Difference between revisions of "Ethics"

<p> The ancient world did not consider religion to be morally inspiring, creative, or corrective; the reputed behavior of gods and goddesses repelled cultivated minds. Even in [[Israel]] the [[Wisdom]] Literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach), while never abandoning a religious outlook, made little of worship rituals or the traditional law. Their teaching is prudential: Since [[God]] made us, it is common sense to discover what he wants and then to do it (Proverbs 9:10; Ecclesiastes 12:1,13-14 ). Job does emphasize responsibility to God, and his self-defense (chap. 31) forms a noble ethical creed, but of religious observances he says nothing. </p> <p> <i> Immoral [[Religion]] and Prophetic [[Protest]] </i> . The prophets opposed the popular religion and even temple worship, resenting not only the use of images but the total divorce of such "worship" from morality. The [[Canaanite]] baals were fertility-spirits whose favor ensured increase of families, flocks, and herds as well as the fruitfulness of fields and vineyards. At their shrines they were "worshiped" with orgies of drunkenness and sexual license (male and female cult prostitution, incest). "A spirit of harlotry" thus gained religious sanction; greed and drunkenness degraded men and women; the people cast off discipline, defiled the land, and "knew not how to blush." [[Standing]] pillars (? female figures; "Asherah" = Ishtar, the mother-goddess) and the bull-calf represented deities, and infant sacrifice was frequent. Wizardry, sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and soothsaying flourished under the patronage of such religion, and eventually even the [[Jerusalem]] temple housed similar rights, together with sun-worship, astrology, and altars to foreign gods (1 Kings 12:28-32; 14:23-24; 2 Kings 17:7-18; 21:1-7; Isaiah 8:19; Jeremiah 2:20-25; 3:1-13,23; 5:1; 6:15; Hosea 2:5-8; 4:12,18; 5:3-4; 8:4-6; 13:1-2; Amos 2:7-8; 6:4-6; Micah 5:10-15; 6:6-7 ). </p> <p> [[Orthodox]] worship could also be immoral when unrelated to behavior in society. The prophets called constantly for justice; they condemned perjury and bribery, the selfish luxury of women, the scarcity of upright men, the lack of trust between neighbors through lies, deceitfulness, and fraud, as people preferred lies to truth and nourished "the lie within the soul." Avaricious moneylenders exploiting hardship, wealthy landlords dispossessing small landowners, merchants who oppressed the poor by ruthless competition and unjust balances, those who sold debtors into slavery or prostitution or exacted forced labor—all are indicted. So is the prevalent theft, murder, violence, adultery, and constant neglect of widows, orphans, strangers. The ultimate condemnation was that God's people saw no contradiction between the state of their society and the crowded shrines. God hates the feasts, assemblies, offerings, and music. Micah says that only a prophet preaching drink will be welcomed! Isaiah calls Jerusalem "Sodom, " and declares God's utter rejection of her worship. Jeremiah threatens that the temple will become ruinous as [[Shiloh]] of old. Malachi pleads for someone to slam the temple doors and let the sacred fire go out (Isaiah 1:10-15; 29:13-14; Jeremiah 7:1-15; Amos 4:4; 5:21-24; Micah 2:11; Malachi 1:10 ). </p> <p> [[Thus]] both "religious perversion" and religion without ethical fruits are rejected by God. To watch each prophet elaborating this argument is to retrace the discipline that ultimately made [[Jewish]] ethics the envy of the ancient world. No prophet argued from psychological or social consequences, nor (until Jeremiah) did any cite divine law. They contended that such practices totally misapprehended YahwehYahweh was not like that. Surrounding nations or primitive [[Canaanites]] might offer immoral "worship" to their vicious, characterless deities; to offer it to [[Yahweh]] was to insult him. </p> <p> Appealing simply to his own moral insight Amos demands that Israel turn from her petty gods to seek him who made heaven and earth, day and night; who through repeated recent catastrophes has wrestled with Israel's waywardness, and will yet bring judgment upon all crimes against humanity, wherever committed. If Israel refuses, nothing can save her (1:2-3:2; 4:6-13; 5:6-9,14-15). </p> <p> Hosea declares repeatedly that Israel does not know her God. Yahweh is no sex-crazed drunkard! Israel's worship has numbed her moral sense, otherwise she would know that God loved her from the beginning as father, provider, and lover, and will not let her go. [[Sad]] domestic experience had taught Hosea that love outlasts unfaithfulness (2:8,14-16,19; 3:1; 4:1,6; 5:4,11; 6:3,6; 11:1-4,8-9). </p> <p> Micah appeals briefly to nature and history to testify what God is like, but rests his argument chiefly on his own indignation at injustice, his inner sense of the kind of world God wants and will achieve if only people listen to their own hearts (6:1-5,8). Isaiah repeats that [[Judah]] "does not understand" that God is "the [[Holy]] One of Israel" (eleven times in early chapters, twenty-four times in all). He learned that, unforgettably, at his call within the temple. "Holy" implies here perfect purity, freedom from fault, the absolute good. Only worship offered by those worthy to survive as nucleus of a holy nation could ever be acceptable to him (1:3; 5:16,24; 9:2-7; 10:20; 11:1-11). </p> <p> Jeremiah attained a daring familiarity with God, partly (as a poet-naturalist) from nature, partly (as a trained priest) from Israel's history, but mainly through forty years of struggle, protest, and disappointment, sometimes charging God with deceiving him, sometimes near despair, and so learning to know God (15:10-21; 20:7-18). Thereafter Jeremiah knew it was "not for man to direct his steps": he needed to know the Lord who practices and delights in kindness, justice, and righteousness. Such "knowledge of God, " the essence of religion and life's highest good (9:23-24), included a knowledge of God's law, of the "homing instincts" within human nature, of God's "hand" in one's experience, what God can accomplish, and his true "name" or character. It demands "a heart to know, " and a simple, contended, just, and generous mind. In coming days all will thus know God, without instruction. That will prove the panacea for all evils. </p> <p> So the prophets argued: as Israel went after false idols and became false (2 Kings 17:15 ), so to know and worship the true God would ensure righteousness in individuals and society. They did not add ethics to religious piety; for them religion and morality matured together, under God's guidance, through experience. But it took the exile to make Judah listen. </p> <p> <i> A [[Changed]] Atmosphere </i> . [[Turning]] to the Psalter, one finds nothing remotely resembling the indecencies, license, and infanticide of popular preexilic religion. Discussion of ethical problems would be out of place in a worship manual, but a much deeper sense of personal consecration and concern for social righteousness is evident in Judah's praise and prayer. </p> <p> [[Many]] psalms celebrate the glory and majesty of the Creator, revealed in nature. All scenes, all living things exhibit his power and declare his glory. No one who joined in [[Psalm]] 8,19 , 29,65 , 89,96 , 104 could imagine that God would take pleasure in sexual promiscuity, drunkenness, infant sacrifice or emotional frenzy. He is high above all human imagination, clothed in majesty, light, and power; worship must be dignified, reverent, and exalted to be worthy of him. </p> <p> In the psalms God is holy (seven times); so is his name (= character, six times), his temple, mountain, arm, city, heaven, throne, hill, and promise, and God swears by his holiness. Hence holiness alone is fitting for God's house (93:5); anyone who would stand in the holy place must have clean hands, a pure heartthe implications are fully analyzed in 24:3-6,15:1-5. This clearly reflects the teaching of the "Holiness Code" (Leviticus 17-26 ), with its theme "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." The code expounded "holiness" in terms of love to God, the fellow Israelite, and the neighbor, shown in honesty, integrity, and charity. How seriously this demand was taken may be judged from the most searching confession ever penned (Psalm 51 ), and the moving testimonies to God's forgiveness (103:8-14, five times). </p> <p> In the psalms cries for righteousness are heard repeatedly, sometimes impatiently, demanding that God will arise, wake up, stir himself to intervene within his world. Even when her prophets were silent, Judah's worship effectively kept alive the hope of a world governed by her righteous king. </p> <p> With this conception arose a wholly new evaluation of the [[Divine]] King's law (mentioned thirty-four times, with varied synonyms almost two hundred times, in AV/KJV), as the rule of life and of society. This idea was to dominate Jewish thought for centuries. [[Though]] "the law" had come from Moses, from Joshua to the eve of the exile (Jeremiah, and the historian of 1-2Kings) no prophet appealed to its authority. In the [[Psalter]] and afterwards the law becomes Judah's chief source of the knowledge of God. </p> <p> <i> The King's Law </i> . The ground of the [[Ten]] [[Commandments]] (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21 ) is what