Introduction
The term ‘morality’ has been explanatoryly defined 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, ‘Most people use the terms 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 habitually done and conclude that these are the things that one should do. do. Logically, it follows that these are the things that will seem right to the individual and also to society. Scott B. Rae goes a bit further in stating what morality is primarily concerned with. He said that morality is primarily concerned with questions of right and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification for the distinction.3 There may be norms in society, with reference to what is right and wrong. wrong. However, society faces so many new and challenging problems that people are forced to deliberate on ethics. 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 us out of trouble by telling a falsehood? And who has the authority to tell us what to do? He concludes by saying that one must study ethics to find answers to the questions, what should I do? And why should I?4 From Stumpf’s statement it can be seen that the main issue dividing 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: Options and Problems’ shows this division between people when discussing basic approaches to ethics. He asserts that ethical systems could be broadly divided into two main categories: deontological (duty-focused) and teleological (end-focused). Ethical 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, as established by Geisler . According to him, ‘relativism’ refers to an ethical system in which rights and wrongs are not absolute and immutable, but relative to one’s own culture (cultural relativism) or to one’s own personal preferences (moral subjectivism).6 However, , this third category can still fit under Geisler’s two divisions. Furthermore, Geisler stated that there are six main ethical views: (i) Antinomianism: he says that there are no moral standards; (ii) Situationism-he asserts that there is an absolute law (the law of love); (iii) Generalism: he claims that there are some general laws but none; (iv) unconditional absolute laws that never conflict; (v) conflictive absolutism – holds that there are many absolute norms that sometimes conflict and one is forced to do the 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 view 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 or utilitarian approach.
biblical definition
1. General comments
DH Field observed that “biblical ethics is God-centered, rather than following majority opinion or conforming to customary behavior, Scripture encourages us to begin with God and his requirements, not man and his habits, when we seek moral guidelines”. .8 To understand the biblical definition of morality, one needs to examine the scriptures, as Field observed, to see what God says and requires. He points 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 what is good, acceptable and 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 such as praise, not declarations. With the exception of Old Testament wisdom literature, moral judgments are made bluntly, not reasonably argued. Philosophers, on the other hand, had to reason 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 Scripture lose their credibility once the religious foundation is removed. Religion and ethics are related as a basis for construction. Biblical ethics grows out of biblical doctrine and the two are inseparable. 9
2. Morality in the Old Testament
From a more general view of biblical morality, it is appropriate to understand the concept as it is presented in the two testaments. In the OT, a closer 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 Pact
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 acts of love and concern in delivering Israel from Egypt, provides the primary motive for obedience to his commandments. The Israelites, as God’s partners, were united in responding graciously to God’s earlier acts of neglected love. They were called to his will in gratitude for his grace, instead of submitting in terror to threats of punishment. So, for example, the slaves were to be treated generously because God treated the Hebrew slaves generously in Egypt.
The pact also fosters an intense awareness of corporate 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 a single community. One man’s transgression, therefore, can affect the entire community (josh 7), and everyone is obligated to help a person in need. The strong emphasis on OT ethics hinges on social ethics.
b) The Law
The covenant provided the context for the giving of God’s law. A distinctive feature of OT 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 the transgression of the law was not any material punishment, but the consequent rupture of relations. (Hosea 1:2). The Ten Commandments, which should be seen as the heart of the law, deal with the most fundamental relationships. They establish the basic sanctity that governs belief, 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 took care to interpret the law by delving into its basic principle and applying it to the specific moral problems of their time.
2. Morality in the New Testament
Norman L. Geisler made the following observations about 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 post; an ethical duty, which is something we must
do. It is prescriptive;
2) that Christian ethics is absolute. The fact that the moral character of God is not
not to change (Mal 3:16) means that those moral obligations that flow from his nature are absolute. Geisler points out that anything that can be traced back to God’s unchanging moral character is a moral absolute, for example, holiness, justice, love, truthfulness, and mercy. Other commands flow from the will of God, but they are not absolute. That is, they must be obeyed because God prescribed them, but He did not prescribe them for all people, times and places. Absolute moral duties, by contrast, bind 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 (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15) in nature, and
specifically (Romans 2:2-18; 3:2) in the Scriptures. God’s General Revelation
it contains his mandate for all people. His special revelation declared his
will for the believer;
4) That Christian ethics is prescriptive since moral rectitude is prescribed by
to the Moral God. Geisler pointed out that there is no moral law without a
Moral legislator, or moral legislation without a moral legislator. Therefore
Christian ethics is prescriptive, not descriptive. Christians do not have their
ethics in the norm of Christians but in the norm for Christians – The
Bible; Y
5) Christian ethics is deontological. That is, on the basis of principles in which
actions (or character or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong.10
CONCLUSION
Morality, as defined in this article, 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? One group of people believes that authority is immanent, human beings have the authority to create their own rules and moral systems; are included in 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 is not so much determining the good end as choosing it. For non-Christians it is more about determining the good. Whether one is a Christian or not as a human being, he will certainly engage in ethical deliberations.
FINAL NOTES
1Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan
Publisher, 1995), p. fifteen.
2D.H. Field, Ethics: New Biblical Dictionary. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982),
p. 351 .
3Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan
Publisher, 1995), p. twenty-one
4Enoch Stumpf, Elements of Philosophy (London: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), p. twenty-one
5 Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,
1989), p. 24
6Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Michigan: Zondervan
Publisher, 1995), p. sixteen.
7 Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,
1989), p. 25
8DH Field, Ethics: New Biblical Dictionary. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982),
p. 351 .
9Ibid., p. 351.
10 Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Options and Problems. Michigan: Baker Book House,
1989), pp. 22 -24.