Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God
How the Ten Commandments, and the symbolism of the Scriptural accounts of man, provide the only rational and verifiable source of human obligations and morality. And perhaps more importantly, the Scriptures themselves offer up a rational argument for the existence of God, and the purpose of human existence – whether one believes in a God or not!
A Preview of McMillan's forthcoming book.
Introduction; Need for the Law; Reason; Genetics; Pleasure; Conquer; Genesis 1:26-28; Purpose of Life; Obligations; Garden of Eden; Knowledge of Good and Evil; Misapplying Reason; The Tree as 'proof' of God; Instincts, to Principles, to Laws; The Ten Commandments; Bondage; Salvation and the Law; Kingdom of God's Law
Let me make clear from the outset that I am not embarking on an examination of The Law with a preconceived assumption that the Scriptures are the word of God, or even that they are inspired by God. I want to see whether the Scriptures themselves can convince a skeptic that there may be, or must be, more behind them than the ‘musings’ of our ancestors.
Let me also make clear that when I refer to The Law I mean the Ten Commandments.
In this analysis of what I see as the enduring power of ten apparently simple Principles, I am looking to see whether these Principles can better explain human behavior than the philosophical efforts to date, and whether they can provide a more firm foundation for human obligations, and what we call morality, than the philosophical and political ideologies that currently inform our understanding of those concepts.
In this article, I only address the issue of Salvation briefly. I deal with it more fully in the book.
To understand why a need for The Law arose, according to the Scriptures, we have to go to the beginning - to Genesis, Chapter 1.
Since I am not here comparing the Scriptural account of the origins of man with evolution (although I touch on the issue), let me go straight to those verses that deal with human beings – Genesis 1:26 – 28.
In case there are still people in this world who have never read these verses, let me set them out.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
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.
The first thing to note here is that God is said to speak to the male and female He has just created. That differs from all the other things He created in the preceding description of the creation. Is there some symbolism in that? Many people, of course, talk to their plants, their cars, their clothes, even to themselves, but they don’t do so in the expectation that there will be some rational response.
Speaking to others, and instructing them to do something, implies an ability to reason on the part of those we are addressing.
So this form of words distinguishes the creatures referred to in the preceding creation from the references to the creation of man. Man has an ability to reason.
But is that an assumption, or a premise? Well, there are clearly people in this world who seem severely challenged in the reasoning department, but I think few would dispute that it is a fact that human beings have the ability to reason – whether they choose to exercise that ability is a separate issue.
So far, so good! The Scriptures confirm what we all regard as a fact - human beings have an ability to reason, to think.
When we consider the symbolism of God speaking to man, it also raises the issue of genetics. Does it suggest that the speaking not only implies an ability to reason, but also that man is being genetically programmed to reason, as well as being genetically programmed in other ways as well (whether by God, or evolution)?
The preceding accounts of creation in Genesis give us a clue – “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding SEED, and the fruit tree yielding fruit AFTER ITS KIND, WHOSE SEED IS IN ITSELF, upon the earth: and it was so” [Genesis 1:11].
The symbolism here speaks volumes. The reference to “whose seed is in itself” clearly implies that the fruit is programmed to recreate itself without further intervention from God, or nature.
We find similar symbolism at verse 22. “And God blessed them [the living creatures and fowl], saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the fowl multiply in the earth.”
We should note the distinction here to the wording at verses 26 – 28. At verse 22 it does not say that God specifically addressed the creatures He had created, only that He “blessed them, saying, ...” In the account of the creation of man, the wording specifically says that after blessing the man and the woman, “God SAID UNTO THEM ..”
The distinction is subtle, but thought-provoking. The use of the words “And God said …” in the first Chapter of Genesis always applies to things created; that is, to the laws that govern the elements which constitute the particular creation (for example, Genesis 1:14 – creating the “lights in the firmament” which would “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”) In verse 22 we do not find “And God said …” but rather “saying”. And that is then followed by verses 24 and 25 of the sixth day when the “cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind” are said to have been created. God says nothing to them. We only find the words “And God said …” in initiating the process.
The symbolism suggests that the creatures (verses 20 – 25) are simply programmed to reproduce. The distinction with the wording relating to man – “saying” versus “and God said unto them”, suggests that the creatures had a very limited ability to ‘reason’ – restricted to reproduction and providing for, and protecting their offspring so as to ensure that each of the species would perpetuate themselves – “fill the waters” and “multiply in the earth”. (The distinction between the creatures created in verses 20 through 23 – the fifth day, and those created in verses 24 and 25 – the sixth day, is also significant. I deal with that more fully in the book).
A simple analogy may help clarify the distinction between the wording “saying” and "And God said unto them.”
When I go out to feed the dog in the evening I always say something to him while I dish up his food. So I will find myself “saying” things like ‘here we go, Apollo, left over steak – plenty of protein there for you.’
Now, I don’t expect that “saying” that to him is what gets him to eat the food. He eats it instinctively. Yet, he knows that he must sit while I dish up the food, otherwise he doesn't get any. So he has the limited intelligence, or ability to reason, to know that he must sit to get his food, but not the ability to respond to what I am “saying” to him.
By contrast, when I sit at the dinner table with my children, and I say to them that they should eat their vegetables because they need the vitamins, I am reasoning with them. They understand what I am saying, and they respond – although not always positively.So what we find is symbolism which suggests that plants and trees are simply programmed to reproduce without having any ability to think about how to do so, and how to ensure the perpetuation of their species; a symbolism which suggests that animals have a limited ability to reason in order to perpetuate their varied species; but that humans are programmed with a more advanced ability to reason – God is said to have spoken directly to them.
But in the case of man, the ‘instructions’ go beyond the limited programming to “be fruitful, and multiply”. Is there some additional symbolism in these additional ‘instructions’?