God has already done for Israel. The first commandment asserts God's supremacy, forbidding worship of other gods; the second, his spirituality. The third safeguards the oath in court and marketplace; the fourth asserts God's claim on human time, with humanitarian overtones. The fifth protects the order of primitive society; the sixth, seventh, and eighth, the sanctity of life, marriage, and property (on which life might depend). The ninth commandment protects an individual's good name, and the tenth forbids undisciplined desire. </p> <p> The [[Book]] of the [[Covenant]] (Exodus 20:22-23:19 ) presupposes a simple agricultural background; vengeful impulses of primitive society are here moderated by a sense of proportion and justice. The eye-for-eye rule was originally a limitation on unmeasured retribution. The book tolerates slavery but civilizes it; kidnapping slaves deserves death, and so do sorcery, idolatry, and bestiality. Compensation for neglected dangerous animals or buildings depends on circumstances, and restitution for theft is controlled. [[Seduction]] involves marriage and dowry. [[Oppression]] of widows, orphans, and foreigners and perversion of justice are strictly forbidden. Moderation, equity, and philanthropy, reinforced by religious reverence, are the Book's guiding principles: God defends justiceand is compassionate. </p> <p> The Book of Deuteronomy stressed humanitarian concerns and an inward devotion to God. God is ever impartial, just, caring for the fatherless, the widow, and the alien: so must his people be. When slaves are freed, provision must be made for their immediate needs. Holiness, and lives worthy of sons of God, are required, from motives of gratitude and love toward God (6:5,20-25). Prostitution, child sacrifice, and divination are suppressed; the right to glean, to receive wages before evening, regular provision for the poor, and reverence for the aged, are all enacted. [[Animals]] share in such consideration (22:1-4). All punishments must be strictly limited (25:3). Law and ethics have here coalesced. </p> <p> Old [[Testament]] ethics are admittedly unsystematic, and largely unreflective. Developing in each generation from Israel's growing understanding of God, its insights possess a universality, and authority, conferred by long experience. The moral principles are the conditions of individual and social welfare, not an arbitrary prize for being virtuous but as the natural consequence of obeying the inner laws of well-being implanted by Him who made us. </p> <p> <i> Intertestamental [[Influence]] </i> . In the years before Jesus, foreign occupation narrowed and hardened moral attitudes. God's kingship fed nationalistic hopes of deliverance through Messiah; delight in God's law sank into rigid legalism, fostering self-righteousness or despair. The law was "hedged" with innumerable minor rules, to express the whole duty of man; enthusiasts (Hasidim, later Pharisees) defended it, devoted scribes expounded it, synagogues inculcated it, exaggerated claims held it to be "superior to prophecy, " "light and life of all, " and "eternal." [[Essenes]] outdid [[Pharisees]] in strictness, discouraging marriage, sharing possessions, and rejecting the temple. [[Covenanters]] at [[Qumran]] sought "absolute" holiness through monastic discipline, based on moral dualism (light/darkness, truth/falsehood). </p> <p> The standard was high, in sexual purity, piety, and charity; loyalty to the law did produce saints and martyrs. But legalism became self-serving, claiming merit before God; ethics became casuistry; for the weak, ignorant, poor, or sinful, legalism had no message and no mercy. </p> <p> The Baptist's manner, his demand for repentance, and his regime of fasting and prayer appealed to the new ascetic tendency (Matthew 11:16-18; Mark 2:18; Luke 11:1 ), adding prophetic authority. Luke summarizes his practical ethical emphases (3:10-14). The priesthood meanwhile maintained the elaborate ritual of sacrifice and festivals; many common people worshiped at synagogues and sustained a simpler domestic pietyas at Nazareth. Into this confusion of ethical insights and tendencies [[Jesus]] stepped. </p> <p> <i> Jesus' Method </i> . Jesus did not abate the divine law's ideals, but he severely criticized Judaism's legalism as academic (Luke 11:52 ), cruel (forbidding [[Sabbath]] cures, banishing the mentally ill and lepers from society), having wrong priorities, external in judgment, and burdensome (Matthew 23:23-28; Mark 7:14-23 ). It fostered self-righteousness and contempt for the weak and sinful (Luke 7:36-50; 15:25-32; 18:9-14; John 8:1-11 ). Jesus did not legislate. </p> <p> Nor did Jesus cite authorities (Matthew 7:28-29 ). He appealed to the common moral judgment, very often by questions. Even his assertions often ended with "He that has ears let him hear." Jesus assumes the capacity of the sincere to recognize truth when presented with it. Such consent of the enlightened conscience ensures that obedience is free, spontaneous, approving. </p> <p> <i> The [[Kingly]] Father </i> . As in the Old Testament, so for Jesus ethics derives from a right relationship with God, rendering obedience filial. [[Yet]] not all live as sons; some are disobedient, wayward, lost. But God remains Father, and sonship remains available; the Father welcomes their return. In such a context legalism must wither, and the moral life gain new motivation, quality, and tone. </p> <p> One implication of sonship is likeness: [[Resemblance]] proves relationship. The peacemakers, the merciful, those who love their enemies and persecutors, being as impartial and inclusive in their love as God is, those who do good, and lend, hoping for nothing againall are, and are recognized as, children of the father (Matthew 5:9,44-48; Luke 6:35-36 ). By this simple domestic simile Jesus initiates the supreme [[Christian]] ideal of Christlikeness, the imitation of God as beloved children, conformed to the image of his [[Son]] (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 5:1 ). </p> <p> Second, the language of sonship is relentlessly plural. Such brotherliness forbids insult, and criticism, though brotherly rebuke may be necessary (Matthew 5:22; 7:1-3; Luke 17:3 ). It requires initiative toward reconciliation and understanding, and ready forgiveness (Matthew 5:23-24; 18:21,35 ), and, in any need, service as for [[Christ]] (Matthew 25:40 ). At all times the duty of brethren is to strengthen each other (Luke 22:32 ). </p> <p> <i> The Fatherly King </i> . In God's kingdom the supreme law must be to love the King with the whole personality (Matthew 22:36-38 ). The kingdom's second law commands love toward whoever is near enough to be loved, with a transferred self-love that makes our wants the criteria for our neighbors' (Matthew 7:12; 22:39-40 ). Such love fulfills the whole law. [[Illustrations]] of its practical meaning are the cup of (scarce) water, visiting the sick, helping any mugged victim, clothing the naked, befriending the ill-deserving in prison, doing good, lending without interest. The nature of the King determines the law of the kingdom, a kingdom of love (Matthew 11:2-6; Luke 4:16-21 ). </p> <p> Yet Christ's example of love includes sternness against evil enjoyed or inflicted; it sets high standards, warns of consequences, exposes hypocrisy, speaks of judgment. It is neither sentimental, soft, nor stupid, but a resolute moral attitude that seeks another's good, whether by gentle or ungentle means. </p> <p> Jesus was a realist. To his mind, sinfulness was more, and more serious, than trespass against formal laws; it included sins of thought and desire, of neglect, of failure to love, and of sin against light (Matthew 5:27-28; 6:22-23; 12:35; 23:13-26; 25:41-46; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 10:31-32; 13:6-9 ). Life in God's kingdom, therefore, involves personal resistance, protest, conflict, and suffering, occasioned by loyalty to God in a godless world (Mark 8:34-38; Luke 22:35-36 ). But the citizen of the kingdom will seek peace with all where possible, never returning evil for evil (Matthew 5:9,38-40 ). </p> <p> In all situations the will of the King is to be the ultimate rule of life. And the King's will shall triumph in the end. Human beings may choose whether to live under God's reign or not, but he remains King. In parables (Matthew 21:33-43; 25:14-46; Luke 12:16-21; 13:6-9; 16:19-31 ) and numerous phrases the truth is made clear that people cannot trifle with God indefinitely. What is good news for the responsive is warning for the obdurate: The Father is King. </p> <p> Even so cursory a review reveals how rich, varied, realistic, and practical is the ethical teaching of Jesus, and how directly it derives from the perceived character of God and from relationship with him. The good life is lived before God, by his help, in gratitude for his goodness; shorn of these religious roots, Christian values must die and Christian motivation fail. And all is illustrated, unforgettably, by the living example of Jesus, and therefore summed up in his "Follow me." </p> <p> <i> New Testament [[Moral]] [[Theology]] </i> . Those who walk, live, and set their minds "according to the Spirit" find freedom, peace, acceptance with God, and constant renewal as sons of God (Romans 8:5-17 ). This new, Spirit-ruled life is characterized by the absolute lordship of Christ over all attitudes and conduct (Romans 