The Ten Commandments May Not Be What They Appear
A Jungian reading. Could the Decalogue be a shadow protecting itself?
The words felt almost too perfect. They came into my ear from almost nowhere.
At the time I was building my web series, Standing at the Precipice of History. I’d been working across several fields at once and watching them converge, trying to sense what comes next. I refused to believe we human beings are simply riding the same trajectory forward. A handful of authors had me asking whether our very human evolution, including our relationship to time, was about to change, and where the world is actually heading.
One of those authors was Julian Jaynes. I was re-reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, his strange and brilliant argument that ancient humans didn’t experience thought the way we do. For them, commands came from outside. One half of the brain spoke, the other listened, and what it heard was experienced as the voice of a god. Consciousness as we know it, the inner narrator we talk to in our minds, arrived only as those voices broke down and went quiet.
I was also deep in Jung, especially shadow work. One lesson kept returning. The parts of ourselves we can’t accept don’t disappear. We push them out of sight, and then we meet them in other people. The urge to command others to behave a certain way is often a sign of it. What we can’t own in ourselves, we try to control in everyone else.
Then one day, sitting in meditation, the words arrived. As if spoken directly into my ear.
“The Ten Commandments are not what they seem! It’s not a series of directives. It’s something protecting itself!”
Interesting thought.
The irony wasn’t lost on me. I was reading about voices that issued commands, and a voice had just issued me one.
My mind went into hyperdrive. Could this be true?
I didn’t want to agree with a voice simply because it sounded profound. So my spidey senses did a quick first pass. Not proof, just a test of whether the idea had enough weight to chase.
Commandment one. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Why would a monotheistic God even acknowledge other gods? Yes, rival religions surrounded the Israelites. But why would a divine authority with total power need to assert its rank among competitors? Scholars actually have a word for this. Early Israelite religion looks less like monotheism and more like monolatry, worshipping one god while granting that others exist. And a few verses later, in Exodus 20:5, the text has God describe himself as a jealous God. Jealousy, in the deity’s own words. That sounds less like sovereignty and more like insecurity. Check.
Commandment nine. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Read closely, it doesn’t forbid lying. It forbids false testimony against a neighbor, a courtroom offense. Why would a divine moral code protect the court and not the truth? Unless what’s being protected is the system of judgment itself. Check.
Commandments eight and ten. “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.”
At first these looked almost redundant. Coveting is wanting what belongs to someone else. Stealing is taking it. With only ten slots, why spend two on the same impulse?
Then two things shifted. First, rabbinic tradition reads the eighth commandment as stealing a person, kidnapping, because it sits beside murder and adultery, both capital crimes. Ordinary theft is handled elsewhere. Not what it seems, again.
Second, I noticed what the tenth actually does. Commandments six through nine govern acts. Don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie in court. Then the tenth suddenly reaches inside. It’s the only one aimed at desire, the only one no court could ever enforce. Coveting isn’t the twin of stealing. It’s the hidden root of murder, adultery, and theft alike. The list spends its second half policing behavior, then on the last line it turns and faces the shadow.
And yet it never names the self. Parents are honored, but children are owed nothing. There’s no “Honor thyself,” no “Know thyself,” nothing addressed to the one doing the coveting.
So why ten? Even Mel Brooks spoofed it. His Moses comes down the mountain announcing “these fifteen…” then drops a tablet. “Ten! Ten commandments!”
Check. Time to investigate further.
So I began my research the way Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon, from books like The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, would. Treat a sacred text as a code and assume something deeper is hiding beneath the surface.
I worked from two assumptions.
First, the minds that received these words did not work like ours. If Jaynes is right, the people at Sinai still lived close to the bicameral world, where law came from a god’s voice and was carved into stone. Hammurabi’s code, centuries earlier, shows the king receiving his laws from the sun god Shamash. Even Socrates, much later, spoke of a daimonion, an inner voice that guided him. Here’s a fun fact. According to Plato, Socrates’ voice never told him what to do. It only ever told him what not to do. Thou shalt not. The last echo of the god voice, still speaking in prohibitions.
Second, the commandments were not directives at all. They were the god voice protecting its shadow. And anything protecting a shadow is protecting a wound. So what was it protecting?
So I went full Langdon. Perhaps it was a Fool’s journey. But it was a fun one.
Let’s dive in.
The Ten Commandments Mapped
“Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”
To read the commandments the way I started reading them, lets’s review a little more Jaynes.
