Scripture and Morals

Let's suppose that scriptures were in fact the source of our knowledge of good and evil. Or suppose any external authority instructed us as to what good and evil might be, e.g., our parents or the state or the church or even, as the Muslims assert, God himself. In the first place it would mean that people with different scriptures or sources would likely have a different take on good and evil. But disregarding this problem we will focus now just on the Christian scriptures.

If the source of the knowledge of good and evil were the Christian scriptures, then Christians would have no way of differentiating between commandments in terms of morality, for the morality would be given in the very commandments themselves, e.g., eating blood sausage would simply be a sin as the Jehovah's Witnesses witness to with their renown zeal (See Acts 15:20). A man with long hair would be considered as immoral as a murderer (1 Corinth 11:1-16). The question as to making any distinction would be absurd on its face. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong, and both are indicated in scripture!

But now we do in fact make such distinctions between the moral prohibition, and the cultural and/or ritualistic prohibitions. And the reason we do this is because we already know ahead of time what good and evil are (perhaps à la Wesleyan prevenient grace*), and only want the proper verbiage and situations to know how to express that in our experience. We know that blood is just another part of nature and that the prohibition must have had to do with cultic practices of the ancient Hebrews and cannot be considered as binding.** On the other hand we know that the commandment against murder is valid and is to be obeyed, for it is a moral commandment.

[* Prevenient means preceding or in advance of actual experience. Wesley recognized an understanding of good and evil as prevenient.*** A more precise understanding then might be given by Kant. Kant states that the moral law is something that each human rationally dreams up on his own and, having done so, finds that he is also bound by this law. See essay. In unifying Kant and Wesley here we can speak of our rationality as a gift of God also for this express purpose: to discern good and evil.]

[** The blood prohibition is mentioned several times in both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures. It is interesting, and perhaps even provocative, that Jesus had his disciples drink his "blood" (actually wine) at the Last Supper, perhaps as a symbolic rejection of Jewish law (see also John 5, especially verse 18, where Jesus distinguishes the scriptural "law" from the moral law of doing good and promotes the latter over the former). While blood is not often "eaten" or consumed, the Europeans do enjoy blood sausage, and the strict scriptural literalists even refuse to receive blood transfusions as a result of these injunctions.]

[*** Consider this passage from Wesley's sermon: "And, Secondly, all that is vulgarly called natural conscience; implying some discernment of the difference between moral good and evil, with an approbation of one, and disapprobation of the other, by an inward monitor excusing or accusing? Certainly, whether this is natural or superadded by the grace of God, it is found, at least in some small degree, in every child of man. Something of this is found in every human heart, passing sentence concerning good and evil, not only in all Christians, but in all Mahometans, all Pagans, yea, the vilest of savages."

The fact that we make this distinction is self evident. What most Christians don't realize is that this same state of affairs is declared by God according to their very own (Jewish) scriptures (Genesis 3:22), namely that we humans do know good and evil, and we know this long before the scriptures were to be imagined to have been composed, and in fact, in this regard, are equal to God. After all we (through our parents) had eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Cain knew it was wrong to kill another human being, and did not need to be told so. Jesus confirms this in Matthew 7:12. Paul confirms this knowledge in Romans 13:8-10 when giving the supreme, practical principle of the Spirit of Christ. Kant confirms it in the Groundwork to the Metaphysic of Moral. Indeed even young children confirm this as the premise for their early cries of "unfair."*

[* At first these cries are selfish, but very soon become general and universal, indicating an innate grasp of right and wrong and just and fairness and unfairness.]

Accordingly I think it behooves those Christians who are "Legalists," i.e., those considering the scriptures as a source of law, to show another justification for the "pick and choose" that they do with the scriptures. It certainly seems presumptuous on their part. The bible-believing Jehovah's Witnesses are much more consistent than most who claim to be Christians and who take the bible as a law book. And even these good Witnesses also seem to waver on the prohibition on divorce. That seems to be the biggest inconsistency in the Christian world today.*