1:3-4; 10:9-13; 14:7-9; 1Col 6:13-20,; etc. ). Human personality being "open" Godward, as well as toward social forces that corrupt, the soul united to Christ becomes the vehicle of the divine Spirit, by whose guidance and enabling it is made capable of otherwise unattainable virtue (Romans 8:9-14; 1Col 6:17-20; 2Col 4:7-18). [[Paul]] presents a perpetually progressive ideal, developing constantly in its scope of love, its depth of consecration, and in likeness to Christ. Paul does not claim to have attained the goal, only to be straining forward at the ever-upward call of God in Christ, toward the stature of Christ, being by degrees changed "into his likeness" and "conformed to his image" (Romans 8:29; 2Col 3:18; Ephesians 4:13; Philippians 3:12-14 ). </p> <p> Human ethics, based on philosophical, sociological or psychological premises, or intuitive responses to isolated "situations, " attain only a consensus of good advice acceptable to people already virtuous in intention. Such moral counsel lacks permanence, authority, and motive power. Biblical ethics, deriving from knowledge and experience of God but forged always in historical real-life situations, problems and needs, reveals unchanging absolutes, inarguable authority, effective motivation, and redemptive power. The Old Testament emphasizes that God's requirements enshrine the secrets of total human welfare; the New Testament points to the man Jesus Christ and his intensely human story as embodiment of the ultimate ideal. Thus biblical ethics prove more truly human in the end, enshrining the Creator's intention for his highest creatures. </p> <p> R. E. O. [[White]] </p> <p> <i> See also </i> [[Theology Of Deuteronomy]]; [[Jesus Christ]]; [[Law]]; [[Salvation]]; [[Sanctification]]; [[Sermon On The Mount]]; [[Ten Commandments]] </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . W. Barclay, <i> [[Ethics]] in a Permissive [[Society]] </i> ; P. Carrington, <i> Primitive Christian [[Catechism]] </i> ; C. F. H. Henry, <i> Christian Personal Ethics </i> ; W. Lillie, <i> Studies in New Testament Ethics </i> ; J. T. Sanders, <i> Ethics in the New Testament </i> ; E. F. Scott, <i> Ethical Teaching of Jesus </i> ; R. E. O. White, <i> Biblical Ethics </i> . </p>

<p> The doctrine of manners, or the science of moral philosophy. the word is formed from mores, "manners, " by reason the scope or object thereof is to form the manners. </p> <p> See MORALS. </p>

<p> Biblical ethics likewise addresses some of the identical questions. While neither [[Testament]] has an abstract, comprehensive term or definition which parallels the modern term “ethics,” both the Old Testament and the New Testament are concerned about the manner of life that the [[Scripture]] prescribes and approves. The closest [[Hebrew]] term in the Old Testament for “ethics,” “virtue” or “ideals” is the word <i> musar </i> , “discipline” or “teaching” (Proverbs 1:8 ) or even <i> derek </i> , “way or path” of the good and the right. The closest parallel [[Greek]] term in the New Testament is <i> anastrophe </i> , “way of life, life-style” (occurring nine times in a good sense with 2 Peter 3:11 being the most significant usage). Of course the Greek terms <i> ethos </i> or <i> ethos </i> appear twelve times in the New Testament ( Luke 1:9; Luke 2:42; Luke 22:39; John 19:40; Acts 6:14; Acts 15:1; Acts 16:21; Acts 21:21; Acts 25:16; Acts 26:3; Acts 28:17 and Hebrews 10:25 ). The plural form appears once in 1 Corinthians 15:33 . It is usually translated “conduct,” “custom,” “manner of life,” or “practice.” </p> <p> The Biblical Definition of [[Ethics]] is Connected With [[Doctrine]] The problem with trying to speak about the ethics of the [[Bible]] is that ethical contents are not offered in isolation from the doctrine and teaching of the Bible. Therefore, what [[God]] is in His character, what He wills in His revelation, defines what is right, good, and ethical. In this sense then, the Bible had a decisive influence in molding ethics in western culture. </p> <p> Some have seriously questioned whether there is a single ethic throughout the Bible. Their feeling is that there is too much diversity to be found in the wide variety of books and types of literature in the Bible to decide that there is harmony and a basic ethical stance and norm against which all ethical and moral decisions ought to be made. Nevertheless, when following the claims made by the books of the Bible, some conceive their message to be a contribution to the ongoing and continuous story about the character and will of God. This narrative about the character and will of God is the proper basis for answering the questions: “What kind of a person ought I to be?” “How then shall we live so as to do what is right, just, and good?” </p> <p> As some have pointed out, the search for diversity and pluralism in ethical standards is as much the result of a prior methodological decision as is the search for unity and harmony of standards. One may not say the search for diversity is more scientific and objective than the search for harmony. This fact must be decided on the basis of an internal examination of the biblical materials; not as an external decision foisted over the text. </p> <p> Three Basic Assumptions Can ethical or moral decisions rest on the Bible, or is this idea absurd and incoherent? Three assumptions illustrate how a contemporary ethicist or moral-living individual may be able to rest his or her decision on the ethical content of the biblical text from a past age. The three are: (1) the Bible's moral statements were meant to be applied to a universal class of peoples, times, and conditions, (2) Scripture's teaching has a consistency about it so that it presents a common front to the same questions in all its parts and to all cultures past and present; (3) the Bible purports to direct our action or behavior when it makes a claim or a demand. In short the Bible can be applied to all people. The Bible is consistent. The Bible seeks to command certain moral behavior. </p> <p> To take Scripture's universalizability first: every biblical command, whether it appeared in a biblical law code, narrative text, wisdom text, prophetic text, gospel, or epistle was originally addressed to someone, in some place, in some particular situation. Such particulars were not meant to prejudice their usage in other times, places, or persons. [[Lurking]] behind each of these specific injunctions can be found a universal principle. From the general principle a person in a different setting can use the Bible to gain direction in a specific decision. </p> <p> Are our problems, our culture, and our societal patterns so different that even though we can universalize the specific injunctions from Scripture, they have no relevance to our day? Can we assume consistency between cultures and times for this ethic? All that is required here is that the same biblical writer supplied us elsewhere with a whole pattern of ethical thought that has led up to this contextualized and particular injunction. If we may assume that the writer would not change his mind from one moment to the next, we may assume that he would stand by his principle for all such similar situations regardless of times or culture. </p> <p> Finally, the Bible claims to command mortals made in the image of God. [[Whether]] the ethical materials are in the imperative or indicative moods makes little difference. The writers of Scripture intended to do more than offer information; they purported to direct behavior. </p> <p> [[Five]] Basic Characteristics of Biblical Ethics In contrast to philosophical ethics, which tends to be more abstract and human—centered, biblical morality was directly connected with religious faith. Hence immoral men and women were by the same token irreligious men and women, and irreligious persons were also immoral persons (Psalm 14:1 ). </p> <p> Biblical ethics are, first of all, <i> personal </i> . The ground of the ethical is the person, character, and declaration of an absolutely holy God. Consequently, individuals are urged, “Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2 ). The moral and ethical commands of the Bible are no less personal in their subject, for they are addressed to individuals who must decide. Thus, “If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands” (Leviticus 26:3 NIV); or “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put into practice. And the God of peace will be with you” ( Philippians 4:8-9 NIV). </p> <p> In the second place, the ethics of the Bible are emphatically <i> theistic </i> . They focus on God. To know God was to know how to practice righteousness and justice. Jeremiah 22:15-16 (NIV) taught: “He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and the needy, and so all sent well. Is that not what it means to know me? declares the Lord?” Compare Proverbs 3:5-7 . </p> <p> Most significantly, biblical ethics are deeply concerned with the <i> internal </i> response to morality rather than mere outward acts. “The Lord looketh on the heart” ( 1 Samuel 16:7 ) was the cry repeatedly announced by the prophets (Isaiah 1:11-18; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8 ). </p> <p> Scripture's ethical motivation was found in a <i> future orientation </i> . The belief in a future resurrection of the body (Job 19:26-27; [[Psalm]] 49:13-15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2-3 ) was reason