But before I get to that, let me consider the implication of combing the ‘instruction’ to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” with the symbolism of God specifically talking to the man and the woman (and the symbolism itself of distinguishing between the sexes – which is not done in respect of the animals, birds and fish).
The ‘instruction’ to the man and the woman to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” can only mean one thing!!
But in order to motivate human beings to get on with it, there must be something in it for them. And we all know what that is – the pleasure of the process.
So I read the symbolism here to mean that God’s words to the human beings He had just created, the male and the female, instill in them a natural (or genetic, if you like) appetite for the pleasure of reproduction, and a natural (or genetic) attraction to the opposite sex, which has the added benefit of ensuring the perpetuation of the species. But it carries with it an attendant danger – that the power to reason with which they have been endowed could be misapplied to the maximization of the pleasure of the process without regard to any other considerations; considerations like why they are alive in the first place. I shall return to this danger, and the remedy, momentarily.
But does this stack up with what we know about human behavior? Well …..
In addition to the purely carnal aspects to pleasure, “replenish the earth” has other symbolism, but I shall not complicate this analysis with such considerations. Most people can work out for themselves the activities from which they derive pleasure.
But rational people could not dispute that human beings derive pleasure from indulging in certain activities. So we could say with some confidence that this symbolism of pleasure to perpetuate the species is a premise; a fact of human behavior.
For the sake of brevity, I shall limit the next parts of Genesis 1:26 – 28 to generalizations.
In order to “subdue” the earth, 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,” human beings had to be endowed with a pretty powerful urge to conquer. But these verses do not specifically exclude conquering and subduing our fellow man. We simply have the instinct to conquer and subdue – and that itself ensures the perpetuation of the species, or at least the strongest of the species.
But that too has a down side. Human beings could all too easily succumb to the urge to conquer in an indiscriminate way, and apply their power to reason to accomplish that objective. They could perceive the beasts of the field as no different to their fellow humans. Oh dear, could that really happen?
Alas, it has become the rule, not the exception. So we could say that the symbolism evoked by these passages fits well with the facts – it’s how human beings behave. It’s not an assumption, it’s a premise, and the premise is born out by reality.
Genesis 1:26 – 28 and Philosophers
The human condition evoked by the symbolism in these passages has not escaped the notice of philosophers; except they claim the discovery for themselves.
Bentham claimed that human beings are governed by pleasure and pain (although, as I explain in my books, he came late to this ideology of pleasure), and Nietzsche thought that he made some unique discovery when he came up with his “will to power”, or conquer (or was he mocking?).
But once they had claimed to ‘discover’ the obvious, they were impotent when it came to ‘fertilizing’ their ‘discoveries’. It simply did not occur to them that the human characteristics of lust for pleasure and power were not the characteristics from which any purpose of life could be discerned, or from which any set of principles of morality could be extrapolated, but the human characteristics which required a counterforce to prevent them getting out of control. It did not occur to them that perhaps morality is not to be discovered in indulging our survival instincts, or our “developed herd-mentality”, but in controlling them (granted, Kant recognized the problem, only he couldn’t offer a solution, so he went along for the ride).
So they set about doing precisely the opposite. They sought to ‘prove’ that the very codes (or instincts) installed (or developed) in man were installed for no other purpose than to be served, and served for the simple reason that they are there.
In short, they assumed that since a car consumed gasoline, its only purpose could be to consume gasoline. They simply argued over how much, and whether there were any occasions when it would be justified to consume less than the maximum.
It is quite remarkable that otherwise intelligent men could believe that some kind of regulated indulgence in primitive instincts could produce anything resembling morality, let alone some purpose to human existence which could operate to determine morality in the first place. But that is what they did, and that is the legacy we have inherited and embraced. Today we call this insanity the “right to liberty” and the “right to the pursuit of happiness.” Collectively, we could call it the “right to freely indulge our primitive amoebic instincts” – regulated by government, of course, responding to the “unarticulated feelings” of “developed herd-mentality”.
Yet there, in those 3 verses of the very first chapter of the Scriptures, we find clearly and unambiguously the only discernable purpose of life – the perpetuation of the human species – “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
But those verses do not explain why human beings were created; only what they should do once they had been created. So perhaps we could say that they are existentialist – in a way. All they tell us is that God wanted an image of Himself on earth – not why! But that itself has enormous significance (although I shall not deal with it here).
Now this is where that thing called reason comes into play.
Human beings clearly have an instinct for pleasure which ensures that they have the motivation to indulge in the act necessary to carry out the purpose of perpetuating the species, and an instinct to subdue and conquer their environment in order to provide security for future generations, thus enhancing the chances of successfully accomplishing the objective, but they also have the power of reason to determine how they should conduct themselves while doing so.
Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image.” It is plural, and plural means a joint enterprise, and a joint enterprise gives rise to obligations – not by human law, but by simple human interaction. In fact, it is a physical and measurable physical law – for every action there is a reaction. Interaction creates reaction. The trick is balancing that reaction so as not to create chaos. And that is done by recognizing and honoring obligations that attach to any joint enterprise.
And according to Scripture, immediately after creation, that joint enterprise was delegated to the male and the female. They were provided with their mission – perpetuate the image created. Now, whether we believe we are created in the image of God or not, that is a premise; a fact. Unless we perpetuate human life it will cease, and something that simply does not exist cannot have any purpose.
I have dealt at length with the obligations that arise from such an enterprise in my series of articles The Ten Principles of Freedom, so I shall not elaborate further.
I should simply emphasize the distinction between the type of obligation which would arise from an indulgence of our primitive instincts (an obligation to self to maximize the indulgence), and the type of obligations that arise from a joint enterprise with an objective distinct from the instincts that prompt it, especially a joint enterprise that creates human life - human life in the image (genetic) of those who create it.
And a child’s genetic image of its parents is a fact – a premise. “And [Adam] begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.” [Genesis 5:3]
So the first chapter of Genesis has set the scene. It has provided a set of indisputable premises about human nature, and it has given us the only indisputable and discernable purpose of life.
