Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
The Principles Underlying the Ten Commandments are the only Legitimate Basis for Government; and the Source of all Human Obligations and Morality:
Part I – The First Principle
by
Joseph BH McMillan
(This series of Articles is based on McMillan's forthcoming book The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God)
Consent; First Principle; The Literal Meaning; First Commandment as a basis for the First Principle; First Commandment as an expression of the Human Condition; The “Image of God”; Days, or Space-Time Intervals?; Reason; Instincts; In Summary; Bondage; Bondage Masquerading as Faith and Freedom; Obligations; Morality; Objections to the First Principle.
I am not going to join the chorus of whining about Obama’s election victory. He deserved to win because Republicans and conservatives put up a bunch of laughable candidates, and regurgitated hollow, worn-out slogans.
Neither am I going to join the ‘new movement’ which thinks that Republicans and conservatives can regain credibility and power by repackaging and re-selling their sterile slogans.
Instead, I am going to return to a theme I have advocated on numerous occasions: that the only Principles which can form a legitimate basis of government are part of our genetic and neurological physiology, and have been clearly enunciated in the Ten Commandments. That is, that the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments reflect a “moral law” which existed prior to the existence of man, which was instrumental in configuring matter into the human form, and is thus itself reflected in the structure of the human brain.
Constructive critics of my books and previous articles on these Principles have suggested that I have obscured the power of the message of the Ten Commandments by the introduction of excessive philosophy.
That is a valid criticism, and I shall attempt to rectify that failure in this series of articles.
First though, I should indulge myself with a short defense of my methodology. If I set out today to construct a flying machine, I would not start from scratch. I would thoroughly research everything that had been discovered to date, and then go from there. If I started from scratch, I would be lucky, in an entire lifetime, to get anywhere near the Wright Brothers.
The same applies to any other discipline. It is better to build on past investigations and discoveries in order to avoid duplicating earlier errors. If we all simply started from scratch, whether in philosophy, medicine, science, or theology, we would still be living in caves.
So, although I shall concentrate on the Principles themselves in the first Parts of this series, in the last article I shall demonstrate why the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments are the only legitimate basis of government, and the foundation of all human obligations, and morality; and I shall do so by contrasting these Principles with the philosophical and political basis of today’s so-called democratic state.
That said, let me now attend to the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments - what I call the Ten Principles of Freedom.
But before I start, a word of caution. The Principles underlying the Ten Commandments are so profound that such a cursory examination can barely touch the surface. I expect that much of the meaning of these apparently simple ten principles will only be revealed as, and when, science discovers more about human life, its origins, and its complexity.
I should also urge those who don’t believe in a God, or believe in a God but don’t subscribe to the Scriptural version of God, to please bear with me. This analysis does not presuppose the existence of a God, and neither does it presuppose any divine inspiration for the Scriptures. If there is anything more to the Scriptures, and especially the Ten Commandments, other than the writings of men, then that should reveal itself in a rational investigation of its substance.
Yet, even if we ultimately conclude that the Scriptures do not reveal any divine or supernatural origin, that does not make them worthless.
An often overlooked condition of the Ten Commandments is that they are more of the nature of a consensual agreement than ‘commands’ in the strict meaning of the word.
God is said to have invited the people of Israel to accept them – “If ye will obey my voice indeed, …” [Exodus 19:5], “And ALL of the people answered together, …” [Exodus 19:8].
It does NOT say that a majority answered on behalf of the rest, thus binding some to the agreement of others. In other words, no one, including God Himself, can compel any person to submit to the authority of another.
In order to bring about this condition where each and every individual was FREE to make a decision on what God is said to have offered, first they had to be freed from the authority imposed on them by the Pharaoh of Egypt. One cannot freely consent to something while under the authority of another.
So universal consent underpins each and every Commandment. But it goes further – the people do not have the option of picking and choosing which Commandments best suit them. They choose all, or none – the “voice” which the Israelites were invited to obey set out all the Commandments, and these were the “words the Lord spake … and He added no more.” [Deuteronomy 5:22]
And that point is emphasized in the first Commandment.
The First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [Exodus 20:2 & 3]
Underlying Principle: No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to tell another person what to do without that person's consent.
Principle in Summary: No other human being can tell me what to do without my consent.
The Literal Meaning: The literal meaning is perhaps not as simple as it may seem. First, it makes clear that human beings should submit to the authority of no one but God and, as such, assumes a belief in God. But the build up to the Commandments shows that God is said to have provided a sort of ‘proof’ of His existence: “Ye have seen what I did …” [Exodus 19:4]. Then God is said to have told Moses “Lo, I come unto you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and BELIEVE thee forever.” [Exodus 19:9] It should be noted that God is said to have done this so that the people may believe “thee”, that is, Moses.
In other words, God invests Moses with an authority by demonstrating, or proving, that what Moses is telling the people comes from God Himself. Yet, God is not said to have vested Moses with an authority to compel any of the people to submit to what is said to be God’s voice. All Moses was able to do is invite the people to obey God on the basis of the ‘proof’ God provided that what Moses was telling them was not a cunning scheme by Moses to subvert the people to his, Moses’, authority, but an invitation from God which they were free to accept or reject.
And that leads to the second point – the reference to the “house of bondage”. This reinforces the aspect of consent referred to at Exodus 19:5 and 8. Before anyone can freely provide consent to submit to the authority of another, he or she must be free – not under the authority of another, including, in this instance, God Himself.
So the literal meaning is that only God has any authority over human beings, but that human beings are free to elect whether to submit to that authority. If they elect to do so, they must first be free from the bondage of others. And once they freely submit to this authority they should not submit to the authority, or bondage, of anyone or anything else – they shall “have no other gods before me.”
But it goes further than that because it would be very peculiar that God would go to all the trouble of freeing the people from bondage only to then subject them to a different bondage. That can only lead to the conclusion that the principles God invites the people to obey do not curtail their freedom, but define and protect it. The Commandments thus set out the degree to which individual and collective freedom can be sacrificed without the entire concept of freedom being lost.
And the reference to having “no other gods” must therefore mean that submitting to anything more or anything less than the Commandments God sets out subjects us to the bondage of others.
So we see that even the literal meaning establishes the basic concept of freedom, which, in turn, leads to an understanding of the underlying principle.
The First Commandment as a basis for the First Principle: The reference to God is significant. If we assume (because we are not making any judgment about whether this is literal or symbolic) that the Commandments are not the literal word of God, but a formulation to emphasize the fact that no one human being has any natural authority over another, then invoking God is a powerful way to make the point. The point being that even if there is a God, even He does not assume any authority to compel the creatures He created to submit to His authority; and if He can’t, then no other human being can!
The second part of the Commandment reinforces the aspect of consent. In order to freely give consent we cannot be in “bondage” – we cannot be under the authority of any other person. But it goes further. Since ALL the people had to consent, this formulation prohibits the consent of some, even the majority, concluding the consent of others. In other words, the Principle specifically precludes John Locke’s contention that “every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority.” [Second Treatise Para 96] I shall return to this in the last article of the series.
That leads to that part of the Principle which precludes any “group of people, or institution” from having any authority over another person without that person’s consent. Mobilizing sufficient numbers does not vest in any person or group of people an authority they do not individually posses. Mob-rule (rule of the majority) is thus not a basis for government that protects the individual and collective freedom of the people.
The third part of the Commandment reinforces the general tenor of the Principle by warning that consenting to anything more than the Commandments subjects human beings to an authority that diminishes their freedom. The people must obey ONLY the “voice” of God, that is, the Ten Commandments. Anything more means that we subject ourselves to “other gods”, be they constitutions, Bills of Rights, monarchies, or any other form of government or institution.
In plain words, it means that the only legitimate form of government, or authority, must be limited to the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments and, more importantly, that these Principles are the only Principles that human beings could consent to without surrendering their freedom to another, or others.
The First Commandment as an expression of the Human Condition: In order to illustrate this aspect of the First Commandment we need to go back to the book of Genesis, and the creation story.
When the Scriptures speak to the creation of man they are specific as to a number of aspects contributing to the human condition. I have dealt in depth with these issues in my articles “The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God” [The Law Article], and “Are We Genetically programmed by, and with, the Ten Commandments” [The Ten Commandments Article], so I shall only summarize the arguments here.
(i) The “Image of God”: First, God is said to have created man “in His own image” and that “image” involved the creation of both the “male and female.” [Genesis 1:27] (I deal with the significance of the “male and female” in a later article in the series dealing with the Fifth Commandment)
This symbolizes man being ‘programmed’ with God’s Law, the Ten Commandments, or what Kant called the “moral law”. But this is not just supposition, it is now being confirmed by scientific discoveries.
As I demonstrated in The Ten Commandments Article, neuroscience tends to support the idea that the human brain contains a “morality module” [Robert Winston’s phrase]. This “morality module” seems to be similar to what scientists call a “language module” in the brain. And for the brain to be ‘programmed’ with such “modules” it has to be ‘programmed’ by our genes.
These “modules” appear to be distinct from what we call instincts – those things that ‘kick-in’ the moment we are born – things like our survival instincts, pleasure instincts, reaction to pain, etc; those instincts we share with animals. The “morality module”, like the language module, has to be exercised in order to become active – we have to reflect on it, search for it, and practice it.
But how did it get into our neurological make-up?
Well, scientific theories of the origins of the universe and life are now tending to confirm the Scriptural account of creation – it happened in stages, starting from a void with a dense but tiny core of matter that had no form – a giant black hole. Genesis describes this original state as “darkness was upon the face of the deep.” [Genesis 1:2]
According to science, this matter then reached a sort of critical mass which caused it to explode. That caused light. Genesis describes this phenomenon like this: “And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” [Genesis 1:2]
That is, when the dense matter reached a certain critical mass it seems that certain physical laws were activated which caused the matter to react, causing an explosion, thus transforming the matter into matter with different properties, or, to put it another way, exposing the matter to a different set of physical laws. Genesis symbolizes this activation of laws to the dense matter thus causing an explosion which creates light as God having spoken: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” [Genesis 1:3]
But interestingly, Genesis seems to suggest that all the laws were put into place at the same moment (“the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”), but only came into play, so to speak, as and when the matter that was transformed in the initial explosion configured in a certain manner. That is, as the matter from the initial explosion burst through what was previously a void, it changed in its configuration, thus subjecting it to new and different physical laws. Genesis portrays this process of matter configuring and re-configuring as its new form subjects it to new laws as God speaking - “And God said” - at each new stage of the creation of the universe and life.
