Biblical foundation for Christian morality

Introduction

The term ‘morality’ has been defined in an explanatory way under two broad classifications in this article: (a) general description, (b) biblical description. The main reason for this classification is to be able to compare the biblical system of morality, which is the focus of the study with other systems of morality. Scott B. Rae observed that “most people use the term morality and ethics interchangeably. Technically, morality refers to the actual content of good and evil. Morality is the end result of ethical deliberations, the substance of good and evil. ” 1 While this difference is noted, the terms will be discussed as an inseparable pair in this article.

General definition of morality

According to the New Bible Dictionary, the words’ ethics’ and ‘morals’ according to the Greek and Latin books mean’ customs’2. The idea is to discover the things that are usually done and conclude that these are the things that one should do. make. Logically, it follows that these are the things that will seem correct to the individual and also to society. Scott B. Rae goes a little further by stating what is of primary concern to morality. He said that morality is primarily concerned with questions of good and evil, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification of the distinction.3 There may be norms in society, with reference to what is right and what is wrong. . Yet society is faced with so many new and challenging problems that people are forced into ethical deliberations. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, in his book, ‘Elements of Philosophy’, poses the following questions: Why can’t we do exactly what we want to do? What does anyone care how we behave? Why does the question of ethics arise in the first place? Why should we think that one way of behaving is better than the other? That telling the truth is better than trying to get out of a problem by saying a falsehood? And who has the authority to tell us what to do? He concludes by saying that you have to study ethics to find answers to the questions, what should I do? And why should it? 4 From Stumpf’s statement it can be seen that the main issue that divides people in their moral views is that of the ultimate source of moral authority.

Norman L. Geisler, in the first seven chapters of his book, “Ethics: Choices and Problems,” shows this division between people by discussing basic approaches to ethics. He asserts that ethical systems could be broadly divided into two main categories: deontological (focused on duty) and teleological (focused on ends). Deontological systems are systems that are based on principles in which actions (or character or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong. Teleological systems, on the other hand, are systems that are based on the final result produced by an action.5 Scott B. Rae, in his discussion of ethical systems, included one more division – relativism, to the one already enunciated by Geisler . According to him, ‘relativism’ refers to an ethical system in which right and wrong are not absolute and immutable, but relative to one’s culture (cultural relativism) or one’s own personal preferences (moral subjectivism), under both Geisler divisions. Furthermore, Geisler stated that there are six main ethical views: (i) Antinomianism: it says there are no moral norms; (ii) Situationism: affirms that there is an absolute law (the law of love); (iii) Generalism: affirms that there are some general laws but none; (iv) absolute laws without reservations that never conflict; (v) conflicting absolutism – holds that there are many absolute norms that sometimes conflict and one is bound to do a lesser evil; and (vi) graduated absolutism: holds that many absolute laws sometimes conflict, but one is responsible for obeying the higher law. Geisler pointed out that these six subcategories are based on a vision of the ethical approach, which revolves around norms – deontological.7 In contrast, the other approach does not emphasize norms but ends – teleological, and is described as a non-normative approach or utilitarian.

Biblical definition

1. General remarks

DH Field observed that, ‘Biblical ethics are God-centered, rather than following majority opinion or conforming to usual behavior, scripture encourages us to start with God and his requirement, not with man and his habits, when we look for moral guidelines. ‘8 To understand the Bible’s definition of morality, one needs to examine the Scriptures, as Field observed, to see what God says and requires. Point out five things from the Bible about biblical morality that point us to the person of God to discover that nature of goodness. Only God is good and it is his will that expresses the good, the acceptable and the perfect; ii) the source of moral knowledge is revelation. According to the Bible, the knowledge of good and evil is not so much an object of philosophical investigation as an acceptance of divine revelation; iii) moral teaching is a phrase as a recommendation, not statements. With the exception of the Old Testament wisdom literature, moral judgments are plainly stated, not reasonably argued. Philosophers, on the other hand, had to reason out their moral judgment to convince people that they are good; iv) The basic ethical requirement in biblical ethics is to imitate God. God sums up goodness in his own person. The supreme ideal of man according to the Bible is to imitate him; v) Religion and ethics is theocentric. The moral teachings of the scriptures lose credibility once the religious foundation is removed. Religion and ethics are fundamentally related to edification. Biblical ethics arises from biblical doctrine and the two are inseparable. 9

2. Morality in the Old Testament

From a more general description of biblical morality, it is appropriate to understand the concept as it is presented in the two testaments. In the Old Testament, a close understanding of the covenant, the Law, and the Prophets can give one a clearer understanding of morality. These three aspects will now be examined individually.

a) The Covenant

The covenant that God made with Israel through Moses (Exodus 24) had a direct and far-reaching meaning. God’s grace, as seen in his loving and caring actions in delivering Israel from Egypt, provides the primary motive for obedience to his commandments. The Israelites, as God’s partners, came together to respond graciously to God’s previous acts of inattentive love. They were called to his will in gratitude for his grace, rather than submitting in terror to threats of punishment. For this reason, for example, slaves were to be treated generously because God treated Hebrew slaves generously in Egypt.