In three simple verses it has already surpassed the greatest philosophical minds, irrespective of whether we believe that God had any hand in this process or not. Remember, we are looking at the Scriptures without any preconceptions about its origins – only that it is a book with writing.
The next thing is to see what human beings do with these attributes, and where that leads them in their search for “wisdom, truth and knowledge.”
To do that, Genesis introduces us to the Garden of Eden – and the symbolism of the condition of man comes in gigantic waves.
Genesis 2:9 – “And out of the ground (note the similarity of the symbolism of Genesis 2:7 – “God formed man out of the dust of the ground ..”) made the Lord God grow every tree that is PLEASANT to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
Now we see that God put the man into the garden twice – first, immediately after he had planted the garden (Genesis 2:8), but before He made the trees to grow, then again after the trees had grown (Genesis 2:15), when God put him into the garden to “dress it and to keep it.”
That fits perfectly with Genesis 1:26 – 28. First God creates man (male and female), then, after they are created, He blesses them and gives them instructions on what they should do with the life they have been given.
The symbolism speaks volumes – there is a process going on here. The garden is symbolic of man. The garden is planted when man is put into it, but it has no trees (those pleasant to the sight and good to eat). For all intents and purposes, it is barren – the seeds are under the ground, latent.
But then God makes the trees grow out of the ground, and the river going out of Eden waters the trees (garden), and only then does God put man in the garden again, a garden that now has all the trees.
The first ‘putting in the garden’ symbolizes man’s primitive state, the second his developed state – after man had received his instructions.
And this is where it all gets fascinating – philosophically speaking.
Of all the trees in the garden, only the tree of knowledge of good and evil is out of bounds. Even the tree of life is available for man to eat from.
Now let me pause for a second at this juncture. The symbolism creates an image of man evolving; first, in a fertile, but apparently barren garden, then in a garden full of trees. Yet, one of those trees carries a risk by way of the prohibition against eating of its fruit.
It is thus not surprising that Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, the great Jewish philosopher, could say this about man: “And very beautifully after [God] had called the whole race 'man', did he distinguish between the sexes, saying, that 'they were created male and female'; although all the individuals of the race had not yet assumed their distinctive form; since the extreme species are contained in the genus, and are beheld, as in a mirror, by those who are able to discern acutely.”
That is a remarkable observation for a man who lived two thousand years ago. From these few verses in Genesis, Philo deduced that man was evolving, and that the evolution and identity of the species was “contained in the genus”. Nearly two thousand years before Darwin made his observations, and before scientists discovered the human genome, Philo had deduced these facts from reading the Scriptures.
Philo was not arguing, of course, that God did not create man, but rather, according to the Scriptures, that He may have chosen to do so over a period of time, and in stages. The symbolism of the creation over a series of “days” reinforces that interpretation, especially since the sun and the moon, by which we measure days, were only created on the fourth “day”. But again, I am examining this from the perspective of a philosophical enquiry, so for now, let’s leave evolution out of it.
The point is that from these very few verses of the Scriptures we get symbolism that is confirmed thousands of years later by science. We have premises; and facts. That is one of the reasons that I have no fear of scientific discovery. Such discoveries tend only to confirm the Scriptural accounts of the origins of man and the universe; usually though, only after scientists come to realize that some or other scientific discovery doesn’t actually amount to proof that God does not exist. All too often, as Schweitzer noted, scientists get all “ puffed up with vanity at being able to describe exactly a fragment of the course of life”; yet, after reflecting on their discovery, they come to realize that describing how something works, or even how to mend it, does not prove that no-one made it – it inevitably suggests the opposite!
But let me continue with our exploration.
When my oldest son was much younger he raised an interesting question about the tree of knowledge of good and evil – Why, he asked, would God want to punish people for knowing the difference between good and evil; isn’t it a good thing to know the difference?
At the time, I was floored. Why would a God not want us to know the difference between good and evil; right and wrong?
As I have said, I read the symbolism of the Garden of Eden to relate to the nature of man himself. The trees that man is permitted to eat from are his instincts, given him in Genesis 1:26 – 28. But he must not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he does, he shall “surely die” (or, more accurately, “dying thou shalt die”).
That reading is confirmed by Genesis 2:25 – “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
In short, they responded to their instincts without judging their actions, much as animals do. They did not seek pleasure for the sake of pleasure, nor did they pursue vanity – hence the reference to them not being “ashamed”.
We then come to Chapter 3. Something happens to human beings that cause them to reflect on their actions, and even characterize them as being right or wrong, or good and evil.
Genesis symbolizes this by Eve being tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree. It also gives us a clue as to what prompted the transformation.
And when 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, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. [Genesis 3:6]
The clues lie in the words “pleasant” and “to be desired”.
They succumbed to pleasure. They realized that the indulgence in pleasure purely for the sake of indulging in pleasure could be ‘exhilarating’. But at the same time, it appears to have activated reflection on their actions. Conscience came into play. Their eyes “were opened, and they knew that they were naked” [Genesis 3:7].
We then have the symbolism of God walking in the Garden, and “they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the Garden” [Genesis 3:8].
God, it seems to me, symbolizes their activated conscience, and the hiding amongst the trees symbolizes their attempt to avoid their conscience by taking refuge in their primitive instincts; seeking to avoid their conscience by justifying their actions as being simply “human nature”.
But God, or their activated conscience, is not that easily deterred – they are plagued until they have to confront God, or their conscience, and provide some justification for their actions. And when they do reflect on it, or answer to God, Adam admits that as a result of his actions, he was “afraid” and sought to hide himself.
And what of the Serpent?
The Serpent is misplaced reason. Reason starts to contemplate this business of pleasure. Perhaps the indulgence in pleasure is what it’s all about. Perhaps the indulgence in pleasure can “make one wise.”