enough to pause before concluding that each act was limited to the situation in which it occurred and bore no consequences for the future. Peter gave the New Testament summary: “You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Peter 3:11-12 NIV). </p> <p> The fifth characteristic of biblical ethics is that they are <i> universal </i> . They embrace the same standard of righteousness for every nation and person on earth. Abraham's question was, “Shall not the [[Judge]] of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25 ). The five [[Gentile]] cities of the plain “were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” (Genesis 13:13 ) and thereby invited the inevitable judgment of God if they did not repent. </p> <p> [[Long]] sections in the Old Testament text are specifically addressed to the nations at large including Isaiah 13-23; Jeremiah 45-51; Ezekiel 25-32; Daniel 2:1; Daniel 7:1; Amos 1-2 , Obadiah; Jonah; and Nahum. The living God revealed in Scripture set the norm for all peoples, nations, and times. </p> <p> The Organizing Principle: God's Character That which gives wholeness, harmony, and consistency to the morality of the Bible is the character of God. [[Thus]] the ethical directions and morality of the Bible were grounded, first of all, in the character and nature of God. What God required was what He Himself was and is. The heart of every moral command was the theme that appeared in Leviticus 18:5-6 ,Leviticus 18:5-6,18:30; Leviticus 19:2-3 ,Leviticus 19:2-3,19:4 ,Leviticus 19:4,19:10 ,Leviticus 19:10,19:12 ,Leviticus 19:12,19:14 ,Leviticus 19:14,19:18 ,Leviticus 19:18,19:25 , Leviticus 19:31-32 ,Leviticus 19:31-32,19:34 ,Leviticus 19:34,19:36-37 , “I am the Lord” or “Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.” Likewise, Philippians 2:5-8 agreed: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in [[Christ]] Jesus: Who, being in the form of God,;b3 yet he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.” </p> <p> The character and nature of the holy God found ethical expression in the will and word of God. These words could be divided into <i> moral law </i> and <i> positive law </i> . [[Moral]] law expressed His character. The major example is the [[Ten]] [[Commandments]] (Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21 ). [[Another]] is the holiness code (Leviticus 18-20 ). Positive law bound men and women for a limited time period because of the authority of the One who spoke them. Positive law claimed the peoples' allegiances only for as long and only in as many situations as God's authority determined when He originally gave that law. Thus the divine word in the [[Garden]] of Eden, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17 NIV) or our Lord's, “Untie [the colt]” ( Luke 19:30 ) were intended only for the couple in the garden of [[Eden]] or the disciples. They were not intended to be permanent commandments. They do not apply to our times. A study of biblical ethics helps us distinguish between the always valid moral law and the temporary command of positive law. </p> <p> The moral law is permanent, universal, and equally binding on all men and women in all times. This law is best found in the [[Decalogue]] of Moses. Its profundity can be easily grasped in its comprehensiveness of issues and simplicity of expression. A few observations may help in interpreting these Ten Commandments. They are: </p> <p> [1] The law has as a prologue. This established the grace of God as seen in the Exodus as the basis for any requirement made of individuals. Ethics is a response to grace in love not a response to demand in fear. </p> <p> [2] All moral law is doublesided, leading to a positive act and away from a negative one. It makes no difference whether a law is stated negatively or positively, for every moral act is at one and the same time a refraining from a contrary action when a positive act is adopted. </p> <p> [3] Merely omitting or refraining from doing a forbidden thing is not a moral act. Otherwise, sheer inactivity could count as fulfilling a command, but in the moral realm this is just another name for death. Biblical ethics call for positive participation in life. </p> <p> [4] When an evil is forbidden in a moral command, its opposite good must be practiced before one can be considered obedient. We must not just refuse to murder, but we must do all in our power to aid the life of our neighbor. </p> <p> The essence of the Decalogue can be found in three areas: [1] right relations with God (first command, internal worship of God; second, external worship of God; third, verbal worship of God); [2] right relations with time (fourth command), and [3] right relations with society (fifth command, sanctity of the family; sixth, sanctity of life; seventh, sanctity of marriage and sex; eighth, sanctity of property; ninth, sanctity of truth; and tenth, sanctity of motives). </p> <p> Three other major blocks of legislation may be added to the Decalogue; the [[Book]] of the [[Covenant]] (Exodus 20:22-23:33 ); the Law of [[Holiness]] (Leviticus 18-20 ); and the Law of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 12-25 ). These laws serve as illustrations and further amplification of the basic morality found in the Decalogue. </p> <p> The Law of Holiness sets forth the holiness of God as the central attribute in the whole character of God by which all ethical judgments are to be made. Holiness is the mark of His uniqueness and moral otherness from His creatures. Practically every one of the Ten Commandments is raised in the most amazing nineteenth chapter of Leviticus. </p> <p> The [[Content]] of Biblical Ethics Biblical ethics is based on the complete revelation of the Bible. The Decalogue and its expansions in the three other basic law codes join the [[Sermon]] on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 and the Sermon on the [[Plain]] in Luke 6:17-49 as the foundational texts of the Bible's teaching in the ethical and moral realm. All other biblical texts—the narratives of wrongdoing, the collection of Proverbs, the personal requests of letters—all contribute to our knowledge of biblical ethics. The Bible does not offer a list from which we pick and choose. It hammers home a life-style and calls us to follow. </p> <p> [[Several]] examples of the content of biblical ethics may help to better understand how the character of God, especially of His holiness, sets the norm for all moral decision-making. </p> <p> [[Honor]] or respect for one's parents was one of the first applications of what holiness entailed according to Leviticus 19:1-3 . This should come as no surprise, for one of the first ordinances God gave in [[Genesis]] 2:23-24 set forth the monogamous relationship as the foundation and cornerstone of the family. </p> <p> [[Husband]] and wife were to be equals before God. The wife was not a mere possession, chattel, or solely a childbearer. She was not only “from the Lord” (Proverbs 19:14 ) and her husband's “crown” (Proverbs 12:4 ), but she also was “a power equal to” him (the word “helper” (Genesis 2:18 NIV) is better translated “strength, power”). The admonition to honor parents was to be no excuse to claim no responsibility to help the poor, the orphan, and the widow ( Leviticus 25:35; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; Job 29:12-16; Job 31:16-22; Isaiah 58:1; Amos 4:1-2; Amos 5:12 ). The oppressed were to find relief from the people of God and those in authority. </p> <p> Similarly, human life was to be regarded as so sacred that premeditated murder carried with it the penalty of capital punishment in order to show respect for the smitten victim's being made in the image of God (Genesis 9:5-6 ). Thus the life of all persons, whether still unborn and in the womb (Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-6 ) or those who were citizens of a conquered country (Isaiah 10:1; Habakkuk 3:1 ), were of infinite value to God. </p> <p> Human sexuality was a gift from God. It was not a curse, nor an invention of the devil. It was made for the marriage relationship and meant for enjoyment (Proverbs 5:15-21 ), not just procreation. [[Fornication]] was forbidden (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 ). Sexual aberrations, such as homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17 ) or bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23-30; Leviticus 20:1 : 15-16; Deuteronomy 27:21 ) were repulsive to the holiness of God and thus condemned. </p> <p> Finally, commands about property, wealth, possessions, and concern for the truth set new norms. These norms went against the universal human propensity for greed, for ranking things above persons, and for preferring the lie as an alternative to the truth. No matter how many new issues were faced in ethical discourse, the bottom line remained where the last commandment had laid it: the motives and intentions of the heart. This is why holiness in the ethical realm began with the “fear of the Lord” (Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 15:33 ). </p> <p> The greatest summary of ethical instruction was given by our Lord in Matthew 22:37-39 : it was to love God and to love one's neighbor. There also was the [[Golden]] [[Rule]] of Matthew 7:12 . The best manifestation of this love was a willingness to forgive others (Matthew 6:12-15; Matthew 18:21-35; Luke 12:13-34 ). </p> <p> The New Testament, like the Old, included