The pact also fosters an intense awareness of business solidarity in Israel. Its effect was not only to unite the individual with God, but also to unite all the members of the covenant into one community. Therefore, the transgression of one man can affect the entire community (Jos 7), and everyone has an obligation to help a person in need. The strong emphasis on OT ethics depends on social ethics.

b) The law

The covenant provided the context for the delivery of God’s law. A distinctive feature of Old Testament law was its emphasis on maintaining right relationships between people and between people and God. It should be noted that the most serious sequence of infringement of the law was not any material punishment, but the resulting breakdown of relations. (Ho 1: 2). The Ten Commandments, which should be seen as the heart of the law, refer to the most fundamental relationships. They establish the basic holiness that governs faith, worship, and life.

c) The Prophets

Social conditions in Israel changed dramatically since the time of Moses, and the Israelites did not see how the law required obedience in their daily dealings in society, which also affected their relationship with God. The Prophets set out to interpret the law by deepening its basic principles and applying them to the specific moral problems of their time.

2. Morality in the New Testament

Norman L. Geisler made the following observations on the New Testament

Ethics:

1) That Christian ethics is based on the will of God. It is, as she says, a way of

divine command position; an ethical duty, which is something we must

make. It is prescriptive;

2) that Christian ethics is absolute. The fact that the moral character of God

not changing (Mal. 3:16) means that those moral obligations that flow from your nature are absolute. Geisler points out that anything that can be traced back to God’s immutable moral character is a moral absolute, eg, holiness, justice, love, truthfulness, and mercy. Other commandments arise from the will of God, but they are not absolute. That is, they must be obeyed because God prescribed them, but did not prescribe them for all people, times, and places. Absolute moral duties, on the contrary, are binding on all people at all times and in all places;

3) That Christian ethics is based on God’s revelation. What god commands

has been revealed both generally (Romans 1: 19-20; 2: 12-15) in nature, and

specifically (Romans 2: 2-18; 3: 2) in Scripture. General revelation of God

it contains its mandate for all people. His special revelation declares his

will for the believer;

4) That Christian ethics is prescriptive since moral rectitude is prescribed by

a moral God. Geisler pointed out that there is no moral law without a

Moral legislator, or a moral legislation without a moral legislator. Therefore

Christian ethics are prescriptive, not descriptive. Christians don’t have their

ethics in the standard of Christians, but in the standard for Christians – The

Bible; Y

5) Christian ethics is deontological. That is, based on principles in which

actions (or character or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong.

CONCLUSION

Morality, as defined in this document, is the actual content of good and evil. However, the main problem is how to determine it. The main question that arises from this topic is: Where is the ultimate source of moral authority? A group of people believe that authority is immanent, human beings have the authority to create their own rules and moral systems; they belong to the category of teleological ethics. The other group believes that moral authority is transcendent, that is, authority exists outside of ordinary human experience. In biblical morality, that authority is God, who has revealed himself to human beings through his special and general revelation. That makes biblical ethics unique. It is deontological. In both the Old and New Testaments morality is seen to be based on the nature and character of God.

As noted, ethics and morals are inseparable. For Christians, ethics does not consist so much in determining the good as in choosing it. For non-Christians it is more about determining the good. Whether you are a Christian or not as a human being, you will undoubtedly participate in ethical deliberations.

FINAL NOTES

1 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan

Editorial, 1995), p. fifteen.

2D.H. Field, Ethics: New Bible Dictionary. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982),

P. 351.

3 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan

Editorial, 1995), p. twenty-one.

4 Enoch Stumpf, Elements of Philosophy (London: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), p. twenty-one.

5Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,

1989), p. 24.

6 Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan

Editorial, 1995), p. sixteen.

7Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,

1989), p. 25.

8D.H. Field, Ethics: New Bible Dictionary. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982),

P. 351.

9 Ibid, p. 351.

10 Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,

1989), pp. 22-24.

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *