly to the Holy Spirit both because of the word “hallow” [Exod. 20:8] and because of the eternal rest that pertains to the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Augustine (on Psalm 32, conc. 1): “The three commandments” (of the First Table) “pertain to the love of God, that is, to His unity, truth, and will. For there is a certain will in the Lord where there is a true Sabbath, a true rest.” Lyra (on Exodus 20): “Our teachers set down three commandments that pertain only to God. The reason that is mentioned for this is that man owes faithfulness to God and reverence and due service to the acknowledgment of His lordship. Now faithlessness is forbidden by the First Commandment; irreverence, by the Second; and through those prohibitions are understood the opposite affirmations: to worship the one God and to show Him reverence. Due service is commanded by the Third.”
[Allusions] to seven [commandments] in the Second Tablet.
The number of seven commandments in the Second Tablet is explained by Augustine as follows (Sermon 148 de temp.): this number means that no one can fulfill the Law by his own powers unless aided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is sevenfold with respect to His gifts. Some think that the number seven denotes that our life, which is spent in seven-day periods repeated again and again, must be spent in holy obedience to these commandments. The Gloss. ord. (on Exodus 20): “It is good that there are seven commandments which pertain to the neighbor. The number seven is made up of four and three. Three befits the soul, which is irascible, concupiscible, and rational;5 four befits the body.6 ”
1 Chemnitz’s Works 8:651.
2 Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525), AE 40:85–87 (WA 18:68–69); Sermons on Exodus (1524–27/1564), WA 16:436–45 (AE 62).
3 Chemnitz’s Works 8:666–68, 671, 673ff.
4 “Secondary actuality” (actus secundus) means the actual operation of something, whereas “primary actuality” (actus primus) refers to a power or potential that is not currently actualized.
5 These are descriptions of the appetites of man. The first two are a subdivision of the lower, sensitive appetite (whereby a sensing being desires what it perceives as good and avoids what it perceives as bad). The latter is also known as the intellectual or higher appetite and is the faculty by which a sensing being desires the good or avoids the bad that he has known by his intellect. See On Original Sin (Commonplace XII), § 126; and below, p. 181 n. 3.
6 Perhaps the allusion is to the four principal humors (i.e., bodily fluids) that were believed to result in four basic personality traits: blood (sanguine), pituitary or phlegm (phlegmatic), cholera or yellow bile (choleric), and black bile (melancholy). Cf. Micraelius, Lexicon philosophicum, s.v. “Humor.”