As an aside, the question arises as to whether the “deep”, the dense matter that scientists believe existed prior to the great explosion (the Big Bang), was itself in that form because of a kind of default law, or whether the dense matter is the state of matter when it is “void” of laws. As I have said, Genesis suggests it was the latter. But a subtle reading of Genesis could also accommodate the former. The reason is this. The “deep” existing in a “void” could also mean that the laws themselves are swallowed up, so to speak, in the dense matter. They would not cease to exist, but they would be dormant – unable to influence the configuration of the incredibly dense matter. In that event, some external force or stimulus would be required in order to activate the laws. The reference to “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” could therefore refer to this external force that initiated the state of critical mass that released the laws locked up in the dense matter.
Either way, however, the question arises as to where the laws, or on the other hand the external force that activated the laws, came from. The research being done in the giant particle accelerator (The Hadron Collider) is essentially adopting the second possibility. It is applying external force to matter to release the ‘dormant’ properties (or laws) of that matter. It remains to be seen which theory proves correct – although, as I have said, the Scriptures appear to be amenable to both options. The research being done at the Hadron Collider may just clarify which reading of Genesis is correct.
But I should again emphasize that whatever the reality turns out to be, the question remains as to how it was initiated. Both options suggest some external influence.
Nevertheless, the fact is that this whole process ended up with matter ultimately configuring into what is human life. But that human life didn’t appear in that form. It seems that the initial configuration of matter that was to form what are now human beings was such that it became susceptible to a physical law which dictated its future configuration, and that law is what we could call God’s Law, or the “image of God”, or the “moral Law.”
But more remarkably, it seems that the culmination of the application of the various laws that govern matter ended up with the human species. It is as though the whole purpose of the summation of the laws when they are applied to matter is the creation of human beings – and whoever wrote Genesis appears to have understood all this.
So, the reference to the “image of God” would appear to symbolize man being ‘programmed’ by, and with, a law that can best be described as a “moral law”, and that “moral law” is present in the neurological configuration of the brain as a “morality module”. And further, as I shall show, that “morality module” consists of the Ten Commandments, or at least the Principles underlying the Ten Commandments.
Other Scriptural references confirm this. Deuteronomy 30:11 – 14 tells us that God’s Commandments, God’s “word,” is not “hidden” from us, but is “very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”
Likewise, Christ says that the “Kingdom of God commeth not with observation” for, “behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” [Luke 17:20 – 21]
Again, Christ’s parables of the Kingdom of God portray that Kingdom as something tiny (a grain of mustard seed – Matthew 13:31; or leaven hidden in meal - Matthew 13:33) that needs to grow and flourish. Taken together with the Kingdom of God being within us, these various verses confirm the Genesis description of man being created, or ‘programmed’, in the “image of God” – that is, man being ‘programmed’ by a physical law of morality which reveals itself in the “morality module” in our neurological make-up.
But the important thing to note here is that this means that a “moral law”, or God’s Law, or the “image of God”, existed prior to man, and exists independently of man, yet was instrumental in ‘creating’ man and is thus itself re-created in man’s genetic and neurological make-up.
That must stand to reason, because if, as I have said, we are the product of sub-atomic particles with certain properties (subject to certain laws), it must follow that the laws governing the particles are reflected in the summation of the particles.
Days, or Space-Time Intervals?
Now, before I move on to the next element of the creation of man story, I should mention a further amazing aspect of Genesis. What we see in the narrative concerning the first 2 days is a description of what scientists today call “space-time” – that is, the primary four dimensions (the dimensions humans are aware of). Those dimensions are the three spatial dimensions (‘flat’ – left, right, back, forward etc; ‘height’ – up and down etc), and the fourth dimension, time. But time is really a function of light.
So we see in the opening verses of Genesis [1:2 – 5] the ‘creation’ of light which is followed by the introduction of the concept of time (“the evening and the morning were the first day”; verse 5).
The equation for a “space-time interval” is s² = c²Δt² - Δr², where c is the speed of light, Δt is the difference between the time coordinates of two events (the temporal separation), and Δr is the difference between the space coordinates between the two events (the spatial separation).
The two ‘events’ depicted by Genesis are referred to as the morning and the evening. Essentially, what we see in the narrative of the first day is the definition of a space-time interval, but starting from the first ‘event’ – the ‘event’ that gave rise to the creation of light.