social ethics and one's duty to the state as part of its teaching. Since God's kingdom was at work in the world, it was necessary that salt and light also be present as well in holy living. </p> <p> While both Testaments shared the same stance on issues such as marriage and divorce, the New often explicitly adopted different sanctions. Thus, church discipline was recommended in the case of incest in 1 Corinthians 5:1 rather than stoning. </p> <p> The main difference between the two Testaments is that the New Testament sets forth [[Jesus]] as the new [[Example]] of uncompromising obedience to the will and law of God. He came not to abolish the Old, but to fulfill it. The New Testament is replete with exhortations to live by the words and to walk in the way set forth by Jesus of Nazareth, the [[Messiah]] (1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:21-25 ). </p> <p> Some of the motivators to live ethical and moral lives carry over from the previous Testament, but to these are added: the nearness of God's kingdom (Mark 1:15 ); gratitude for God's grace in Christ (Romans 5:8 ); and the accomplished redemption, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:20-21 ). Like the Old Testament, love is a strong motivator; however, love does not take the place of law. [[Love]] is not itself the law; it is a “how” word, but it will never tell us “what” we are to do. Love is a fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:9 ) because it constrains us to comply with what the law teaches. Thus, love creates an affinity with and an affection for the object of its love. It gives willing and cheerful obedience rather than coerced and forced compliance. </p> <p> Finally, the content of biblical ethics is not only personal, but it is wide-ranging. The letters of [[Paul]] and Peter list a wide range of ethical duties; toward one's neighbors, respect for the civil government, and its tasks, the spiritual significance to work, the stewardship of possessions and wealth, and much else. </p> <p> The ethic which Scripture demands and approves has the holiness of the [[Godhead]] as its standard and fountainhead, love to God as its impelling motivation, the law of God as found in the Decalogue and Sermon on the Mount as its directing principle, and the glory of God as its governing aim. </p> <p> [[Walter]] C. Kaiser, Jr. </p>

== Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible <ref name="term_50789" /> ==

<p> <strong> ETHICS </strong> . The present article will be confined to Biblical Ethics. As there is no systematic presentation of the subject, all that can be done is to gather from the [[Jewish]] and [[Christian]] writings the moral conceptions that were formed by historians, prophets, poets, apostles. The old history culminates in the story of the perfect One, the Lord [[Jesus]] Christ, from whom there issued a life of higher order and ampler range. </p> <p> <strong> I. OT [[Ethics]] </strong> . As the dates of many of the books are uncertain, special difficulty attends any endeavour to trace with precision the stages of moral development amongst the Hebrews. The existence of a moral order of the world is assumed; human beings are credited with the freedom, the intelligence, etc., which make morality possible. The term ‘conscience’ does not appear till NT times, and perhaps it was then borrowed from the Stoics; but the thing itself is conspicuous enough in the records of God’s ancient people. In [[Genesis]] 3:5 we have the two categories ‘good’ and ‘evil’; the former seems to signify in Genesis 1:31 ‘answering to design’ and in Genesis 2:18 ‘conducive to well-being.’ These terms applied sometimes to ends, sometimes to means probably denote ultimates of consciousness, and so, like pain and pleasure, are not to be defined. [[Moral]] phenomena present themselves, of course, in the story of the patriarchs; men are described as mean or chivalrous, truthful or false, meritorious or blameworthy, long before legislation [[Mosaic]] or other takes shape. </p> <p> <strong> 1 </strong> . In [[Hebrew]] literature the <em> religious aspects of life </em> are of vital moment, and therefore morals and worship are inextricably entangled. [[God]] is seen: there is desire to please Him; there is a shrinking from aught that would arouse His anger ( Genesis 20:6; Genesis 39:9 ). Hence the immoral is sinful. [[Allegiance]] is due not to an impersonal law, but to a [[Holy]] Person, and duty to man is duty also to God. [[Morality]] is under [[Divine]] protection: are not the tables of the Law in the [[Ark]] that occupies the most sacred place in Jehovah’s shrine ( Exodus 40:20 , Deuteronomy 10:5 , 1 Kings 8:9 , Hebrews 9:4 )? The commandments, instead of being arbitrary, are the outflowings of the character of God. He who enjoins righteousness and mercy calls men to possess attributes which He Himself prizes as His own peculiar glory ( Exodus 33:18-19; Exodus 34:6-7 ). Hosea represents the Divine love as longing for the response of human love, and Amos demands righteousness in the name of the [[Righteous]] One. Man’s goodness is the same in kind as the goodness of God, so that both may be characterized by the same terms; as appears from a comparison of Psalms 111:1-10; Psalms 112:1-10 . </p> <p> <strong> 2 </strong> . The OT outlook is <em> national </em> rather than individual. The elements of the community count for little, unless they contribute to the common good. A man is only a fractional part of an organism, and he may be slain with the group to which he belongs, if grievous sin can be brought home to any part of that group ( Joshua 7:19-26 ). It is [[Israel]] the people as a whole that is called God’s son. Prayers, sacrifices, festivals, fasts, are national affairs. The highest form of excellence is willingness to perish if only Israel may be saved ( Exodus 32:31-32 , Judges 5:15-18 ). Frequently the laws are, such as only a judge may administer: thus the claim of ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ ( Deuteronomy 19:21 ), being a maxim of fairness to be observed by a magistrate who has to decide between contending parties, is too harsh for guidance outside a court of law ( Matthew 5:38-39 ). When Israel sinned, it was punished; when it obeyed God, it prospered. It was not till Hebrew national life was destroyed that individual experiences excited questions as to the equity of [[Providence]] (Job, Psalms 37:1-40; Psalms 73:1-28 ) and in regard to personal immortality. In the later prophets, even when the soul of each man is deemed to be of immense interest ( Ezekiel 18:1-32 ), national ideals have the ascendency in thought. It is the nation that is to have a resurrection ( Isaiah 25:8 , Ezekiel 37:1-14 , Hosea 13:14 , Zechariah 8:1-8 ). This ardent devotion to corporate well-being a noble protest against absorption in individual interests is the golden thread on which the finest pearls of Hebrew history are strung. </p> <p> <strong> 3 </strong> . The <em> [[Covenant]] </em> is always regarded as the <em> standard </em> by which conduct is to be judged. Deference to the Covenant is deference to God ( Hosea 6:7; Hosea 8:1 , Amos 3:1-3 ). As God is always faithful, His people prosper so long as they observe the conditions to which their fathers gave solemn assent ( Exodus 24:8; Exodus 24:7 ). The Decalogue, which is an outline of the demands made by the Covenant on Israel, requires in its early clauses faith, reverence, and service; then ( Exodus 20:1-26 , [[Commandments]] 5 to 9) the duty of man to man is set forth as part of man’s duty to Jehovah, for [[Moses]] and all the prophets declare that God is pleased or displeased by our behaviour to one another. The [[Tenth]] Commandment, penetrating as it does to the inward life, should be taken as a reminder that all commandments are to be read in the spirit and not in the letter alone ( Leviticus 19:17-18 , Deuteronomy 6:5-6 , Psalms 139:1-24 , Romans 7:14 ). Human obligations details of which are sometimes massed together as in Exodus 20:1-26; Exodus 21:1-36; Exodus 22:1-31; Exodus 23:1-33 , Psalms 15:1-5; Psalms 24:1-10 include both moral and ceremonial requirements. Nothing is more common in the prophets than complaints of a disposition to neglect the former ( Isaiah 1:11 f., Jeremiah 6:20; Jeremiah 7:21 f., Hosea 6:6 , Amos 5:21 f.). The requirements embrace a great number of particulars, and every department of experience is recognized. [[Stress]] is laid upon kindness to the <em> physically defective </em> ( Leviticus 19:14 ), and to the <em> poor </em> and to <em> strangers </em> ( Deuteronomy 10:18-19; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; Deuteronomy 24:17 ff., Job 31:16 ff., Job 32:1-22 , Psalms 41:1 , Isaiah 58:6 ff., Jeremiah 7:5 ff; Jeremiah 22:3 , Zechariah 7:9 f.). <em> [[Parents]] </em> and <em> aged </em> persons are to be reverenced ( Exodus 20:12 , Deuteronomy 5:16 , Leviticus 19:32 ). The education of <em> children </em> is enjoined ( Exodus 12:26 f., Exodus 13:8; Exodus 13:14 , Deuteronomy 4:9; Deuteronomy 6:7; Deuteronomy 6:20-25; Deuteronomy 11:19; Deuteronomy 31:12-13; Deuteronomy 32:46 , Psalms 78:5-6 ). In Proverbs emphasis is laid upon <em> industry </em> ( Proverbs 6:6-11 ), <em> purity </em> ( Proverbs 7:6 etc.), <em> kindness </em> to the needy ( Proverbs 14:21 ), <em> truthfulness </em> ( Proverbs 17:7 etc.), <em> forethought </em> ( Proverbs 24:27 ). The claims of <em> animals </em> are not