The idiot Jeremy Bentham certainly came to that conclusion; and the pursuit of happiness is pretty much synonymous, to this day, with the pursuit of pleasure. Human beings seem to think that the indulgence in pleasure is a God given right. So they can justify (just as Adam and Eve did) ignoring their conscience by hiding in the trees of their primitive instincts.
Philo says this about the serpent that tempted Eve. "And the serpent is said to have spoken in a human voice, because pleasure employs innumerable champions and defenders who take care to advocate its interests, and who dare to assert that the power over everything, both small and great, does of right belong to it without any exception whatever."
And Philo adds that "those who have previously become the slaves of pleasure immediately receive the wages of this miserable and incurable passion."
And that is what happened to Adam and Eve, and is indeed our human heritage.
Having eaten of the Tree, “in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” [Genesis 3:17].
Having activated their ability to distinguish between their actions, and classify them as good or bad, they will always agonize over their actions.
Let me consider for a moment the effect of the misapplication of reason to serve our primitive, carnal instincts, and why that danger requires a counterforce.
As I have shown, the symbolism of Genesis 1:26 – 28 points to human beings having been programmed with an appetite for sexual pleasure in order to perpetuate the species. That programming also suggests a natural attraction to the opposite sex. If everyone was programmed to be attracted to the same sex, and repulsed by members of the opposite sex, then the species would have lasted just one generation. We would not exist today!
Now, if we apply our reason with the predominant purpose of servicing our appetite for sexual pleasure (as has pretty much become the accepted norm in Western society), we discover that enough is not enough; each indulgence induces an appetite for more experimentation in order to generate a higher degree of pleasure.
So we find that sex with the same person does not produce the extent of sexual pleasure that the mind can bring to the imagination. The imagination creates scenarios that could produce greater pleasure – more excitement; and the mind devises plans to realize the images produced by the imagination. Yet, once those imaginations have been indulged, our primitive instinct demands more. It demands of the mind new and more ‘creative’ scenarios for ‘experimentation’ to satisfy its appetite; and so it ventures into the realms of depravity. It then seeks pleasure and ‘excitement’ in suppressing the instinctive attraction to the opposite sex in order to ‘experiment’ with the same sex, or with multiple people of different sexes, or worse, with children, even animals.
And so the relentless demands of our instinct for pleasure, in this case sexual pleasure, become the all consuming purpose of our existence. The primary ‘obligation’ is to our primitive instincts. Everything else becomes incidental to our obligation to self. We become creatures consumed by vanity!
Now there is a tendency today to excuse certain behavior on the basis that some people are simply programmed differently. No one, the argument goes, should be condemned for being what they are. So we find apologists for homosexual behavior, for example. Unfortunately for these apologists, their line of argument quickly runs into some uncomfortable considerations; at what point do we start condemning actions which are claimed to be ‘programmed’ into certain individuals? Are those ‘programmed’ to rape and mutilate young children to be respected for simply being themselves? Or those who find that they are attracted to animals? Or their own children?
The rationale of this argument rests on a simple fallacy – that the purpose of human existence is to service our primitive instinct for the indulgence of pleasure. Or to put it another way, that we have a right to the pursuit of pleasure – as long as we don’t harm anyone else, of course (which is the rationale to distinguish pedophilia, for example, from homosexuality – even, though, as I argue in Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights, the ‘normalization,’ and even promotion, of homosexuality has caused enormous harm, especially to the family).
The reason such primitive arguments have gained such currency and persuasion is that the assumption that servicing our basic amoebic instincts is what life is all about, that doing so is some God-given right, has come to be an almost universally accepted norm (in the West anyway).
It thus becomes futile to condemn others for seeking to satisfy their lust for pleasure in a different, even perverted way. Once we elevate the indulgence of primitive instincts to a premise for human existence, reason cannot countenance a hierarchical classification of the methods of indulging that quest for pleasure.
Yet, once we recognize that the indulgence of pleasure (or power) is not the purpose of life, we also recognize that condemnation of things like homosexuality is not some nasty form of discrimination. Condemnation of homosexuality becomes no different to condemnation of adultery or promiscuity, because they are all predicated on a fallacy – the fallacy that the object of life is to indulge our primitive instincts, in these cases, the lust for the indulgence of pleasure.
Therefore, expecting homosexuals or pedophiles to exercise some control over their lust to indulge the demands of pleasure is no different to expecting those prone to adultery or promiscuity to do the same.
Such behavior is predicated on a fallacy – and the fallacy lies in the assumption that the indulgence of pleasure is what life is all about. It is not! If it were, that would be the same as saying that life is utterly pointless.
And that is the story of Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, and the symbolism of Eve being tempted by the serpent.
Now, when Adam and Eve did eat of the Tree, they did not die as God had said they would. Instead they were evicted from the Garden (that is, they were no longer in a tranquil state, oblivious of any distinction between their actions). They would henceforth eat of the Tree forever. Yet, when they are evicted from the Garden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which they were condemned to eat for the rest of their lives, remains in the Garden, together with the Tree of Life.
So what is the symbolism of all of this?
In order to answer that, let me try to paint a picture of the first humans trying to come to terms with this new awareness – judging their own actions, and classifying some as right (good), and others as bad (evil).
Since time immemorial, it was a time honored tradition to conquer an opposing tribe if it encroached on your territory; or even to expand your territory (the instinct to conquer). The conqueror would ‘reason’ about the most effective strategy to catch them off guard (like when they were sleeping), club the men and young boys to death, and drag the women and young girls off to become slaves. They would indulge some of their primitive instincts for pleasure with a little raping. They would ransack the opposing tribe’s property.
But in this particularly successful tribe, there appears a seemingly sensitive type; a type not seen before. He starts questioning whether they should be doing this sort of thing. What the rest of the tribe regard as a wonderful success (the crushed skulls of the men and boys in the opposing tribe, and the women and girls all thoroughly raped, and enslaved), he struggles to understand why he finds it all quite offensive.