The ‘accumulation’ of matter which would create the first three dimensions then comes on Day 2 – the firmament divides the waters: “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” [Genesis 1:7]
If we then compare the linkage of “light” to time (the “first day”) in the opening verses of Genesis with day 4, we find a stark distinction between time in the “space-time” sense, and time as a function of the earth’s rotation around the sun, and its own revolutions. The fourth day introduces the “lights in the firmament” which would “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” [Genesis 1:14] Only then do we see reference to the creation of the sun and the moon. This sharp distinction between a day and a year as a function of the sun and the moon, and a day as it relates to the stages of creation, serves to emphasize the linkage between light and time, and to differentiate time in respect of the creation of the universe (“space-time”), and time as a measure of the earth’s revolutions and rotation around the sun.
In essence, with the introduction of the concept of “space-time” science confirms the linkage Genesis makes between light and time. Genesis also clearly differentiates between time as a function of light (“space-time”), and time as a human measurement based on the movements of our solar system – yet at the same time links the two by referring to them by the same names, namely light and darkness, day and night.
I shall refer to this distinction again later. For now, however, let me continue with the analysis of the creation of man according to Genesis as it relates to the first Commandment.
(ii) Reason: The second significant aspect of the verses of Genesis dealing with the creation of man relates to reason. Genesis 1:28 portrays God as speaking to the creatures He has just created. After having blessed them, “God said unto them, …”
As I have already explained, the use of the words “And God said …” in Genesis 1 symbolizes the application of laws to progress the whole process of creation. But this is the first time in the creation story that God is said to have directly spoken to anything He had created.
The form of words in Genesis 1:28 should be distinguished from the use of words in Genesis 1:22 – the creation of animals. Here God again blesses the creatures He has just created, but does not address them directly – “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, …” The words “And God said” are absent, as are the words “unto them.”
This suggests that animals were programmed with a limited ability to reason; an ability that was confined to serving their primitive instincts – the instinct to reproduce, and the instinct for survival.
In the case of man, the use of the words “And God said unto them” includes the symbolism of the application of a law (“And God said”) as well as the symbolism of that law imparting to man the ability to understand the law (“unto them”).
The use of these words suggests that man was ‘programmed’ with an ability to reason that extended beyond servicing his primitive instincts to discovering the “image of God” that is part of him. That is, man’s ability to reason could enable him to access his “morality module”, a module which reflects the “moral law”, or God’s Law, with which the module was itself ‘programmed’.
So we see that in order to access the “image of God” that is within him, man needed an ability to reason that would enable him to gain access to the laws with which he was ‘programmed,’ including the “moral law”. However, the ability to reason in this way was not limited to accessing the “moral law”; it extended to the other laws that were involved in his creation, which explains man’s ability to discover the various physical and chemical laws that govern the universe, and life.
In this respect, I should refer to what scientists regard as a perplexing ability in man if man is the product of an evolutionary process as that process is understood at present. John Maddox, in his book “What Remains to be Discovered”, says this: “What is the biological basis for the capacity of the human mind to practice mathematics? On the face of things, there can be little in the past history of Homo sapiens to prompt the evolution, by natural selection, of such a facility.” [page 312]
The account of creation according to Genesis answers that question. Not only is man the product of the laws which determine the properties of matter, the same laws that dictate how that matter is configured through a series of stages are also embodied in the final product. For the human brain to make the various calculations necessary to enable him to jump from a wall, for example, without causing himself serious injury, the brain must have at its disposal all the necessary raw data to make the appropriate calculations. That data would necessarily include data and formulae for assessing distance, weight, gravity, and thus speed. The brain would then have to assess that data in conjunction with the data it has of the various tolerances of the human body, and make a decision as to whether jumping from the wall would be safe. All of these calculations take place in an instant, and they take place subconsciously. Yet, the data necessary to make the calculations, and the ability to bring all the data together in what is an extremely complex formula, are all programmed within the structure of the brain.
Our ability to reason, however, allows us to access the data and formulae that are the product of the laws that created us. But this ability to reason does not give us easy access to the raw data, to the laws. Some people have a better ability to access these laws than others. We often call them geniuses; people like Einstein.
Other people are also born with what appears to be direct access to some of this raw data – like savants. Savants, especially what could be called mathematical savants, have amazing mathematical abilities, such as being able to ‘see’ almost instantly solutions to complex mathematical calculations, or to ‘see’ what day a particular date in the distant past or future would be. This should not surprise us. Mathematical laws, like the laws of physics, are everywhere in the universe, and thus affect the behavior of matter. So, when matter configures in a certain manner, for example, in the formation of the human species, it must stand to reason that these laws have a part to play – because man is simply composed of a mass of sub-atomic particles; particles that are governed by their properties, or laws. Savants seem to have the ability to immediately access this raw data. They simply ‘see’ it.
What all this demonstrates is that the final product of what we call the human species (assuming it is the final product) is not the result of some haphazard process, but rather the result of specific laws which determine how matter configures in certain circumstances, and under certain conditions. And because the configuration of matter is determined by certain laws, once those laws configure matter, the matter embodies the properties of the laws responsible for its configuration. That is, we are ‘created’ by laws, but we are also programmed with the very laws that created us. And that is why we have an ability to practice mathematics, not because of some haphazard process of “natural selection”. And that is also why human beings have the capacity to behave morally – they are ‘programmed by, and with, a law – a law that Genesis calls the “image of God.”
