Morality-forming in the Age of Conscience

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

Ten Commandments Before Sinai

Part1/2

Law before the Law? Everyone reading what was written before Mt Sinai sees the law God gives, Paul included. In spite of his knowledge of this, he writes Ro5.13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. We must agree and not contradict what Paul says.

An explanation must be given for this apparent contradiction, which wouldn't contradict Paul.

What is sin without a law? For, he goes so far to say 'that sin existed but wasn't imputed'. That he writes this shows his use of the powers of deduction. If Mom hasn't said 'don't eat those cookies' then they are up for grabs, without punishment. I know of no other Biblical writer making a similar statement as Paul.

A general 'rule': It should be thought that important things are always recorded. It is only natural to think that things which God required of all Men would be recorded, especially if a reward or punishment was attached. We know about the oldest law given to Man (even though forever inapplicable since that time to any other), because it was thought important to record. Other important things were also recorded. If God had commanded other important things such as law applicable to all, then it is natural to think it would have been recorded. What isn't seen is often as important as what is seen.

Another general 'rule': Things that come first should be seen preceding that which comes later, obviously. If no complete agreement is seen between the two then the latter should be interpreted by that which first came, and not the other way around. The former is not usually interpreted by the latter. Any law of God coming before the giving of law at Sinai would of necessity be similar, as coming from the same Source.

1st & 2nd: No Other Gods / Idolatry: Jacob commanded his household to "put away the foreign gods" [Genesis 35:2-4], and he understood that stealing household idols was a sin [Genesis 31:30-35]. The unwritten law of love, and also from rational thought, says that if you say you love God you must put him first. Knowing the feelings of being violated by theft, which are common to all whether done to a saint or sinner, indicates the nature God placed in Man naturally shows theft as wrong. This is true with or without a law of God.

3rd: Taking God’s Name in Vain: Job offered sacrifices for his children, fearing they might have "cursed God in their hearts" [Job 1:5]. Even the sinner-majority recognizes that those who are elite should be given recognition for it. It is not necessary for God to give a law for it to be true.
Fb
4th: The Sabbath: Instituted at creation when God "blessed the seventh day and sanctified it" [Genesis 2:1-3]. Later, before reaching Sinai, God tested Israel's obedience to the Sabbath through the gathering of manna [Exodus 16:4, 23-30]. Plz provide verses indicating 'instituted'. That God blessed and sanctified the seventh day does not yet show he commanded A&E to hold it as a day of rest. Did God exemplify it? Yes. Did A&E and early humans learn from what was exemplified and copy its example? Perhaps, but what Biblical evidence do we have for this before the giving of the Law? I'm not saying it wasn't practiced. If it was practiced, then where is the evidence? I'm saying that no law was recorded commanding it. (Secular scientists have indicated that a natural rhythm is shown in humans, requiring this rest for best performance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27830946/. I have not read these results.)

The example of manna does not yet show that this sabbath was a command of God for anything but this gathering of manna. It can be assumed otherwise but when no evidence can be presented it should then not be assumed that it encompassed other sabbaths and their requirements. This sabbath was specific only to manna gathering until another expanded-on sabbath was commanded otherwise, later.

5th: Honoring Parents: Explicitly mentioned as a reason for God’s blessing on Abraham's descendants [Genesis 26:34-35] and reflected in the respect shown by Jacob to his parents [Genesis 28:6-7]. It was inherent to the Decalogue covenant at Sinai, that their respect (and the obedience which showed it) was part of the continuance of that covenant made with Abraham. Whether or not a Decalogue exists, God is a jealous God. He must be #1. Love, a thing existing before law, demands God to be #1. It existed outside of demands of law. It is a timeless requirement. So with honouring parents.

Did Cain and Abel show due respect to A&E? I would hope so. Again, we have little evidence that they did so if they did. We would assume Yes, they did and did so without a command from God asking them to, because we see no record of it. It is somewhat natural to give due respect to those who love and nurture you, to do so without needing a command to do so.

It should not be thought strange that the ways of God, which come out of his holy eternal nature, would be included in the Decalogue. Timeless values applicable to all humanity would naturally be included in it; i.e., respect for parents. Thus to see this both before and in the Decalogue is not surprising. God includes by Law what was included and expected of others before it without law. If God had expected it of all others outside of covenant, then where did this expectation come from? If not from a spoken law of God then is it a natural law springing from the nature God gave us? Did God expect Cain and Abel to show respect to parents without speaking a law requiring it? Yes, the answer should be Yes, but said without evidence because none is given in scripture to prove it. God did not command it of them. The Yes springs from the nature and reasoning powers given to Man.

So to, with the honour of God, as with honouring only him by worship. What is spoken of by Job was spoken before the giving of the Law. It is part of giving due honour to those deserving. No law is needed to see it is needed, but one was added at Sinai to ensure its place.