He wonders whether it is wrong. But how can such an unmitigated success be wrong? The opposing tribe, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists, so there is no fear of retribution. And his tribe is so much better off. What could be the problem?
It begins to dawn on him that perhaps it is not their opposing tribe, or indeed any other of the species, who may judge their actions. That means that their actions may not even be brought into judgment in their own lifetimes. If what appears to be perfectly normal behavior can be considered wrong, but there is no one or thing on earth to bring them into judgment, either the actions are not wrong, or someone or something, not of this world, will bring such actions into judgment when they die. There can be no other explanation!!
So I can almost hear this rather sensitive person appealing to the chief and fellow tribesmen. He has to persuade them that what they regard as an unmitigated success, and a time-honored tradition, is wrong. But he can’t bring to the table fear of retribution; he can’t bring to the table some kind of weakening or loss to the tribe; he can’t bring to the table a breach of their traditions and time-honored customs; he can’t even bring to the table lack of courage. So to what can he appeal?
He appeals to a higher power that will bring judgment to their actions when they die. And that means an afterlife, and it means someone, or something, in that afterlife who will execute the judgment.
Yet, this is not some devious scheme to undermine the tribe’s security and prosperity, it is the only conclusion he can draw from the revulsion he feels at their actions. His reason tells him that actions regarded as not only normal and traditional, but courageous, can only be wrong if they are to be judged in another life by someone having the authority to do so; and perhaps that same someone, or something, is warning of the consequences that will be visited upon the actions by instilling in him a revulsion at the actions.
But he is alone, except that the chief himself has been harboring similar misgivings. He makes his pitch – to utter derision from the tribe – he is a coward; he is undermining the tribe; he is a traitor, perhaps he secretly supported the other tribe.
Could such a pitch ever have been made? History is rife with them, and they continue to this day. Civilization is built on just such pitches.
And a particularly poignant one from recent history occurred in 1550, in the town of Valladolid, Spain. A certain Bartolomé de Las Casas made just such a pitch to King Charles V by way of his closest advisors – the Council of Fourteen. But alas, for Las Casas, he won the debate, but the “will to power” won the day. The King lifted his ban on further Spanish Conquests in the Americas. Las Casas, however, was not met with the derision I suspect the first of the species met with when he, or she, first questioned actions previously regarded as honorable, traditional, and courageous, and condemned them as evil.
Now, the fact that we are clearly able to judge our actions, and categorize them as good or evil, right or wrong, does not prove a God, a soul, or an afterlife. But it provides a powerful argument in favor of such a conclusion. And even if it turns out that there is no such thing as a God, it explains why human beings would, quite reasonably, come to believe in one. The flip-side of that is that non-belief cannot be based on reason – only an irrational belief in a fragmentary science. So, perhaps it is the non-believers who have Bentham’s narrow intellect!
And there is another interesting dimension to this analysis, and it relates to the theory of evolution.
The fact that human beings start questioning their actions, even where those actions clearly ensure the survival of the strongest of the species, appears to run contrary to the theory of evolution. Not only do the strongest rein in their instinctive survival actions, they actually set about protecting the weakest of the species (see, for example, the preamble to the Code of Hammurabi, 1760 BC – “so that the strong should not harm the weak”). That would be retrogressive, and at odds with the mindless, relentless, single-minded drive for the survival of the species postulated by evolutionists; or at least those evolutionists who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of some hidden hand behind the whole process.
I elaborate further on these arguments in the book, so I shall not dwell on them here. I also contrast the Scriptural symbolism that gives rise to an argument for the existence of God with, for example, Kant’s arguments based on his “moral law”, and the contingency argument (Copeland v. Russell).
But the point I am making here is that the Scriptures themselves, with the symbolism they evoke, even in a few short chapters, preempt all these later philosophical arguments, and put a spanner in the evolutionary machinery.
Instincts, to Principles, to Laws
The most fascinating thing about this transformation from an instinct responsive creature to a reflective creature is how different members of the human species dealt with it.
Almost universally did they look beyond themselves and their fellow creatures to a higher power, and an afterlife. Some found that power in ancestral spirits, others in the stars, and yet others in fabulous mythical figures. Some vested lesser creatures with supernatural powers.
But one group took a different approach. They sought to recreate their notions of a supernaturally designated right and wrong into a system of laws based on fundamental governing principles. They didn’t construct mighty edifices to align with the stars; they didn’t create images of their imagined gods; they didn’t transform everyday creatures into god-like images.
They seemed to take the view that if there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, then let’s work out what actions fall into each category and set them out into a system of laws. But those laws needed to be based on some fundamental principles to which they could revert in cases of uncertainty, or dispute. (Contrast the Ten Commandments with, for example, the earlier Code of Hammurabi. The Ten Commandments are Principles from which the other Mosaic laws are derived, and thus do not specify punishments, for example – see my analysis below. By contrast, the Hammurabi Code begins with this: “If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.”)
So, whereas the builders of the pyramids (according to many) sought to align these mighty structures with the stars, the Jews sought to align their laws, align what is right and wrong, with God’s laws.
But their project was more ambitious than that even. From the start, they expected that this system of laws based on fundamental principles would, eventually, be the model for all mankind.
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. [Genesis 18:18]
They envisaged, no less, that God’s Kingdom would be recreated on earth; an earthly kingdom governed by God’s Law.
God’s Law would be the counterforce against the demands of our primitive instincts. God’s Law would provide the reference point to distinguish between our actions; to determine whether actions are good or evil, right or wrong. God’s Law would call upon our reason to devise a system of obligations and morality that would form the basis of judging our own actions, and a basis for devising a system of subsidiary laws to regulate our collective behavior. God’s Law would give us what we would recognize as justice.
