Dancer 41 Offline

Morality and the Bible

Today I am going to discuss what morality is.

When I google the Merriam-Webster dictionary for "morality", the first of its definitions is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". I will make a biblical argument to support this secular definition.

Please note that the definition does not use the words faith or belief. It does not discriminate between cultures or societies. It implies knowledge as a necessity for morality, but does not make knowledge itself morality.

Rather, morality is using a fundamental source (ie-principles) of good or bad (ie-right and wrong) in action or inaction (ie-behavior).

Of course, any action we take or don't take ultimately comes down to choices we make.

As we proceed through the study, I will address each of these components in detail.

So, what does the Bible say about this secular definition? Quite a lot, I believe.

Most of this lesson will reference the Book of Genesis. Unless specifically mentioned otherwise, all references will be to this book.

The first issue to address is the fundamental source. As Jews and Christians, we have in common at least one fundamental source: God.

For us, this is the first and foremost source. But is it the only one we are called to follow?

God gave man (later identified as Adam in Chp 5, v1) two tasks to perform: cultivate the garden and to avoid the tree of knowledge (Chp 2, v 15-16). This was the fundamental source for which Adam would be judged moral.

It is also said that God gave Adam dominion over all the earth (Chp 1, v 26, 28-30, Chp 2, v 15). Adam was allowed to create his own fundamental source. We say he was given authority.

A question may arise if this authority was perpetual or if it was lost during the fall of man.

After all, nearly all those who claimed authority to act in the name of God in the Old Testament were either self proclaimed prophets of God, or appointed by those who were self proclaimed prophets.

But such a view is superficial. The Hebrews lived among many, many other cultures. The Egyptians and Philistines, in particular, seem to pop up over and over again.

I have seen many disparaging things said about these competing cultures. Many plagues, defeats and disasters have been leveled against them.

But I do not recall seeing where these cultures, even the Babylonians, were ever called illigetimate by any prophet.

This, by itself, does not support the idea that Adam retained authority outside the Garden of Eden, but it certainly calls into question any suggestion that Adam lost it.

Fortunately, the New Testament gives us more insight.

I find the New Testament rich in this regards, but for me the most convincing argument is St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chp 13, v 1-7. In it, we are told that any authority that does exist has already been established by God (v 1).

It seems the authority of man on Earth is part of God's plan, therefore not in conflict with the definition.

The second point I want to make from this definition is that morality is about right AND wrong.

As Jews and Christians, anything that brings us closer to God is "right" and anything that takes us away from Him is "wrong" in a spiritual sense.

We even have a special name for wrong: sin.

We are told that man and woman (later identified as Adam and Eve in Chp 5, v1 and Chp 3, v 20 respectively) committed the first, or Original, sin by eating from the forbidden tree (Chp 3, v 6).

We are told that the tree (introduced in Chp 2, v 9) would cause their deaths (Chp 2, v 17 and Chp 3, v 3). This implies that life would continue if they did not eat of it.

Here, we clearly have a right (life) and wrong (death).

The bible is filled with those who did God's will and were rewarded (right) and those who opposed God's will and were punished (wrong).

Clearly, the bible supports the concept of right and wrong. So far, the bible supports my choice of secular definition.

The final point is one of action (behavior), and this is perhaps the most complex.

Bionically, the first sin (or wrong moral action) was eating the fruit. The question comes to be, was it the action of eating the fruit, or the fruit itself what made them sinful?

If the bible supports the action as being sinful, then my definition of morality is correct. I can use it as a platform for future bible studies concerning how we are supposed to live on Earth.

If the bible supports the fruit as being sinful, then I need to find another definition to account for sin being forbidden knowledge.

To begin my defense of my position, Adam and Eve knew the tree was forbidden before the sin. Obviously certain knowledge must not sinful.

For those who suppose the fruit to be what made Adam and Eve sinful, they must now classify knowledge into categories of right, wrong and neutral.

By accepting that the fruit defiled man, we also have to accept that if a bear had walked up to Adam and Eve and knocked the fruit out of their hands before they ate, then no sin would have been committed.

For many, this is actually sound logic.

Indeed, this was the primary view in biblical times and remains strong today. But there is more than just a gut feeling something is wrong here.

The sinlessness mentioned of Job implies Jesus was not the only perfect person. Warnings from several prophets are meaningless.

In Matthew Chp 15, v 11 and Mark Chp 7, v 15, Jesus specifically tells us what passes the lips does not make one unclean.

I plan to go into greater detail on these teachings in a later study, but they seem to be directed specifically against the idea that the fruit was what defiled Adam and Eve.

Finally, the apostles in Acts and the letters have had much to say about "clean" and "unclean" food, with the final decision drawn along cultural lines instead of spiritual ones.

If, on the other hand, we accept that the act was the sinful part and the fruit was merely incidental to the act, then these inconsistencies go away in a very clean manner.

We find Job my not have performed any ritual sins (no small feat, to be sure) and was probably a genuinely nice guy, but was still subject to sins not specifically part of the written law.

The warnings of the prophets and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are not contradicted.

I, of course, endorse the belief that it is the choice (even if hampered or stopped upon reflection) that is the basis of morality.

In this study, I have defined what morality is and presented biblical evidence to support my definition.

With this completed, I plan to use it as a platform in future studies.

Any questions?