6th: Prohibition of Murder: God held Cain accountable for killing Abel, labeling it a sin [Genesis 4:8-15]. After the Flood, God established a formal decree: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed" [Genesis 9:5-6]. Cain acknowledges his guilt by saying 'they will kill me', but he is not guilty to a law of God against murder. There would have been a record of such an important law, but it doesn't appear until with Noah, where it is thought to be recorded as important. The guilt he felt was from the conscience. Violations against the internal 'law' of the image of God produced feelings of guilt.

Cain says, 'they'll kill me'. And where did this thought come from but himself, when no law against murder or its punishment for it, was given. People then, as now, had a carnal nature. It says to get revenge on wrongs done. Cain knew this to be true in himself and could have thought it was also active in all humans. Thus, what was known in himself he thought others also knew of. They then would apply revenge on him. The thought that others would kill him didn't come from a law of God which didn't exist. It came as a result of self-examination of their own God-given nature, both carnal and the image of God. They had both. God changed Man after the Fall and it resulted in Man having a carnal nature.

God spoke to Noah that which was applicable to all humanity. The sacredness of blood - not to be eaten. The retribution from God on any who shed Man's life-blood, Man or beast. Although there is more to refer to in God's words to Noah, these two, only two, are those which would be categorized as moral-laws. But this is a far cry for a comparison to that which is seen in the Decalogue. It is incomplete for a comprehensive moral code. But it is still God's law.

Paul makes his Ro5.13 statement in spite of his knowledge of these Noahic commands. One explanation as to why may be as good as another.

7th: Prohibition of Adultery: Joseph refused Potiphar’s wife, calling the act a "great evil and sin against God" [Genesis 39:7-9]. Pharaoh and Abimelech were also warned by God regarding taking another man's wife [Genesis 12:17-20, 20:3-9]. If faithfulness to one spouse in marriage in the Beginning was commanded, then where is the evidence of a command? That Jews had many wives testifies they did not see the example seen in A&E as a command, even so after the giving of the Law. Jesus talked about adultery and divorce in relation to the events seen in the Beginning, not commands. If there had been commands then he would have referenced them. But he bases his thoughts on deduced human reasoning powers - on events exemplified at the Beginning. It is not too much of a stretch to think that others, along with Joseph, had also drawn values for marriage from it, and also from viewing successes and failures in life. The best marriages are seen as monogamous marriages. Referencing these events of Joseph (son of Jacob who had four 'wives'), Pharaoh and Abimelech does not reference a command of God. It references events which show these had formed a moral code by what means? Not by commands which did not exist.

8th: Prohibition of Stealing: Jacob and Laban recognized theft as a punishable offense [Genesis 30:33, 31:32], and Joseph’s brothers understood the gravity of being accused of stealing a silver cup [Genesis 44:8-9]. It is a natural to believe theft is wrong: when those who steal from us rattle our emotions doing so, it shows us that our theft of others is wrong. We need no formal law of God to tell us this. But God strengthens that which comes from the way he made us, by adding it to the Decalogue. Emotions aren't reliable as moral guides but his Law finalizes what our thoughts and emotions teach us.


9th: Prohibition of Lying: Cain was punished for his dishonest response to God [Genesis 4:9-12], Careful reading shows God ignoring any mention of Cain lying. and various "adultery narratives" involve rebukes for lying about marital status [Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-5]. It is a natural law to believe a lie is wrong. When those who lie to us rattle our emotions doing so, it shows us that our lying to others is wrong. We need no formal law of God to tell us this. But God strengthens that which comes from the way he made us (our emotions when lied to), by adding a command thereto in the Decalogue. Emotions aren't reliable as moral guides but his Law finalizes it as wrong.

10th: Prohibition of Coveting: The fall of humanity began with Eve "coveting" the forbidden fruit [Genesis 3:6]. It comes quite naturally that coveting leads to many evils, even without a law of God forbidding it.

Part 2/2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

Part 2/2.

Other Divine Laws & Statutes

Clean and Unclean Animals: Noah was commanded to take seven pairs of "clean" animals and only two of "unclean" animals into the Ark [Genesis 7:2]. What we have recorded is God providing the skins of animals as a covering for Adam and Eve's shame. It can be assumed that God subsequently commanded A&E to sacrifice, or it can be assumed that A&E caught on to a thing God had exemplified. No record of God requiring/commanding blood sacrifice is written. The incident with Cain not offering an acceptable sacrifice may have led, in the absence of a command for a particular sacrifice, to take care not to offer an unacceptable sacrifice i.e., clean or unclean. This may have led to the understanding that some animals were acceptable and some not. While this is making great use of speculation, the absence of any record of command may justify this. An absence of the recording of an important thing fuels this assumption.

Dietary Restrictions (Blood): God forbade Noah and his descendants from eating meat with its life-blood still in it [Genesis 9:4]. Agreed, applicable to all. Also given to Noah was the law of capital punishment.