So again we find the Scriptures providing an answer where the biological nature-philosophy that emerged from Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer failed. Albert Schweitzer wonderfully summed up this ‘thinking’. He said this: “By proclaiming developed herd-mentality to be ethics, Darwin and Spencer show that they have not gone to the root of the problem of the relation between instinct and reflection in ethics."
Like Bentham, Nietzsche, and others, Darwin and Spencer looked to our instincts to explain human behavior and morality, except they looked to our instinct to be part of a herd. They thought that we could derive some system of obligations and morality by virtue of man’s instinct to follow the herd.
The Scriptures show that morality is in fact found in our reason, and the principles it derives from it, when that reason is applied as a counterforce to our primitive instincts, and not to service and pander to them.
The build-up to the statement of principles is itself revealing. It portrays those few people who question accepted behavior, and challenge accepted traditions, as chosen by God Himself to accomplish His task. Moses is chief among them. And, of course, the Children of Israel, the nation of Israel, are chosen as the vehicle through which the process would be initiated.
The symbolism (remember, we are still reading the Scriptures from a skeptic’s perspective) of the events leading up to the Ten Commandments is breathtaking. It is no wonder that Nietzsche could have said this: “In the Jewish 'Old Testament,' the book of divine justice, there are human beings, things, and speeches in so grand a style that Greek and Indian literature have nothing to compare with it. With terror and reverence one stands before these tremendous remnants of what man once was.”
So we see Moses questioning God’s decision to select him to go to the Pharaoh and demand that God’s people be freed. He advances excuses like his ineloquence and slowness of speech. Not unreasonably, Moses asks, “who am I, that I should go …?” And again, “But, behold, they will not believe me.”
But God, or perhaps symbolically, Moses’ conscience, perseveres, and convinces him that he has to do it. Yet, even at the last minute he has second thoughts: “Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me?”
Then we have the constant refrain to Pharaoh – “Let my people go.”
And as we all know, Pharaoh eventually relented, and the children of Israel were freed, and readied to receive God’s Law in the wilderness.
The symbolism of the revelation of that law is dramatic. “And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly” [Exodus 19:18].
And to emphasize the overreaching importance of the Law, God is said to have Himself written His Law on two tables of stone. Nowhere else in the Scriptures does God Himself physically write anything! So even if we accept that the Scriptures are God’s word, written through the hand of those he chose, still, on only one occasion does God deem it of such overriding importance that He Himself, in His own hand, should physically write something – His Law.
As such the Law is accorded a prominence and preeminence above everything else.
“These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone …” [Deuteronomy 5:22]
Philo explains the significance of this: “For it was suitable to [God’s] own nature to promulgate in His own Person the heads and PRINCIPLES of all particular laws, but to send forth the particular and special laws by the most perfect of the prophets … to be the interpreter of His holy oracles.” [my emphasis]
I shall revert to this distinction shortly.
Once these Ten Principles are enunciated, we then have a series of prophets (including Moses himself - Deut 18:18) announcing God’s plan to deliver His Law to all the peoples of the world, and how He plans to do it.
Isaiah Chapter 42 is probably the most emphatic. God would send His servant to “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”
“He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall await his law” [Isaiah 42:4].
With the Law, all the people of the world would be blessed with the ability to judge their actions. “Judgment” in these passages clearly means the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, because the mission is to bring “light to the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, …” [Isaiah 42:6]. But even if it means “judgment” in the legal sense (and it may mean both), the mission is the same – the Gentiles having a set of Principles, God’s Law, to which they can refer to determine the character of their actions, and by reference to which they will ultimately be judged.
So just as God considered the delivery of the Principles which reflected His Law sufficiently important for He Himself to descend down to earth to personally write them on stone, so He considered it of such paramount importance to ensure they were delivered to the rest of the world that He sent His own Son to carry out that mission (please bear in mind that I am not addressing Christ’s mission of salvation here, only the question of the Law).
And Christ is emphatic about the role He plays in respect of the Law.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” [Matthew 5:17 – 18]
Thus Christ restates His mission as prophesied in Isaiah.
And Christ affirms the preeminence of the Principles enshrined in the Ten Commandments. He provides a sort of updated ‘interpretation’ as evidenced by his references to “Ye have heard it said of old time …,” and then saying, “But I say unto you …”
The most stark example of this is when Christ asserts that Moses had provided an interpretation of the Seventh Commandment which actually contravened the Law , and that in doing so he had permitted an indulgence in man’s original and primitive instinct for pleasure. “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” [Matthew 19:8 & 9]
I shall not here address the Principles of the Ten Commandments themselves. I have done so at length in Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights, and in the series of articles The Ten Principles of Freedom. I should, however, briefly examine the issue of "bondage", or more accurately, the Scriptural symbolism of "bondage" as relating to our primitive instincts.
Bondage to our Primitive Instincts
The Ten Commandments starts with this: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” [Genesis 20:2].
The Israelites had to be delivered from “bondage” before they could receive God’s Law. The symbolism is that man needs to discard the shackles of bondage to his primitive instincts, and recognize his enslavement to those primitive instincts, before he has any hope of recognizing any greater purpose to his existence. Only when he detaches his reason from the demands of his primitive instincts can he apply his reason to an objective reflection on his obligations as a human being, and how his obligations form the basis of morality.
But the symbolism of Pharaoh’s stubbornness illustrates the difficulty of releasing ourselves from the allure of servicing our instincts. Even as we arrive on the threshold of the wilderness, the chariots and horsemen are in hot pursuit. Only once we pass over the threshold of the sea into the wilderness are we released from “bondage” to our instincts. But there is little sustenance in the wilderness – only survival rations.