omitted ( Exodus 23:11 , Leviticus 25:7 , Deuteronomy 22:4; Deuteronomy 22:6; Deuteronomy 25:4 , Psalms 104:11-12; Psalms 148:10 , Proverbs 12:10 , Jonah 4:11 ). Occasionally there are charming pictures of special characters (the housewife, Proverbs 31:1-31; the king, 2 Samuel 23:3-4; the priest, Malachi 2:5-7 ). God’s rule over man is parallel with His rule over the universe, and men should feel that God embraces all interests in His thought, for He is so great that He can attend equally to the stars and to human sorrows ( Psalms 19:1-14; Psalms 33:1-22; Psalms 147:3-6 ). </p> <p> <strong> 4 </strong> . The <em> sanctions </em> of conduct are chiefly temporal (harvests, droughts, victories over enemies, etc.), yet, as they are national, self-regard is not obtrusive. Moreover, it would be a mistake to suppose that no Hebrew minds felt the intrinsic value of morality. The legal spirit was not universal. The prophets were glad to think that God was not limiting Himself to the letter of the Covenant, the very existence of which implied that Jehovah, in the greatness of His love, had chosen Israel to be His peculiar treasure. By grace and not by bare justice Divine action was guided. God was the compassionate [[Redeemer]] ( Deuteronomy 7:8 , Hosea 11:1; Hosea 14:4 ). Even the people’s disregard of the Law did not extinguish His forgiving love ( Psalms 25:6 ff; Psalms 103:8 ff., Isaiah 63:9 , Jeremiah 3:12; Jeremiah 31:3; Jeremiah 33:7 f., Micah 7:18 f.). In response to this manifested generosity, an unmercenary spirit was begotten in Israel, so that God was loved for His own sake, and His smile was regarded as wealth and light when poverty and darkness had to be endured. ‘Whom have I in heaven but thee?’ ‘Oh, how I love thy law!’ are expressions the like of which abound in the devotional literature of Israel, and they evince a disinterested devotion to God Himself and a genuine delight in duty. To the same purport is the remarkable appreciation of the beauty and splendour of wisdom recorded in Proverbs 8:1-36 . </p> <p> <strong> II. NT Ethics </strong> . While admitting many novel elements ( Matthew 11:11; Matthew 13:17; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 13:52 , Mark 2:21-22 , John 13:34 , Ephesians 2:15 , Hebrews 10:20 , Revelation 2:17; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 5:9 ), [[Christianity]] reaffirmed the best portions of OT teaching ( Matthew 5:17 , Romans 3:31 ). [[Whatsoever]] things were valuable, [[Christ]] conserved, unified, and developed. The old doctrine acquired wings, and sang a, nobler, sweeter song ( John 1:17 ). But the glad and noble life which Jesus came to produce could come only from close attention to man’s actual condition. </p> <p> <strong> 1 </strong> . Accordingly, Christian Ethics takes full account of <em> sin </em> . The guilty state of human nature, together with the presence of temptations from within, without, and beneath, presents a problem far different from any that can be seen when it is assumed that men are good or only unmoral. Is our need met by lessons in the art of advancing from good to better? Is not the human will defective and rebellious? The moral ravages in the individual and in society call for Divine redemptive activities and for human penitence and faith. [[Though]] the sense of sin has been most conspicuous since Christ dwelt among men, the Hebrew consciousness had its moral anguish. The vocabulary of the ancient revelation calls attention to many of the aspects of moral disorder. [[Sin]] is a ravenous beast, crouching ready to spring ( Genesis 4:7 ); a cause of wide-spreading misery ( Genesis 3:15-19; Genesis 9:25; Genesis 20:9 , Exodus 20:5 ); is universal ( Genesis 6:5; Gen 8:21 , 1 Kings 8:46 , Psalms 130:3; Psalms 143:2 ); is folly (Prov. <em> passim </em> ); a missing of the mark, violence, transgression, rebellion, pollution ( Psalms 51:1-19 ). This grave view is shared by the NT. The Lord and His [[Apostles]] labour to produce contrition. It is one of the functions of the Holy [[Spirit]] to convict the world of sin ( John 16:8 ). It is not supposed that a good life can be lived unless moral evil is renounced by a penitent heart. The fountains of conduct are considered to have need of cleansing. It is always assumed that great difficulties beset the soul in its upward movements, because of its past corrupt state and its exposure to fierce and subtle temptations. </p> <p> <strong> 2 </strong> . In harmony with the doctrine of depravity is the distinctness with which <em> individuality </em> is recognized. Sin is possible only to a person. [[Ability]] to sin is a mark of that high rank in nature denoted by ‘personality.’ Christianity has respect to a man’s separateness. It sees a nature ringed round with barriers that other beings cannot pass, capacities for great and varied wickednesses and excellences, a world among other worlds, and not a mere wave upon the sea. A human being is in himself an end, and God loves us one by one. Jesus asserted the immense value of the individual. The [[Shepherd]] cares for the one lost sheep ( Luke 15:4-7 ), and has names for all the members of the flock ( John 10:14 ). The Physician, who (it is conceivable) could have healed crowds by some general word, lays His beneficent hands upon each sufferer ( Luke 4:40 ). [[Remove]] from the [[Gospels]] and the Acts the stories of private ministrations, and what gaps are made ( John 1:35 ff., John 1:3-4 , Acts 8:25-39; Acts 8:16 , etc.). [[Taking]] the individual as the unit, and working from him as a centre, the NT Ethic declines to consider his deeds alone ( Matthew 6:1-34 , Romans 2:28-29 ). Actions are looked at on their inner side ( Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 12:34-35; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 23:27 , Mark 7:2-8; Mark 7:18-23 , Luke 16:15; Luke 18:10-14 , John 4:23 f.). This is a prolongation of ideas present to the best minds prior to the [[Advent]] ( 1 Samuel 16:7 , Psalms 7:9; Psalms 24:3-4; Psalms 51:17; Psalms 139:2-3; Psalms 139:23 , Jeremiah 17:10; Jeremiah 31:33 ). </p> <p> <strong> 3 </strong> . The <em> social </em> aspects of experience are not overlooked. Everyone is to bear his own burden ( Romans 14:4 , Galatians 6:5 ), and must answer for himself to the [[Judge]] of all men ( 2 Corinthians 5:10 ); but he is not isolated. [[Regard]] for others is imperative; for an unforgiving temper cannot find forgiveness ( Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 18:23-35 ), worship without brotherliness is rejected ( Matthew 5:23-24 ), and Christian love is a sign of regeneration ( 1 John 5:1 ). The mere absence of malevolent deeds cannot shield one from condemnation; positive helpfulness is required ( Matthew 25:41-45 , Luke 10:25-37; Luke 16:19-31 , Ephesians 4:28-29 ). This helpfulness is the new ritualism ( Hebrews 13:16 , James 1:27 ). The family with its parents, children, and servants ( Ephesians 5:22 to Ephesians 6:9 , Colossians 3:18 to Colossians 4:1 ); the [[Church]] with its various orders of character and gifts ( Romans 14:1-23; Romans 15:1-33 , Galatians 6:1-2 , 1Co 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 ); the [[State]] with its monarch and magistrates ( Mark 12:14-17 , Romans 13:1-7 , 1 Timothy 2:1-2 ), provide the spheres wherein the servant of Christ is to manifest his devotion to the Most High. ‘Obedience, patience, benevolence, purity, humility, alienation from the world and the “flesh,” are the chief novel or striking features which the Christian ideal of practice suggests’ (Sidgwick), and they involve the conception that Christian Ethics is based on the recognition of sin, of individuality, of social demands, and of the need of heavenly assistance. </p> <p> <strong> 4 </strong> . The Christian <em> standard </em> is <em> the character of the Lord Jesus Christ </em> , who lived perfectly for God and man. He overcame evil ( Matthew 4:1-11 , John 16:33 ), completed His life’s task ( John 17:4 ), and sinned not ( John 8:46 , 2 Corinthians 5:21 , Heb 4:15 , 1 Peter 2:22 , 1 John 3:5 ). His is the pattern life, inasmuch as it is completely (1) filial, and (2) fraternal. As to (1), we mark the upward look, His readiness to let the heat of His love burst into the flame of praise and prayer, His dutifulness and submissiveness: He lived ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ and wished to do only that which God desired. As to (2), His pity for men was unbounded, His sacrifice for human good knew no limits. ‘Thou shalt love God’; ‘thou shalt love man.’ Between these two poles the perfect life revolved. He and His teachings are one. It is because the moral law is alive in Him that He must needs claim lordship over man’s thoughts, feelings, actions. He is preached ‘as Lord’ ( 2 Corinthians 4:5 ), and the homage which neither man ( Acts 10:25-26 ) nor angel ( Revelation 22:8-9 ) can receive He deems it proper to accept ( John 13:13 ). [[Could]] it be otherwise? The moral law must be supreme, and He is it. Hence alienation from Him has the fatal place which idolatry had under the Old Covenant, and for a similar reason, seeing that idolatry was a renunciation of Him who is the righteous and gracious One. Since Jesus by virtue of His filial and fraternal perfectness is Lord, to stand apart from Him is ruinous ( Luke 10:13-16 , John 3:18; John 8:24; John 15:22-24; John 16:8-9 , Hebrews 2:3; Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26 ). Wife or child or life itself must not be preferred to the claims of truth and righteousness, and therefore must not be preferred to Christ, who is truth and righteousness in personal form ( Matthew 10:37-39 , Luke 9:59-60; Luke 14:26-27 ). To call oneself the bond-servant of Jesus Christ ( Romans 1:1 , James 1:1 , 2 Peter 1:1 ) was to assert at once the strongest affection for the wise and gracious One, and the utmost loyalty to God’s holy will as embodied in His Son. The will of God becomes one’s own by affectionate deference to Jesus Christ, to suffer for whom may become a veritable bliss ( Matthew 5:10-12 , Acts 5:41 , 2 Corinthians 4:11 , Philippians 1:29 , 1 Thessalonians 2:14 , Hebrews 10:32-34 ). </p> <p> <strong> 5 </strong> . Christian Ethics is marked quite as much by <em> promises of assistance </em> as by loftiness of standard. The kindliness of God, fully illustrated in the gift and sacrifice of His Son, is a great incentive to holiness. Men come into the sunshine of Divine favour. [[Heavenly]] sympathy is with them in their struggles. The virtues to be acquired ( Matthew 5:1-16 , Galatians 5:22-23 , Colossians 3:12-17 , 2 Peter 1:5-7 , Titus 2:12 ) and the vices to be shunned ( Mark 7:21-22 , Galatians 5:19-21 , Colossians 3:5-9 ) are viewed in connexion with the assurance of efficient aid. There is a wonderful love upon which the aspirant may depend ( John 3:16 , Romans 5:7-8 , 2 Corinthians 5:19 f.). The hearty acceptance of that love is faith, ranked as a virtue and as the parent of virtues ( 2 Peter 1:5 , Romans 5:1-2 , 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 , Hebrews 11:1-40 ). Faith, hope, love, transfigure and supplement the ancient virtues, temperance, courage, wisdom, justice, while around them grow many gentle excellences not recognized before Christ gave them their true rank; and yet it is not by its wealth of moral teaching so much as by its assurance of ability to resist temptation and to attain spiritual manhood that Christianity has gained preeminence. Christ’s miracles are illustrations of His gospel of pardon, regeneration, and added faculties ( Matthew 9:5-6 ). The life set before man was lived by Jesus, who regenerates men by His Spirit, and takes them into union with Himself ( John 3:3; John 3:6; John 8:36; John 15:1-10 , Romans 8:2; Romans 8:9; Romans 8:29 , 1 Corinthians 1:30 , 2 Corinthians 5:17 , Galatians 5:22-23 , Philippians 2:5; Philippians 2:12-13 , Colossians 3:1-4 , James 1:18 , 1 Peter 2:21 , 1 John 2:6 ). The connexion between the Lord and the disciple is permanent ( Matthew 28:20 , John 14:3; John 14:19; John 17:24 , Hebrews 2:11-18 , 1 John 3:1-3 ), and hence the aspiration to become sober, righteous, godly (relation to <em> self, man </em> , and <em> God </em> , Titus 2:12-14 ) receives ample support. Sanctity is not only within the reach of persons at one time despised as moral incapables ( Mark 2:16-17 , Luke 7:47; Luke 7:15; Luke 19:8-9; Luke 23:42; Luk 23:48 , 1 Corinthians 6:11 , Ephesians 2:1-7 ), but every Christian is supposed to be capable, sooner or later, of the most precious forms of goodness ( Matthew 5:1-10 ), for there is no caste ( Colossians 1:28 ). [[Immortality]] is promised to the soul, and with it perpetual communion with the Saviour, whose image is to be repeated in every man He saves ( Romans 8:37-39 , 1Co 15:49-58 , 2 Corinthians 5:8 , Philippians 3:8-14 , 1 Thessalonians 4:17 , 1 John 3:2-3 , Revelation 22:4 ). </p> <p> The objections which have been made to Biblical Ethics cannot be ignored, though the subject can be merely touched in this article. Some passages in the OT have been stigmatized as immoral; some in the NT are said to contain impracticable precepts, and certain important spheres of duty are declared to receive very inadequate treatment. </p> <p> (i.) As to the OT, it is to be observed that we need not feel guilty of disrespect to inspiration when our moral sense is offended; for the Lord Jesus authorizes the belief that the Mosaic legislation was imperfect (Matthew 5:21 ff., Mark 10:2-9 ), and both Jeremiah and Ezekiel comment adversely on doctrines which had been accepted on what seemed to be Divine authority (cf. Exodus 20:5 with Jeremiah 31:29-30 and Ezekiel 18:2-3; Ezekiel 18:19-20 ). It is reasonable to admit that if men were to be improved at all there must have been some accommodation to circumstances and states of mind very unlike our own; yet some of the laws are shocking. While such institutions as polygamy and slavery, which could not be at once abolished, were restricted in their range and stripped of some of their worst evils ( Exodus 21:2 ff., Leviticus 25:42-49 , 1 Chronicles 2:35 , Proverbs 17:2 ), there remain many enactments and transactions which must have been always abhorrent to God though His sanction is claimed for them ( Exodus 22:18-20; Exodus 31:14-15; Exodus 35:2-3 , Leviticus 20:27 , Numbers 15:32-36; Numbers 15:31 , Deuteronomy 13:5; Deuteronomy 13:16; Deuteronomy 17:1-5; Deuteronomy 18:20; Deuteronomy 21:10-14 , 2 Samuel 21:1-9 ). Had men always remembered these illustrations of the fact that passions and opinions utterly immoral may seem to be in harmony with God’s will, the cruelties inflicted on heretics in the name of God would not have disgraced the Church’s history; and, indeed, these frightful mistakes of OT days may have been recorded to teach us to be cautious, lest while doing wrong we imagine that God is served ( John 16:2 ). The limited area of the unworthy teaching would be noticed if care were taken to observe that (1) some of the wicked incidents are barely recorded, (2) some are reprobated in the context, (3) some are evidently left without comment because the historian assumes that they will be immediately condemned by the reader. In regard to the rest, it is certain that the Divine seal has been used contrary to the Divine will. It must be added that the very disapproval of the enormities has been made possible by the book which contains the objectionable passages, and that it is grossly unfair to overlook the high tone manifested generally throughout a great and noble literature, and the justice, mercy, and truth commended by Israel’s poets, historians, and prophets, generation after generation. </p> <p> (ii.) As to the NT, it is alleged that, even if the [[Sermon]] on the Mount could be obeyed, obedience would be ruinous. This, however, is directly in the teeth of Christ’s own comment (Matthew 7:24-27 ), and is due in part to a supposition that every law is for every man. The disciples, having a special task, might be under special orders, just as the Lord Himself gave up all His wealth ( 2 Corinthians 8:9 ) and carried out literally most of the precepts included in His discourse. The paradoxical forms employed should be a sufficient guard against a bald construction of many of the sayings, and should compel us to meditate upon principles that ought to guide all lives. It is the voice of love that we hear, not the voice of legality. The Christian Etnic is supposed to be careless of social institutions, and Christianity is blamed for not preaching at once against slavery, etc. [[Probably]] more harm than good would have resulted from political and economic discourses delivered by men who were ostracized. But it is improbable that the Christian mind was sufficiently instructed to advance any new doctrine for the State. Moreover, the supposition that the world was near its close must have diverted attention from social schemes. The alienation from the world was an alienation from wickedness, not indifference to human pain and sorrow. The poverty of believers, the scorn felt for them by the great, the impossibility of attending public functions without countenancing idolatry, the lack of toleration by the State, all tended to keep the Christian distinct from his fellows. Mob and State and cultured class, by their hatred or contempt, compelled Christianity to move on its own lines. At first it was saved from contamination by various kinds of persecution, and the isolation has proved to be a blessing to mankind; for the new life was able to gather its forces and to acquire knowledge of its own powers and mission. The new ideal was protected by its very unpopularity. [[Meanwhile]] there was the attempt to live a life of love to God and man, and to treasure Gospels and [[Epistles]] that kept securely for a more promising season many sacred seeds destined to grow into trees bearing many kinds of fruit. The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood implicitly condemns every social and political wrong, while it begets endeavours directed to the promotion of peace among nations, and to the uplifting of the poor and ignorant and depraved of every land into realms of material, intellectual, and moral blessing. There is no kind of good which is absent from the prayers: ‘Thy kingdom come’; ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ </p> <p> W. J. Henderson. </p>

== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_55694" /> ==