His claim was radical. For most of human history, he argued, people didn’t have the inner voice we take for granted, the one that weighs options and talks things through. When something new or stressful came up, a decision arrived from outside, as a voice. One side of the brain produced it and the other side heard it, and it was experienced as a god. The heroes of the Iliad, Jaynes noticed, almost never deliberate. They don’t think it over. A god tells them what to do, and they do it.
Then the voices started to fail. Jaynes pointed to several pressures. Societies grew too large and too tangled for one voice to steer. Trade brought people face to face with strangers who heard different gods. And writing changed everything. Clay tablets first appear in Mesopotamia around 3200 BCE, and a god you can read is no longer quite a god you hear. By Hammurabi’s time, around 1750 BCE, the king still receives his laws from a god. Then, around 1200 BCE, the Bronze Age world collapsed. Cities burned, empires fell, peoples scattered, and Jaynes believed the old voices broke down with them.
What came after was a long ache. People built machinery to get the voice back. Oracles, omens, prophets who could still hear what others couldn’t. Jaynes even read the Hebrew Bible as a record of the voice fading, from Amos, who still hears God speak, to Ecclesiastes, who only reflects.
That’s the window where tradition sets Sinai, and the story stages the break almost exactly. The first tablets, Exodus says, were “written with the finger of God.” Moses carries them down the mountain, sees the golden calf, and smashes them. The divine handwriting lasts less than a day. The tablets that survive are a second set, written again. Even the people seem to know what’s happening. Right after the commandments are spoken, they beg Moses to speak to them instead, because if God speaks to them directly, they will die. The heard voice becomes mediated law.
There’s a second timeline, too. Most scholars think the commandments were written down centuries later, somewhere between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE, around the time of King Josiah’s reforms and the Babylonian exile. So the people who set this story in stone were already living after the voices. They were writing down a voice they could no longer hear.
And that’s the key to reading them. You don’t write down what is self-evident. You write down what is failing. No one needs a law telling the sun to rise. So the commandments are more than rules. They’re a fossil of psychology, the shape the breakdown left behind in the rock. Each one marks a place where something used to hold by itself and now had to be held by words, and by force.
The break carried a gift, too. A voice can only be obeyed. A written word can be questioned, argued with, and interpreted. The rabbis built a whole civilization in that space, generations of commentary on every letter. The space between voice and word is where the human interior was born. The wound and the opening are the same crack.
So I read each commandment with two questions. What does it actually say? And what might it be guarding?
One. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Strictly speaking, the first “word” isn’t a command. It’s a credential. “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” That’s how ancient treaties opened, a great king listing what he’d done for you before telling you what you owed. And this king has a temper. He calls himself a jealous God, and in Exodus 34 the text goes further. “The LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” In the ancient world a name wasn’t a label. It was a statement of what you are. So this isn’t a mood. It’s an identity. The Hebrew word, qanna, appears in the Bible only of God. It’s the jealousy of a husband who suspects there’s someone else, and it fits the treaty too. A great king’s vassals could have no other kings. Notice, too, what the commandment takes for granted. It doesn’t say there are no other gods. It says have none before me. Elsewhere Moses sings, “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?” The other gods are in the room. This voice just insists on going first.
A voice that has to announce itself is a voice that can no longer be assumed. A king in his own palace doesn’t need to tell people who he is. If the one voice that once filled every mind was splitting into many, this is exactly what you’d expect it to sound like. Jealous.
Two. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
Every temple in the ancient Near East had a statue of its god at the center. Israel’s didn’t. When the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, he forced his way into the Holy of Holies expecting to see the god. According to Tacitus, he found an empty seat.
Owen Barfield saw this commandment as one of the great turning points in human consciousness. In Saving the Appearances, he describes the old way of being in the world as original participation. The god was in the river, the spirit was in the tree, and the person felt themselves woven into it all. The ban on images, Barfield argued, was aimed straight at that. Israel was the people charged with pulling the divine out of nature and placing it beyond every made thing.
And it worked, almost too well. The sacred left the world. The river stopped being an encounter and started being a resource. Here’s Barfield’s twist. A world emptied of gods becomes a world of mere objects, things we take to exist entirely apart from us. Love becomes oxytocin. The rainbow, once a covenant in the sky, becomes light bent through water. For Barfield that is its own kind of idolatry, the modern one. The commandment against idols ended up producing a world full of them.
A shadow that can’t stand to be captured will empty the room rather than risk it. But an empty room doesn’t stay empty for long.
Three. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.”
Literally, the Hebrew says don’t lift up the Name to emptiness. It was most likely about false oaths. Over time the protection grew so strong that the Name stopped being spoken at all. Readers still say Adonai, “Lord,” instead.