And so we see that the first two parts of the creation of man story symbolize man being programmed with a “morality module” (the “image of God”) which itself is a reflection of the laws which gave rise to it, and also the ability to reason, an ability that must necessarily also be a product of the laws which govern the particles (matter) that constitute this ability.
But let us now see what God is reported to have said to the man he had just created – the third part of the symbolism in the creation of man according to Genesis.
(iii) Instincts: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” [Genesis 1:28]
I explain the symbolism of this verse more fully in The Law Article, so I shall only provide a brief summary here.
In general, this verse symbolizes man being ‘programmed’ with his primitive instincts, and, as with the “image of God”, this ‘programming’ is a result of the properties of the matter which constitutes the human physiology. But unlike the “image of God”, these instincts manifest themselves automatically – they don’t need our reason to be activated. However, human beings do seem to have the ability to use reason in order to service these instincts. And that is where the first Commandment comes in. That Commandment tells us that we should use our reason to activate and serve the “image of God” which is within us, our “morality module”, rather than to serve our primitive instincts.
That is, “I am the Lord thy God” equates to the image of God in which we are created, and the reference to “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” means that we should not apply our reason to serve our primitive instincts.
What we also see here is a subtle distinction between those instincts ‘programmed’ into man, and those instincts possessed by animals.
I have referred above to the ‘programming’ of animals – it is at Genesis 1:22, and it says this: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
What we see, therefore, is that there is no reference in respect to the creation of animals to “replenish the earth and subdue it,” nor to “have dominion ….” etc.
Thus we see that both man and animals have an instinct for reproduction (“Be fruitful and multiply”), but only man is ‘programmed’ with the additional instincts symbolized by the words “replenish the earth, and subdue it,” which is man’s instinct to conquer. Having “dominion over the fish” etc extends this instinct to conquer by indicating that the application of reason to our primitive instincts can discover the laws which govern the abilities of animals (that is, it suggests that although we do not physically share certain abilities with animals, we are equipped to replicate them, for example, by learning to fly).
The reference to “replenish the earth” is likewise symbolic of man’s ability to plan for the future by ensuring that he can have the means for survival even in lean times. Man does not simply live day to day – he can use his ability to reason to “replenish the earth” thereby ensuring that he will always have sufficient to sustain him.
So we see that the reference in the first Commandment to “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” ties up perfectly with the instructions given to man. The “other gods” refer to man’s primitive instincts. It is an injunction not to use our reason simply to service our primitive instincts, but to serve the “image of God”.
The symbolism of the Garden of Eden explains how man’s innate ability to apply his reason to either the service of his primitive instincts, or his “morality module,” was activated, and warns of the consequences of misapplying reason for the wrong purposes.
I have dealt with the Garden of Eden in The Law Article, so I will only briefly outline the symbolism here.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes the ability to apply reason to distinguish between our actions by directing them towards the discovery of the “image of God” that is within us, or applying reason to service our primitive instincts. The serpent tempting Eve suggests that this innate ability to judge our actions was activated by pleasure – “And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was PLEASANT to the eyes, and a tree to be DESIRED to make one wise, …” [Genesis 3:6]
Adam and Eve (primitive man) had clearly been eating the fruit of the trees in the Garden for some time (that is, engaging in the act of reproduction much as animals do – by responding to the instinct to “be fruitful, and multiply”), when they suddenly discovered that they could apply their reason to service and enhance the pleasure generated by the act itself. No longer were they simply engaging in the act as a response to their instincts, they were engaging in the act in order to enhance the pleasure generated by the act.
The result was that they started questioning their actions – “I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” [Genesis 3:10] And man hid himself in his primitive instincts – “amongst the trees of the garden.” [Genesis 3:8]
In other words, man was perplexed that eating of the fruit (indulging in the act of reproduction) which they had not questioned before, suddenly induced feelings of guilt when they indulged in the act purely to service their desire for pleasure. Man had discovered that his reason could be applied to service higher ideals, or his base instincts; and when he applied it to the latter, his “morality module” created a feeling of guilt. That is, when man served “other gods” he entered “bondage” to his primitive instincts.
A further message derived from the first Commandment, when seen in light of Genesis 1:28, is that the reference to being delivered from the “house of bondage” symbolizes the fact that human beings are ‘programmed’ so as to be able to act contrary to the impulses of their primitive instincts if they apply their reason to do so. Human beings have been delivered from the “bondage” of purely responding to instincts the way animals do.
The literal meaning of “I am the Lord thy God, …” refers to the ‘force’ that created man, and that force “created man in His own Image.” Man, therefore, contains God’s reflection, His Image. And that Image was created by God’s words – “Let us make man in our image; …”
So we see that the introduction to the Ten Commandments begins with “And God spake all these words, …” [Exodus 20:1], and “He added no more.” [Deuteronomy 5:22]
But these “words” of God are not extrinsic to man, they are part of man. “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” [Deuteronomy 30:14] The word of God, His Commandment, “is not hidden” from us, it “is not in heaven,” or “beyond the sea,” [Deuteronomy 30:11 – 13], because it is the “image of God” in whose likeness we are created. And “likeness” connotes a physical form.
