As to the division of the last commandment, it would seem to be unreasonable, upon this simple ground. It happens that in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy, where the tenth commandment is given, it is written first “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife;” but in this passage it is first, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” If the commandments had been intended to be divided according to the plan of Augustine, it would have been the same in both—thy neighbor’s wife first, and thy neighbor’s house second; but the fact that in the one version “house” is first, and in the other “wife” is first, is proof that this last commandment, according to our order, was meant to be a complete commandment, and never was designed to be divided into two distinct commandments.
John Cumming, Sabbath Morning Readings on the Old Testament: Book of Exodus (Boston; Cleveland, OH; New York: John P. Jewett & Company; Jewett, Proctor & Worthington; Sheldon, Lamport & Blakeman, 1854), 160.
The Lutheran and the Roman Catholic Catechisms, following the lead of Augustine, regard the second commandment only as an explanation of the first; the Reformed and the Greek Catechisms, following the division of the Jews (Josephus and Philo) and the early Christians (e. g. Origen), treat it as a separate commandment, which prohibits image worship and enjoins the true worship of God, while the first prohibits idolatry and enjoins monotheism. Hence the different modes of counting from the second to the ninth commandment. The division of the tenth commandment follows as a necessity from the omission of the second, but is decidedly refuted by the intrinsic unity of the tenth commandment, and by a comparison of Exod. 20:17 with Deut. 5:21; for in the latter passage (as also in the Septuagint version of Exod. 20:17) the order is transposed, and the neighbor’s wife put before the neighbor’s house, so that what is the ninth commandment in Exodus, according to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran view, would be the tenth according to Deuteronomy. St. Paul, moreover, in enumerating the commandments of the second table, Rom. 13:9 (comp. also 7:7), alludes to the tenth with the words, ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ without intimating any such division. Comp. also Mark 10:19. The Decalogue consists of two tables, of five commandments each. The first contains the duties to God (præcepta pietatis), the second the duties to men (præcepta probitatis); the first is strictly religious, the second moral. The fifth commandment belongs to the first table, since it enjoins reverence to parents as representing God’s authority on earth. This view is now taken not only by Reformed, but also by many of the ablest Lutheran divines, e. g., Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Tübingen, 1873), I. pp. 287 sqq.; H. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie (Frankf. a. M. 1869), I. p. 429. On the other hand, Kurtz, Kahnis, and Zezschwitz defend the Lutheran division. The main thing, of course, is not the dividing, but the keeping of the commandments.
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The History of Creeds, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1878).
It is well known that the Roman Catholics and the Lutheran Church combine the two first commandments Into one, and divide the tenth into two. But for this there is not the shadow of ground or authority, either in the Hebrew text or even in Jewish tradition.
Alfred Edersheim, The Exodus and the Wanderings in the Wilderness (New York; Chicago; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, 1876).
Jesus also extends the commands far beyond their literal meaning.
In reference to the religion of Israel, it is important to bear in mind that, during the three and a half centuries since the death of Jacob, all direct communication from Heaven, whether by prophecy or in vision, had, so far as we know, wholly ceased. Even the birth of Moses was not Divinely intimated. In these circumstances the children of Israel were cast upon that knowledge which they had acquired from “the fathers,” and which, undoubtedly, was preserved among them. It need scarcely be explained, although it shows the wisdom of God’s providential arrangements, that the simple patriarchal forms of worship would suit the circumstances in Egypt much better than those which the religion of Israel afterwards received. Three great observances here stand out prominently. Around them the faith and the worship alike of the ancient patriarchs, and afterwards of Israel, may be said to have clustered. They are: circumcision, sacrifices, and the Sabbath. We have direct testimony that the rite of circumcision was observed by Israel in Egypt.2 As to sacrifices, even the proposal to celebrate a great sacrificial feast in the wilderness,3 implies that sacrificial worship had maintained its hold upon the people. Lastly, the direction to gather on the Friday two days’ provision of manna,4 and the introduction of the Sabbath command by the word “Remember,”1 convey the impression of previous Sabbath observance on the part of Israel. Indeed, the manner in which many things, as, for example, the practice of vows, are spoken of in the law, seems to point back to previous religious rites among Israel.
Alfred Edersheim, The Exodus and the Wanderings in the Wilderness (New York; Chicago; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, 1876), 29–30.