Get The Practical Monad’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
That’s how a shadow guards a wound. It makes the wounded place unspeakable.
Four. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
The longest of the ten, and the only one with two different reasons. Exodus says rest because God rested after creation. Deuteronomy says rest because you were slaves in Egypt. And it’s the only one that reaches past the listener to servants, animals, and the stranger within your gates. Everyone stops.
Notice the verb. Remember. You only command people to remember what they’re in danger of forgetting.
Five. “Honour thy father and thy mother.”
The Hebrew word for honor, kabed, means heavy. To honor your parents is to give them weight. It’s also the first commandment with a promise, “that thy days may be long upon the land.” Every other command just says do this. This one bargains.
A command that needs a reward attached is one that can no longer count on being obeyed. And it sits at the hinge, the last commandment about the line running up to God before the ones about the people standing beside you.
Six, Seven, and Eight. “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” “Thou shalt not steal.”
In Hebrew each is two words. Lo tirtzach. Lo tinaf. Lo tignov. The shortest in the list. “Kill” is misleading, since the same law prescribes executions and fights wars, so it means murder. Adultery, in its original setting, guarded the marriage bond and the lineage with it. And the rabbis read “steal” as stealing a person, which Exodus 21 backs up by making kidnapping a capital crime.
Notice what’s missing. The first five commandments all come with something attached. One opens with a credential. Two and Three carry threats, punishment “unto the third and fourth generation” and a God who “will not hold him guiltless.” Four gives a reason. Five makes a promise. Six, Seven, and Eight come with nothing. No introduction, no threat, no explanation, no deal. Just stop.
All the force sits at the top, around the voice itself. By the time the law turns to how people treat each other, it barely speaks.
Nine. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
This is courtroom language. Under biblical law, nobody could be convicted on one witness’s word. A false witness sabotaged the only machine the community had for deciding what was real. And in Deuteronomy’s version, the false witness is an ed shav, an empty witness. That’s the same word, shav, the third commandment uses for lifting the Name to emptiness. Three and nine are the two commandments about words going hollow.
Look at the word itself, too. A witness is an observer. False witness is the observer that distorts what it sees and reports the distortion as truth.
Ten. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house.”
The only commandment no court could ever enforce, and the only one with an inventory. Thy neighbor’s house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, “nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” After five commandments about acts, the last one reaches inside the person.
The Hebrew for covet, tachmod, shares its root with nechmad, “desirable,” the word Genesis uses when Eve looks at the forbidden fruit. Deuteronomy’s version of the tenth adds a second verb for wanting, titaveh, and its root is in that same verse too, “a delight to the eyes.” The last commandment on the tablets quotes the first temptation in the garden.
Read the ten this way and a pattern starts to show. Not in every line. But in the places where the text is strangest.
Look at the bookends from first to last. The list opens with God’s jealousy and closes by forbidding envy. Jealousy is the fear of losing what you have. Envy is the longing for what someone else has. They’re the same wound, felt from opposite sides. What the voice feels at the top, it forbids in everyone else at the bottom. In Jung’s terms, that’s textbook projection. What we can’t own in ourselves, we police in others.
The voice and the human may not be on different sides of the law at all. They may be bleeding from the same place.
Not what it seems. Check.
Section 3. The Five Wounds
Not every commandment carries the same weight. When I stepped back from the list, five of them seemed to tell one story. Two, Five, Six, Seven, and Ten, in order, from the voice, to the family, to the neighbor, to the self. Read it as a theory, not a verdict. But it’s a strange theory, and it holds together better than I expected.
The animist evacuation. It starts with the second commandment. As Barfield saw, the ban on images pulled the divine out of the world. Before, the cosmos was full of presence. The river was an encounter. After, it’s full of objects. If there’s a first collapse, this is it. The world stops looking back.
The authority wound. Then the fifth. When the voice that stood behind the father goes quiet, honor can’t be heard anymore, so it has to be commanded, and even sweetened with a promise. The chain of transmission starts to break. Each generation inherits a little less of the voice than the one before.
The body wound. Then the sixth. As long as everyone heard the same voice, the other person was a presence. When that shared voice fragments, the other becomes an object. And objects can be removed.
The desire wound. Then the seventh. Desire turns inward and becomes private. The self learns to want what it can’t have, and discovers an interior it can’t fully see. In a sense, desire is the first evidence that there’s a gap inside us at all.