And Christ says the same thing: “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation,” so don’t go running around looking for it because “the Kingdom of God is within you.” [Luke 17:20 & 21] The Kingdom of God is like a “grain of mustard seed,” or like “leaven … hid in three measures of meal.” [Matthew 13:31 & 33]
The Kingdom of God is the “image of God” in which man is created. And that Image has a physical manifestation, a “likeness” to God. God’s Image is duplicated in man, and that Image is the “word of God” which is part of us. When we find that Image we find God.
And that is the literal meaning of the first part of the first Commandment. “I am the Lord thy God” tells us that we find God within ourselves because we are created in His image; His words are part of us; His Kingdom (His Law) is within us.
And since it is clearly not the physical body that is the “likeness” and “image of God”, it must mean that our neurological make-up is such that it contains the elements of the Image of God – the Laws which were instrumental in creating us are duplicated within us. That is, our neurological make-up is ‘programmed’ with God’s words – they are in our mouths and in our hearts. But they are dormant, so to speak. They are like the grain of mustard, or the leaven – they must grow before we can truly ‘see’ them, and understand them.
“I am the Lord thy God” tells us that God’s Law, of which the first Commandment is itself one, is what should govern our lives on earth, and that law is lying dormant within us, waiting to be activated, if we choose to do so. If we do, we discover God.
And that issue of choice is crucial. We are free to search out God within us, to obey God’s “voice”, or not. God does not compel us to do so; He invites us to do so.
And that leads to the concepts of freedom and consent.
The first Commandment establishes the basic principle of freedom: no one, not even God who is said to have created us, can compel us to do as they say without our consent. Within that basic principle the aspect of consent is crucial because it excludes the notion of mob-rule – no one can acquire an authority to tell another what to do by simply mobilizing sufficient numbers against that person.
But before we can exercise a reasoned consent freely, we must be free of the bondage of others, and also the bondage of our primitive instincts, and vanity. Yet that requires that we recognize the fact that we are in bondage, because it is not only, or not even, the factual (physical) state of bondage that inhibits our ability to freely exercise our reason in order to discover God’s words, or God’s Law, but the failure to recognize that we are in bondage in the first place. This second aspect of the literal meaning of the first Commandment is expressed as “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Therefore, if on reflection we discover that the impulses which dictate our everyday lives are not those which are said to be the “voice” of God, then we are in bondage.
But what really does bondage here refer to other than physical bondage in the nature of slavery? For that, we again have to go back to Genesis, and the creation of man.
After man was created in the Image and likeness of God, God is said to have spoken to the creatures He had just created. He tells them to go forth and multiply, subdue the earth, and have dominion over animals etc. This form of words clearly symbolizes man being ‘programmed’ with his basic instincts. As a physical creature, man requires those instincts in order to preserve the life God created, and perpetuate life. But these instincts are not there to be served, but to serve the purpose for which God created man – to establish His image on earth, and perpetuate that image through the perpetuation of the species. The ability to reason with which man was endowed was to enable him to freely choose whether to behave like an animal by servicing his primitive instincts, or serve the purpose for which he was created – that is, to discover and serve the image of the God in which he was created, and to perpetuate that image by perpetuating the species.
In order to achieve the latter, man must sever the chains which put him in bondage to his primitive instincts, and obey the voice of God which is within him.
And that leads to the third part of the first Commandment – “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”
We can now clearly see what this part of the first Commandment means. It means that we should serve the “voice” of God that is within is, and not serve our primitive instincts. And that “voice” is the Ten Commandments. They are part of us, and the ability to reason with which we have been endowed enables us to discover them, but first we need to deliver ourselves from the bondage of our instincts, especially our vanity.
“O ye sons of men, … how long will you love vanity? Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.” [Psalm 4:2 – 4]
“Be still, and know that I am God.” [Psalm 47:10]
Whether we do break the shackles of vanity that put us in bondage to our primitive instincts, and discover the word of God that is within us, is up to us. We are free to elect to do so or not. That is the essence of the Principle underlying the first Commandment.
But this Principle is not simply a theoretical hypothesis; it is part of our genetic make-up. Freedom from the bondage of others has been, and always will be, a fundamental human aspiration. And irrespective of the methods and deceptions employed by those who seek to subvert others to their authority, in the end that fundamental aspiration for freedom will eventually stir, and the spirit of man will again demand what is deeply embedded in his person and mind as a human being. Often, however, people don’t even know that they are in bondage to others, and it is only when their eyes are opened, so to speak, that they perceive the slavish nature of their miserable existence. But it is not only bondage to other human beings that enslaves us, it is bondage to our own primitive instincts, although these two kinds of bondage are more often than not linked – those who seek to enslave us, deprived to an extent of the use of brute force, appeal to our baser instincts by seeking to convince us that we are worthless unless we adorn ourselves with a multitude of logos that appeal to our vanity. Essentially, the cunning enslave the unwary by entwining them in an endless toil of service to their primitive instincts, and that toil becomes so all-consuming that the slaves actually believe that the pursuit of vanity is in fact freedom itself.