The wilderness symbolizes the emptiness that comes from detaching ourselves from the demands of our instincts. When we are servicing our instincts for pleasure, or power, or the accumulation of wealth (all basically variations of vanity), we can at least delude ourselves that life has some meaning. The new car, that exotic holiday, a promotion at work – the vanity engendered by tending to some or other demand of our basic instincts keeps us exercised in trivia. It detracts us from recognizing just how pointless such an existence is.
Only once we recognize the utter futility of vanity can we begin to reflect on anything more. And for that, we need to enter into the wilderness. It is there that the chaff of vanity is burnt off. It is there that we begin to recognize that there must be more to human life than the relentless pursuit of pleasure, or power - of un-harnessed indulgence in vanity.
We thus begin to recognize that our ability to reject the futility of an existence in bondage to our instincts can only mean that there is something more to life than survival for the sake of survival. We begin to recognize that our ability to reject (even find abhorrent) actions that otherwise appear to enhance our survival prospects, can only mean that there must be more to life than servicing the instinct for survival itself.
So even if those archeologists and anthropologists who question whether there was indeed any historical mass-Exodus from Egypt are right, the symbolism of the events described deliver the same message as the one depicted in the historical events.
And when we get to Jesus Christ, we find exactly the same message, and symbolism.
Again, even for those who doubt or deny a historical Christ, and reject any notion of a “Satan” or “devil”, we find the symbolism of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness mirrors that of the Exodus.
Apart from the forty days/forty years, we again have the symbolism of “the tempter” [Matthew 4:3, Mark 1:2 & Luke 4:1]. “The tempter” is clearly symbolic of our primitive instincts. Christ, realizing that he had been gifted with incredible talents and abilities, considers what he should do with them.
He enters that wilderness where he discovers the emptiness of life if it is predicated on nothing but vanity. In the wilderness, as he ponders life, he is tempted to use his talents and abilities to service his instincts. He could turn stones into bread – use his abilities to satisfy his physical cravings, especially when he was “hungered”. He could devise ways to defy the laws of nature (being tempted to jump from the pinnacle of a temple). Finally, he is tempted to use his abilities to acquire “all the kingdoms of the world.” His temptation is to service his vanity, his instincts, rather than respond to his calling.
And in both cases (Exodus and Christ’s temptation), the events are followed by reference to God’s Law – the Ten Commandments; in Christ’s case, at the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5:17 – 20]; in the case of Exodus, at Mount Sinai [Exodus 20].
I should at this point also mention one final matter. It should be noted that the Ten Commandments, and indeed pretty much every utterance of the Scriptures, relates to man’s obligations, not his rights.
God is not said to have delivered a charter of rights at Mount Sinai; he delivered a list of obligations. Rights engender a mind-set of entitlement, and vanity; obligations release us from our bondage to our instincts and vanity. If God had considered our rights to be inalienable and paramount, I expect that He would have written them on “two tables of stone,” rather than what He did in fact write – the Ten Commandments. The fact that even someone as esteemed as Thomas Jefferson ranks our rights as somehow “God given” does not make it so.
So we find that those who deny the existence of a God, and deny that the Scriptures are in any way inspired by a higher power, still search relentlessly for some principles on which human conduct can be judged, but their ‘reasoning’ could only come up with is a list of silly and vacuous pronouncements of some nebulous things they dub rights. And yet, when we examine these silly concepts, what we see are reflections, and very pale reflections, of what the Scriptures call God’s Law – the Ten Commandments. So ironically, even when these rights are used to banish or ridicule the Ten Commandments, they have the effect of promoting them. As our rights accumulate, and come into conflict with our obligations, people begin to understand that a world built on entitlements and vanity is one destined for disaster.
In short, rights which pander to the demands of our primitive instincts cannot live side by side with obligations – they are mutually exclusive. One condemns us to “bondage”; the other sets us free!
I deal with this issue more fully in the book, but it may be appropriate here to touch upon it.
Undoubtedly, there will be those who claim that the prominence I give to The Law in God’s plan for humanity sidelines, or even diminishes, Christ’s central role in that plan.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth!
The best way to explain the relevance of The Law to Christ’s mission is by reference to a legal principle: laws cannot be retroactive. That is, it is an established principle of law (although, granted, not always observed by government) that no one can be convicted for an action which was not criminal when the action took place.
This principle is simply a reflection of the underlying Scriptural Principle which emerges from the Ten Commandments, and Christ’s mission.
Before God gave the Jews the Ten Commandments, they had no reference point to determine between good and evil actions. Abraham, for example, let the Pharaoh have his way with his wife, and thus accumulated great wealth. Likewise, Abraham fathered Ishmael with Sarah’s maid. These actions are clearly contrary to the Ten Commandments, yet Abraham was not punished for them.
The reason is simple – at that point, God had not revealed His Law, so Abraham had no reference point to judge his actions. He had to do the best he could balancing his instincts with his conscience.
Likewise, in the story of Cain and Abel, although Cain is cut off from God, God still ‘protects’ Cain from vengeance by setting a “mark upon” him (Genesis 4:15]. (As an aside, referring back to Philo’s observation that not all members of the species had assumed their distinctive form, it should be noticed that although Adam and Eve are said to be the first humans, their son Cain takes for himself a wife - Genesis 4:17 – the Scriptures almost invited the question, from where?).
Cain simply reacted to his instincts, and reasoned that he could serve them by getting rid of Abel. He responds to God’s question as to Abel’s whereabouts with “Am I my brother’s keeper.” He does not see himself as having any obligations towards his fellow man where his fellow man ‘threatens’ him. Cain had no reference point from which to judge his actions.
Yet, if the Ten Commandments reflect God’s Law, and if there is an afterlife when our actions will be brought into judgment, and if that judgment will be on the basis of God’s Law, then it would be a travesty of justice to condemn and punish the actions of those who could not have known that their actions were wrong. Before God revealed His Law, humans were simply juggling their instincts with their consciences.