The scarcity wound. And finally the tenth. Against a world emptied of presence, the neighbor’s portion suddenly stands out. Life becomes a fixed sum. And notice where this one comes from. An empty world produces lack, and lack produces coveting. The tenth commandment is patching the hole the second one made. The circle closes.
Five wounds. But read them again and they’re all the same move. Something alive becomes something fixed. The world becomes objects. The father becomes contestable. The neighbor becomes removable. Desire becomes private. Life becomes a fixed sum.
Which points to a wound underneath. Not in the world, but in the way we see it. Call it the limited observer, the kind of seeing that can’t hold anything without fixing it in place. Every wound on the list is a specific version of that one.
And if that’s the floor, the obvious question is whether there’s another way of seeing. One that can hold the river without stopping it being a river.
Section 4. The Physicist Who Wouldn’t Collapse
Strangely, physics has been wrestling with a version of that question for a hundred years.
In the standard telling of quantum mechanics, a particle doesn’t have one fixed state until it’s measured. It hangs in a superposition, many possibilities held at once. Then a measurement happens, and the possibilities collapse into one hard fact. The act of observing makes the world settle. It sounds a lot like the limited observer, written into physics.
David Bohm, a physicist who worked alongside Einstein at Princeton, believed reality has two layers. The explicate order is the world of separate things we see. Beneath it is the implicate order, where everything is enfolded in everything else. The separate things are just ripples on one moving whole. His book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, opens with fragmentation, which he thought was the root sickness of the modern mind. Thought divides the world for practical reasons, then forgets it did the dividing and treats the pieces as the whole truth.
Read the five wounds through Bohm and they look like fragmentation in stages. The image ban breaks a living whole into separate objects. Then the father, the neighbor, and desire each get broken off and fixed in place. And the tenth is fragmentation’s final verdict. In the implicate order nothing fully belongs to your neighbor, because nothing is fully separate from you. Coveting only becomes possible once the world has been cut into portions.
There’s a line attributed to Bohm that could sit over the whole list. “Thought creates the world and then says, ‘I didn’t do it.’”
Then came his most radical move. In 1952 he published a version of quantum mechanics in which nothing ever collapses. The particle is always guided by a deeper wave, and the collapse is only how things look from where we stand. It got him ignored for decades. But it means the universe never broke. Only the way we see it did.
His favorite demonstration was a drop of ink. Put it in thick glycerine between two glass cylinders and turn the outer one. The drop stretches thinner and thinner until it vanishes completely. Then turn the cylinder back the other way, and the drop gathers itself together and reappears, whole.
It never left. It was enfolded.
Maybe that’s what the commandments were guarding all along. Not a world that died, but one that got folded away. And a voice still waiting for someone to turn the cylinder back.
Section 5. A Fool’s Journey
Is any of this real?
Jaynes is contested, and rabbis and physicists alike would argue with plenty here. Langdon always gets a final scene where the code clicks open and the truth is sitting there in a stone box. I didn’t get a stone box. But the theory held up better than it had any right to.
And think about what we’re dealing with. Ten lines, give or take, depending on who’s counting. Carved over courthouses. Argued before the Supreme Court. For three thousand years they’ve been some of the most powerful words on earth, and they still are. Lately the Ten Commandments are having a moment in public discourse. Since 2024, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama have passed laws requiring them to hang in public school classrooms, and Tennessee now allows it.
And yet most of us can’t name them. A 2007 survey, admittedly commissioned to promote an animated Ten Commandments movie, found that fewer than six in ten Americans could recall “thou shalt not kill.” Only 29% remembered the commandment against idols, the lowest of the ten. Meanwhile, 62% knew there are pickles on a Big Mac.
The traditions can’t even agree on how to number them, and three of the new state laws sidestep the question by not numbering them at all. One is a credential, one is a bargain, and one is about your neighbor’s donkey. Mel Brooks dropped five of them and nobody noticed.
That’s a lot of power for something that makes so little plain sense. Which is exactly what you’d expect if the voice was right. A rule that’s only a rule wears out. Something protecting itself lasts. Shadows are durable. They don’t need to make sense. They only need to keep you from looking.
In the tarot, the first card is the Fool, and his number is zero. He’s drawn stepping toward the edge of a cliff, smiling, a small bag over his shoulder and a little dog at his heels. Zero is the number before anything has been divided. Before light from dark, before the first day. Maybe that’s the right place to read the commandments from. Not as a judge, not as a believer or a skeptic. As a fool, one step from the edge, curious about what’s underneath.
Perhaps it was a fool’s journey. But the Fool is the only card in the deck that gets to begin again.
