Basic HTML Version
AN
EDITORWOKSAT
THE TENCOMMANDMENTS
by
Lawson C.
Briggs
I
saw a very interesting car–
toon the other day. The sub–
ject is a representation of the
Ten Commandments on the usual
two tablets of stone, and all over the
tace of it are remarks, queries, cor–
rections, and suggestions, as if made
by an editor going over copy for
possible publication. The implication
is that no human editor would ever
have let the commandments stand or
go into effect as they were actually
written by the finger of God. And, oh,
how true that is!
There is perhapsa great deal more
depth of meaning in the whole car–
toon than is superficially apparent to
a casual eye. For instance, the sym–
bol "sp" (spelling) at the end of the
eighth commandment. Now no ac–
tual words are legible of the com–
mandments themselves; lines of
words are only suggested by means
of vertical squiggles and spirals. So
what is misspelled? A little reflection
cou Idsuppose the cartoonist's intent
is to imply the writer might be ad–
judged to
be
subject to (not to say
guilty of) sorne degree of care–
lessness or error, such as perhaps to
The
PLAIN TRUTH February 1978
write " steel" in place of "steal. " As 1
said, it is an illustration, brilliantly
conceived and executed, of human
concepts andmisconcepts-a sati re,
if you will, on human nature and its
response to God.
Our imaginary editor looks at the
seventh and eighth commandments
and then writes: "Can we combine
these?" Because obviously one of
them is largely redundant-isn't it? 1
mean, human viewpoint couldn't
imagine there's really any harm in
adultery (or, for that matter, any
other sexual activity) so long as no–
body gets hurt. In other words, as
long as no husband has anything
sto/en
from him?
Or maybe the cartoonist is using
the Roman Catholic numbering of
the commandments, in which the
second commandment is tacked on
as a sort of appendage to the first ,
and !he tenth is divided into two to
restare the
o~iginal
total. (Jews and
most Protestants feel that in this
way the writer's original draft really
has been edited, and the intent of
the real second commandment ef–
fectively blue-penciled .) In that
case, our (second) " editor" is sug–
gesting that prohibitions against
adultery and murder be combined .
Could he be thinking about modern
views of abortion?
In the cartoon the " editor" circles
the end of the sixth commandment,
and questions it. 1 imagine he is
thinking: " kili?" "You mean you
can' t slap a mosquito if he (oops,
she) is biting you?" What argu–
ments and false concepts people
have gane into over that! (Or if we
use the other numbering: " adul–
tery?" "Why
not
commit adultery?
Oh, only where there are exten–
uating circumstances, of course. " )
And for the "fourth" command–
ment, Editor Human Viewpoint abso–
lutely demands a " stronger verb."
Just " honor" your parents?Why not
" obey," or " provide financia! sup–
port in their old age" ? Or, alterna–
tively: just ' ' remember'' theSabbath?
Not adequate! Pin 'em down to spe–
cific legalistic performance!
The editor's comment on number
three: " colorful but unnecessary."
All that jazz about seven days of
creation. (Or that about not taking
God's name in vain-why of course
no real worshiper of God does any–
thing to defame God.
Does
he-or
she?)
But along with all the necessary
criticism, every editor wants to at
leas! try to encourage his writers. So
the words were prefixed , "good be–
ginning." Obviously! "1 am the Lord
your God .. . !" Couldn't be better.
But the ending? Certainly one of the
most pregnant points of the entire
sati re: " weak- needs a dramatic
ending. " Meaning human viewpoint
just doesn ' t get it. The final com–
mandment, instead of seeming the
very climax of
spiritual
principies,
which it actually is, seems basically
meaningless to most people.
lf
you would like to better under–
stand the Ten Commandments and
theirtrue meaning, as the Bible really
presents them, and as the original
writer Himself intended them, write
for our booklet- free, no obligation–
called (what else?)
The Ten
Com–
mandments.
o
33