The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 57

Mozley. 1 In regnr<l to some questions in the Moe&ic la,v with which he deals, par- ticularly those of the 111w of retaliation and of the Goel, he does not 11ppear to distin- guish sufficiently between the law as representing God's justice, and the lawns n guk'e to man's conscience, or indeed to give due weight to considerations that arise from the peculiar characteristics of law. Bnt the general principle which he maintnine, nnmely, that all leg·islation, intended to raise men from a lower standard of morality to n higher, must begin on the basis of the imperfect and crude notions of 1·ight and wrong which they 11lready possess, and, by giving these ideas o. right direction and wholesome limitation, elevate them gradually into a higher sphere, is beyond nil question the true solution of the difficulty, and it is a method not only consistent with the wisdom and the goodness of God, but suggesting important lessons to the Christian as to the true mode of dealing with those who are " ignorant and out of the way. 11 59. The real proof, howeT"er, of the law given through Moses being consistent with the character of him whose relations with man are the foundation of all religious and moral duty, is to be found in the answer to the question, whether taken as a whole, and as part of II Divine dispensation, the law fulfilled ends worthy of God, by training man to live for the purposes for which be was created. There is no ques· tion as to this in regard to the ceremonial law. In other words, there is no doubt that, notwithstanding its weakness, and imperfection, and unspirituality in itself, the law was a necessary preparation for Christ and his gospel ; "our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." But is it equally true of that part of the secondary law which deals with what we understand by moral duties, that its tend- ency and its result was to elevate the people to whom it was given, up towards a perfect st.andard of morality, through the moral education which it supplied? This !,as been discussed by Canon Mozley in one of his Lectures (Leet. x.), and the answer is complete. Indeed, one fact is of itself sufficient proof of this, namely, that the moral standard of Christianity is nothing else than the legitimate development of tliose moral principles of which the Mosaical law was, from the circumstances under \\" liich it was given, an imperfect expression. GO. But it is probable that many feel a difficulty here which lies yet deeper, and which this argument will not remove. They may ask, Can the end, however good, justify the means? Can we suppose that God would have commanded or even sanc- tioned that which the trne standard of morality condemns, in order that this true stand- ard might be ultimately attained by others? This can only be answered by another question, viz. what is moral good and moral evil? Are they objective or subjective? or do both these elements enter into the determination of their character? And is evil only a defect of good, or a reality in itself? These questions have occupied the minds of moralists and theologians for many ages, and a brief answer cannot be a complete one. But the argument of this Introduction may at all events supply an answer suffi- cient fa~ our present purpose. We have seen, in our previous investigations, that sin Legan with the knowledge of good and evil, without which the distinctions of good and evil in man himself did not exist; there could be no moral good and no more.I evil. .And in man's present condition morality, in the abstract, considered ape.rt from nll positive laws, must consist in a man's regulating his nat~re in accordance with the Divine order constituted in his creation in God's image, and doing unto other men, created equally in the Divine image, as he himself would be done by; the whole cir- cumstances and condition of these othe1 men as also belonging to the Divine order being taken into account. Moral good consists in man's recognising that order, and 1 'Ruling Ideas iu Early Ages, and their Relation to Old Testament Faith.' 1877.  INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCIT. xiv