All we need do is look around us to see that this process of enslavement is well refined, and appealing to the herd instinct in man is not that difficult – simply link it to man’s vanity.
In The Law Article I address this issue more fully, but a summary may be helpful here.
The difficulty of freeing ourselves from bondage to our primitive instincts is powerfully symbolized by the plagues God calls down on the Egyptians (whether those plagues were literal or symbolic). Every time we are on the brink of freeing ourselves, the impulses to serve our primitive instincts again take hold to keep us in bondage. When we finally do manage to escape, we find ourselves in a wilderness, an emptiness, where everything seems pointless. We start looking for things that will service the demands of our primitive instincts, and vanity.
Yet, it is only once we enter that emptiness where our primitive instincts have been silenced that we can ready ourselves to receive the Law of God. Only when we are freed from that bondage can we begin to “see” the “voice” of God, the Kingdom of God that is within us.
But this struggle between the demands of our instinct and vanity is intense – more intense than the struggle of the smoker to quit smoking; or the alcoholic to quit drinking; or the drug addict to quit drugs.
And Christ Himself had to face this struggle. He faced the choice of using the powers He possessed to cater to the demands of His instincts and vanity, or to serve God by fulfilling His mission. Christ’s temptation was one which each and every one of us must face (whether we believe in God or not), and is symbolized by the Exodus from Egypt, and the wandering in the wilderness.
In fact, Christ is said to have recalled those very verses of Deuteronomy which remind the Israelites why they had to endure the forty years in the wilderness.
Those verses are worth repeating: “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to HUMBLE thee, and to PROVE thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no. And He HUMBLED thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” [Deuteronomy 8:2 & 3 – my emphasis]
We do not live as human beings by servicing our primitive instincts (by bread alone), but by seeking out and finding the voice of God that is within us. If we apply our ability to reason simply to service our primitive instincts we become less than animals, because at least animals kill only to survive, or reproduce in response to the impulses of their instincts, whereas a human that exerts his ability to reason without reference to his “morality module” becomes capable of the most unspeakable atrocities. He can devise horrendous ways of inflicting pain and suffering on other human beings for the pure pleasure of doing so.
That is the reason why it is so important that we as human beings free ourselves from bondage to our primitive instincts and vanity, and serve the voice of God that is within us – that we discover our “morality module”.
Bondage Masquerading as Faith and Freedom
However, the demands made on us by our vanity and primitive instincts are not easily silenced. Our vanity is cunning when it senses that we want to discipline it. Vanity is adept at presenting itself as sacrifice, or submission, or faith.
And many people are equally adept at exploiting the cunning of the vanity of others. Thus we see people who profess ‘faith’ in God, especially the God portrayed in the Scriptures, whose vanity has deceived them into believing that they can serve God without actually submitting to the voice of God.
Let me explain what I mean. The only time the Scriptures ever record God Himself descending to earth to personally write anything down is when He is said to have written the Ten Commandments – and He is said to have inscribed them on stone. The Ten Commandments are said to be His “voice”. They are said to be His own words. Everything in the Scriptures before the revelation of His “voice” is preparation for that revelation, and everything thereafter is expounding the revelation and calling for obedience to God’s “voice” as revealed in the words inscribed on the two tables of stone. The Ten Commandments are the centre-piece of the Scriptures. Without the Ten Commandments, the Scriptures are nothing.
The Ten Commandments reveal God’s will; they reflect the nature of His Kingdom; they set out the duty of man [Eccl 12:13]; they are the entire purpose of Christ’s mission [Mat 5:17 & 18]; and obeying the Commandments is said to be the way to life [Rev 22:14]. For those who profess to believe in the God of the Scriptures to assert anything else is to hold God in contempt.
To assert anything else is to claim that God Himself got it wrong the first time round; it is to claim that history and events have rendered irrelevant what God thought back when He revealed His will; it is to place the musings of men above the “voice” of God; it is to ascribe to his messengers, including His own son (and servant), an authority above God (an authority Christ never claimed); it is to serve “other Gods”.
So it drives me to the brink of distraction when I hear and see the ‘faithful’ invoking God and ‘rights’ in the same breath. They put the words of the likes of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson above the words of the very God they profess to worship. God set out plainly and unequivocally His words, His will, His voice, in His own hand – and those words are the Ten Commandments, NOT some vague and nonsensical things called ‘rights’ thought up by Jefferson over a few short days as he was pressed to come up with some justification for insurrection against the British Crown. To elevate such words to greater authority than the actual words written by the God such people profess to worship simply demonstrates hypocrisy. God is simply invoked to justify there own beliefs and desires and vanity.
Likewise, there are those who would tell God what He should do for us, not what God expects us to do for Him. They raise even call to country above the call to God, yet have the audacity to mobilize the name of God to their deceptions. They would say - ‘ask not what you can do for God, but what God can do for you!’ By scratching around in the deepest reaches of the Scriptures they seek to disassociate the words of prophets, or epistles, or the wise, from the whole purpose of the Scriptures – the will of God revealed in His words, the Ten Commandments. They distort the Scriptures to make them do precisely what the first Commandment prohibits – serve their primitive instincts. So we hear that God really exists to cater to our happiness, or pleasure, or finances, or job prospects, or sports success. These people portray God as having created man so that He could cater to their needs, rather than for man to serve God.
Then, of course, there are those who claim that they can serve two masters – the Ten Commandments, and some Constitution or other. So they diminish the words of God Himself in order to make them consistent with some document or declaration of men, when it should be the other way round. For them the constitution is sacrosanct, so God’s will must be adapted to conform to it. They profess ‘faith’ in God in one breath, but are in bondage to the creations of their predecessors. And what makes this ‘worship’ of the creations of men almost hilarious is that one of the very predecessors they hold in such awe mocked precisely such attitudes – “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.” Yes, Thomas Jefferson!
I shall expand on this theme in the next article in the series.
So let me conclude by briefly addressing the issues of obligations and morality.
Obligations: The first thing to note is that the lead up to the Ten Commandments articulates the fundamental basis of all contractual agreements - offer and acceptance! “If ye will obey my voice indeed, …” and “all the people answered together, …”
Secondly, the first Commandment, and the events leading up to it, expressly prohibits duress or coercion as a basis for human obligations. The people first had to be free before they could elect whether to obey God’s voice, and ALL the people had to do so. Some could not coerce the agreement of others. And the Commandments are addressed to each individual – “Thou shalt not …”
Thirdly, God is said to have provided ‘proof’ of his bona fides (good faith), thus prohibiting misrepresentation as founding an enforceable obligation. That bona fides is reiterated in the first Commandments by the words “which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
Fourthly, the first Commandment makes clear that once an obligation is assumed which is not tainted by bad faith, duress, misrepresentation, etc, those assuming that obligation are bound by it. Thus, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” In other words, one must perform in good faith such obligations as one freely assumes.
But this fourth aspect of the first Commandment as it relates to obligations goes even further. It sets the basis for the fifth Commandment, and fidelity. The first Commandment prohibits deceit in the performance of our obligations. It sets the scene for the highest obligations that can attach to a human being – the obligations towards life we create, or may one day create; and the obligations, by extension, towards those with whom we create that life. I shall return to these obligations in the article on the fifth Commandment.
So we can see that all these various aspects of obligation which are brought together in the first Commandment can be expressed in the First Principle, and consent is central to that Principle. The absence of individual consent, whether due to duress and coercion by force of arms, force of numbers, or misrepresentation, cannot found an obligation.
Morality: From what I have said above about obligations, it should be clear that morality now emerges as a function of obligation.
First, most half-sensible people would regard as immoral one person, or group of people, compelling another person to do something against his will. Regrettably, we see such immoral acts from a very early age. Children who have not been disciplined and educated by their parents are prone to act on their primitive instincts, and assume an ‘authority’ to push around other kids, especially kids they think are weaker. In common parlance we call this bullying, and no right-minded person would consider such behavior ‘moral’.
Secondly, as we go through each of the obligations I have identified above, most people of sound mind would recognize that the inclusion or exclusion of those obligations would be regarded as moral or immoral. Thus, most people would consider it immoral to force a person to enter an obligation through duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or deceit.
Likewise, most people would consider it immoral to breach an obligation you freely assume; and it almost stands to reason that it would be immoral to betray or deceive the other party to an agreement, especially for your own gain.
So we see that we regard as morality is set out in even the first Commandment as a function of obligation. I shall revisit this link between obligations and morality in the final article.
Objections to the First Principle: As I have already pointed out, most of us encounter from an early the sort of people who think that they have some special authority to push others around.
It is precisely such people who object to the notion that no one person, or group of people, has any natural or other authority to tell other people what to do without their consent. Such people think that their ‘superior’ physical strength, or their ‘superior’ intellects, or their ‘superior’ sense of compassion, or their ‘superior’ education, or ‘superior’ understanding of the world, invests in them some special authority to tell other people what to do.
As adults, we see these people every day. Most who sit in the world’s corridors of power suffer from such delusions. But they can be found in every walk of life – meddling in the affairs of others.
These are the sort of people who think that the world would fall apart but for their control over the affairs of others.
They are people utterly consumed by their own vanity, and utterly ruled by their primitive instincts. People entirely disconnected from their “morality modules”.
There is no rest for these people in their relentless pursuit of power over others – day and night they devise cunning schemes to snare the unwary.
And there are plenty of the unwary responding to their primitive herd-instinct, eager to submit to anyone they think may provide them with a measure of safety, or a taste of safe excitement, or a little thrill. Such people are natural worshippers of others – submissive and ‘loyal’. We see them at pop concerts and political rallies; we see them at sports stadiums and film premiers.
Which leads to the next three Commandments; Commandments designed to warn us of the cunning of such people, and the danger of succumbing to their devious devices.
Copyright © Joseph B.H. McMillan 2009 All Rights Reserved
Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights is now published in the US! Click here to purchase your copy from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007