Tithing: Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek [Genesis 14:20], and Jacob vowed to give God a tenth of everything he received [Genesis 28:22]. Things stated as events are just that. That an event happened does not automatically mean it was commanded. For example, Abraham's tithing. There is no record that God commanded Abraham to tithe. But he does; out of a heart of gratitude?

Circumcision: Established as a covenant sign for Abraham and his descendants [Genesis 17:10-14]. Circumcision was commanded of Abraham (and his descendants). It only applied to him and no other, as opposed to the Decalogue which applies to many. That the Law later was given to his descendants must then have necessitated this Abraham-specific law also be incorporated in the Law given to his descendants. What applied to Abraham also applied to his descendants. It came first as to Abraham, and was added to the Law, which was added to the covenant made with Abraham, later. Can it be correctly said they were two separate covenants, which merged or is Sinai an extension of Abraham's?

Sacrificial System: Cain and Abel offered sacrifices [Genesis 4:3-5], and the patriarchs regularly built altars to offer burnt offerings to God [Genesis 8:20, 12:7, 26:25]. What we have recorded is God providing the skins of animals as a covering for Adam and Eve's shame. It can be assumed that God subsequently commanded A&E to sacrifice or it can be assumed that A&E caught on to a thing God had exemplified. No record of something important, God requiring/commanding blood sacrifice, is recorded.

The Patriarchs practiced that which was exemplified by those who went before. If God had commanded this, then we have no record of it. It is only an assumption to say so, the same as it is an assumption to say they learnt sacrifice by God's example.

When the phrase 'process of time' is stated, it could refer to either showing regard to instruction from God or the practice which A&E had started from God's example.

The statement made by God about 'sin lying at the door' refers to the anger of Cain and not his supposed disobedience to a command to sacrifice animals. If thought disobedience, then it could be to God or the example of A&E. What we know for certain is that the record, thought to usually show things of importance, does not give a source for a practice which is seen in the phrase 'process of time'.

It can be assumed that Cain, as a carnal man, missed by accident or rebelled against that which A&E had taught their children about sacrifice. In the absence of seeing a record of important things (already demonstrated in the important things which are seen as recorded) it may be more likely that sacrifice was not instructed by God. When Cain didn't practice what was taught by Man, then he rebelled against that which was being established as a norm by his parents - blood sacrifice.

Abraham's Legacy: Scripture explicitly summarizes this era of pre-Sinai law in Genesis 26:5, where God states that Abraham "obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws". Indeed. The Lord did say these words, but he wasn't pre-figuring the Law he and we know was to come. Yet his saying this would not be the same as giving the Law for a country or the world. These commands were words spoken for Abraham. It was God who first labelled his Words with this phrase. Does God borrow terms from the future to apply them today? I think not. But he does say words today which will be quoted in the future. These words here were first spoken to Abraham before the giving of the Law. It is not inconceivable to think that they were memorably recognized and then later applied to other memorable words, such as the Law.

************
God has always had a moral code within himself, in his nature. Moral codes for Man reflect the nature of God, the Holy One. If God expected that Adam and Eve would have a moral code, then where would it have come from when he hadn't yet given his Word. Well he did. He gave one command, which did not a complete moral code make. That we know of, morals comes from within and also from the law of God when given.

Moral codes for Man have been expressed over time through his Word. We received the Word over a time span of many, many years. If it is thought that we only get a moral code by God's Word, then we've been given moral code by dribs and drabs. But, does waiting 2500 yrs for Sinai show God abandoning Man to make their own moral code? Wouldn't a God with concern and wisdom provide a means not left to chance or the whim of Man? Of course. He provided A&E, and everyone later, a moral code by means of the image of God, the conscience, and the use of the intellect.

Read carefully. Thus, what is known as right living, came about as brought-on by the God-given nature which then provided them a moral code, doing so for those before the giving of the Law. The Law then strengthened that which was already known, that sin might be seen as exceedingly sinful, Ro7.13. so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. The sin against the image of God, which existed without Law, was magnified by the Law - double whammy and stronger, because it now also existed by record from the mouth and pen of God. At the giving of the Law God decided to add to 'the sin against the nature of Man, seen in the image of God', by stating a Law against it. It then became not only sin but exceeding sin.

I conclude that God had given law before the giving of the law at Sinai. This law was sparse. It failed to adequately provide a comprehensive moral code. This is my opinion/speculation. Others will speculate otherwise. Ro14 tells us to accept those with conclusions other than ours. It is my 'not being able to provide evidence thereto which doesn't exist' conclusion, that the moral code those people before Mt Sinai had was learned by examination of their conscience in relation to the image of God, and also from the deductive reasoning powers God gives all Men. Paul chastises the Gentiles in Ro1 for not recognizing God by way of the works of creation. They failed to use the intellect to recognize things of creation, to give God glory.

We have good evidence of the reality of the image of God in Man. We all have good personal evidence of the viability of our own conscience. The conscience will be consulted at the Last Judgment, adding great weight to the thought that it was active in providing a moral code for those before the Law was given.