God then delivers His Law to the Jews in the wilderness, and thereafter to the Gentiles through Christ. But what of those who never had the benefit of those Laws when they lived, and what of those who only came to know of the Law some way through their lives? How does God judge them?
Well, that is where Christ comes in. Not only does Christ come to deliver the Law to the Gentiles, He also becomes God’s way of forgiving the actions of those who never had the benefit of the Law in order to regulate their behavior. Christ takes on the punishment that would otherwise be visited on those ignorant of the Law – otherwise God would be condemning human beings for actions they did not know were wrong at the time they committed them. That would be retroactive, and thus unjust.
The exchanges between Christ and the Pharisees at St. John Chapter 8 regarding Abraham [see also Luke 10:24] illustrate the point. Abraham “rejoiced to see [Christ’s] day” [John 8:56] because those of his actions which were contrary to the Law would be forgiven, washed clean, by Christ’s sacrifice. Otherwise, even Abraham would not have been able to enter into the Kingdom of God – his pre-Law actions would not have been compatible with God’s Law.
And Christ being described as the Word of God clearly means He is the embodiment of God’s Law – the Ten Commandments. “These words the Lord spake … and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone”.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [John 1:1 – and compare the similarity between the opening verses of John with “Wisdom” at Proverbs 8:12-36]
But, like the prophets, Christ warns against ritualizing His sacrifice.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [Matthew 7:21]
And the Father could not have made His will more clear – He, Himself, descended to earth to deliver it, and wrote it “on two tables of stone.”
Which is why Christ says; “many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” [Matthew 7:22-23]
Christ was delivering the same warning as the prophets.
Compare Christ’s warning to that of Isaiah, for example: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? Saith the Lord: … Bring no more VAIN oblations; incense is an abomination to me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with it; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting … Come now, and let us REASON together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be as crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.” [Isaiah 1:11 – 19 – and see also Jeremiah 6:20, Hosea 6:6, and Amos 5:21 – 24]
In short, all are calling for obedience to God’s Law; the Ten Commandments.
Like the sacrifices in the times of the prophets intended as atonement for the sins of Israel, Christ’s sacrifice is not a license to service our instincts while continually running back to ask for forgiveness.
And that principle is the foundation of human laws: once we know the law, a breach will be punished. A judge has no power to overlook a breach of the law. If he did, the law would not be law. We are condemned by our own actions when they are in breach of the law. The judge does not pass judgment on the basis of personal animosity.
Which explains why it is not some vengeful God who delights in condemning the very creatures He created to eternal damnation - we do it ourselves. God’s Law is immutable, just like the other laws He created. If we construct a contraption that does not conform to the laws of aerodynamics, then plunge from a cliff top, the law of gravity will bring the contraption down to earth with a bump. It is useless to ask why God would allow such a thing to happen. If we defy the law of gravity, there will be a consequence – we fall to our death.
Likewise, God has given us the Law which acts as a counterforce to the demands of our primitive instincts. When we defy that Law and succumb to the lure of our primitive instincts, we condemn ourselves. God is neutral in the judgment. But He has gone to great lengths to warn us that defiance of His Law brings with it consequences – we are free to choose!
Establishing the Kingdom of God’s Law
“Where the King’s law is, there also is his Kingdom.” - author
So, as we get to the end of this brief journey through the Scriptures, we find something quite remarkable. We find that the Scriptures have explained our origin and nature more perfectly than any philosopher or scientist ever has. We find that it has provided us with the counterforce to prevent our primitive instincts for the indulgence of pleasure and power from running amuck; it has given us the Principles upon which to make laws to deal with that danger, and to govern ourselves in a civilized manner.
Those Principles also define and determine all human obligations from which, in turn, emerges everything we recognize as morality, while also providing a blueprint for the preservation of our individual and collective freedom [The Ten Principles of Freedom articles].
The Scriptures began by providing an argument in favor of the existence of God. It then tells us how God intended to establish His Law on earth, and that He, and His son and servant, Jesus Christ, will not falter until that is achieved.
And what the Scriptures said God would do, He has done – although the work is clearly not finished.
All that, for me, is sufficient to persuade me that what is written in the Scriptures reveals, at the very least, the will of a power beyond the earthly. It satisfies me that there is a God, and that the Scriptures reveal His will and His Law.
The final confirmation of that comes in the remarkable endurance of the Ten Commandments, despite the repeated, devious, and often ignorant attempts to sideline them, and even eradicate them.
From the Nicene Creed, that makes no mention of the only thing God thought worthy of Himself writing in stone, and worthy of the sacrifice of His only Son to ensure that His Law would be delivered to the rest of humanity, to interpretations of Paul’s letters (especially Romans) to mean that God’s Law had somehow assumed a secondary position in His plan, to ‘enlightened’ philosophers ridiculing the Law as nothing more than a refrain to be nice to others, the Ten Commandments have endured, and even strengthened.
And as if to drive home the point for those inclined to think that the Ten Commandments had somehow become less relevant, or even irrelevant, the New Testament ends by dispelling such delusions: “Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates to the city” [Revelations 22:14].
Even today’s mighty Charters of Rights, Constitutions, laws, courts, and Parliaments, claiming to advance and better protect the condition and liberty of human beings, are nothing more than pale imitations of the Ten Commandments; yet, even in such barren ground do we see the shoots of God’s Law spring forth.
I have no doubt that having said that His Law will be established on this earth, it will be established on this earth – and that process continues with each passing day – even though many refuse to recognize it. What we call Western civilization is only the infant of the Kingdom of God’s Law that will be established on earth.
It is now up to us to feed and nurture that infant if we are to prevent it suffering a premature death. But pandering to our primitive instincts and utter vanity is not the way to do that!
Each and every additional concession we make to the demands of our primitive instincts is another nail in the coffin of the already seriously malnourished infant.
Whether the infant survives or perishes is up to us!!
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2008 All Rights Reserved
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007