<p> It is proposed in the present article not to discuss the vast subject of ethics in general, but to attempt to ascertain what were the most striking points in which the ethical ideas of the Christiana of the [[Apostolic]] [[Age]] differed from those of earlier speculators on the subject. </p> <p> <b> 1. Sources of information </b> .-All our first-hand information is contained in the writings of the NT and of the Apostolic Fathers. Indirectly the works of later [[Christian]] authors, who treated the subject more systematically, may throw some light by way of inference on the conceptions of the Apostolic Age: for instance, if the treatment of the cardinal virtues by St. [[Augustine]] and others shows a marked difference from the treatment found in pre-Christian writers, it may perhaps be rightly inferred that the difference is due to ideas which already prevailed in the first generation of Christians. But inferences of this sort are precarious, for it is hardly possible to ascertain accurately how far the other influences which contributed to the thought of the later writers were operative in the earliest age; and in any case it is probable that later writings would not add anything of great importance to the general outline, which is all that is being attempted here. [[Attention]] will therefore be confined to the contemporary documents. And with respect to these, critical questions may be ignored. The accuracy of the historical narrative is not in question, and whatever may be the authorship or the precise date of the documents reviewed, they are all sufficiently early to reflect ethical ideas which belong to the Apostolic Age, and not those which belong to a later period. </p> <p> <b> 2. General characteristics of ethical thought </b> </p> <p> (1) <i> [[Absence]] of systematic treatment </i> .-Ethical questions are constantly touched upon in the NT, but always more or less in connexion with particular cases as they arise, and never in connexion with a complete and thought-out system. Here there is a striking contrast with [[Greek]] philosophy. The philosophers tried to find a rational basis for human life in all its relations. In ethics they discussed the question of the supreme good-whether it was knowledge, or pleasure, or virtue; they classified the virtues, and discussed in the fullest manner their various manifestations. There is nothing of this sort in the NT. The morality of the Jews, again, was very different from that of the Greeks, fur the [[Jews]] took little interest in purely philosophical problems; but they also had a system, and a very elaborate one, of law and of ceremonial observance, with which their morality was closely bound up. Although the [[Christians]] inherited so much from the Jews, this system, after being, as it were, raised to its highest power in the [[Sermon]] on the Mount, was definitely set aside in the Apostolic Age. And in the place of a system we find an overpowering interest in certain historical facts. The Synoptic [[Gospels]] are occupied with a fragmentary narrative of the life of Christ, in which a good deal of moral teaching is contained. But it is such as arises incidentally from the facts recorded in the narrative, and it is not presented as part of a scheme of ethics. In the [[Fourth]] [[Gospel]] there is something more nearly resembling systematic moral discussion, but even here the discourses arise out of a historical framework, and the prevailing interest is not ethical but spiritual and mystical. The Acts contains little but narrative, and the teaching recorded in it centres almost monotonously around facts. In the [[Epistles]] ethical questions are constantly dealt with, but the problems are practical, and arise out of the circumstances of the time. This is not to say that in these writings there is no new point of view, but that ethics is nowhere treated in a complete and systematic way, and that there appears to be no consciousness on the part of the writers that they are in possession of a new ethical theory or philosophy. The difference, therefore, between pre-Christian and Christian ethics does not consist in a new theory or system. The subject was treated in the Apostolic Age from the practical point of view. </p> <p> (2) <i> The moral ideal </i> .-A new element is, however, introduced into ethics by that very concentration upon a single historical life which has been noted above. The ideal man had figured largely in earlier ethical systems, but the ideal man of philosophy had been entirely a creation of the imagination, and his actual existence never seems to have been thought of as a practical possibility. Now, however, an actual human life is put forward as a model of perfection, and it is assumed without discussion that all ethical questions, as they may happen to arise, may be, and must be, tested by this. </p> <p> (3) <i> The new life </i> .-There is, moreover, in the consciousness of the Apostolic Age something more potent than belief in a historical example. There is a sense which pervades every writing of this time that a new force has come into existence. It is not necessary to insist upon the prominence in early Christian teaching of the belief in the Resurrection, The continued life and activity of the [[Person]] who is the centre of all their thought were the greatest of all realities to the early Christians. With it was combined the belief in the continual indwelling and inspiration of the [[Holy]] Spirit. And this seems to explain the apparent indifference to ethical theory which has been noted. For to the early Christians ‘outward morality is the necessary expression of a life already infused into the soul’ (Strong, <i> Christian [[Ethics]] </i> , p. 69). It is in this respect that the Christian conception presents the most marked contrast to pre-Christian thought, There was a note of hopelessness in the moral speculation of the Greeks, Even a high ideal was a thing regarded as practically out of reach for the mass of mankind. [[Plato]] looked upon the ideal [[State]] as a necessary condition for the exercise of the highest virtue, and its conception was a wonderful effort of the philosophical imagination; but it was not considered possible. Even the apparently practical conceptions of [[Aristotle]] require a complete reconstruction of society. The Stoic philosophers abandoned this dream, and could suggest nothing better than the withdrawal of the wise man from all ordinary human interests. The Neo-Platonist went further, and sought complete severance from the world of sense, [[Jewish]] thought was on different lines, but there was an even keener sense of sin and failure, although this was redeemed from despair by the hope of a Messianic Age which would redress all the evils of the existing order. Above all there was no sufficient solution, and among the [[Greeks]] little attempt at a solution, of the problem of how the human will was to be sufficiently strengthened to do its part in the realization of any ideal. In the writings of the Apostolic Age, on the other hand, there is found not only a belief in a perfect ideal historically realized, but also a belief in an indwelling power sufficient to restore all that is weak and depraved in the human will. </p> <p> (4) <i> The evangelical virtues </i> .-In the NT there is no regular discussion of the nature of virtue, and no formal classification of virtues. The Greek philosophers, while they differed in their views of that constituted the chief good, were agreed in accepting what are known as the four cardinal virtues-prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice-as the basis of their classification. This division, from the time of Plato onwards (and he appears to assume it as familiar), is generally accepted as exhaustive, and other virtues are made to fall under these heads. But although this classification must have been familiar to a large number of the early Christians, and although it had been adopted in the [[Book]] of [[Wisdom]] (8:7), it is not mentioned in the NT. The cardinal virtues reappeared in Christian literature from [[Origen]] onwards, and were exhaustively treated by Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and mediaeval writers, but this kind of discussion does not make its appearance in the Apostolic Age. Such lists of virtues us that which occurs in Galatians 5:22 f. are clearly not intended to be exhaustive or scientific, and the nearest approach to a system of virtues is made by St. [[Paul]] in 1 Cor., where he expounds what became known as the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. These three are also closely associated in Romans 5:1-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:2 f., and Colossians 1:3-5; and two other NT writers (Hebrews 10:22-24 and 1 Peter 1:21 f.) mention them in conjunction in a suggestive manner. It seems that they were generally recognized as moral or spiritual states characteristic of the Christian life. And the reason for this appears to be that they are regarded as the means by which the Christian is brought into personal relation with the historical facts, and with the new life brought by them into the world, which have been spoken of above as the point on which the Christians of the first age centred their attention. The insistence on these spiritual virtues brings out two distinct characteristics of the ethical thought of the Apostolic Age, which are nowhere defined or discussed in the NT, but which nevertheless appear to be consistently implied. These characteristics are a new doctrine of the end of man, and consequently a new criterion of good and evil, and a new view of human nature. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) These three virtues all take a man outside himself, and make it impossible for him to be merely self-regarding. They bring him into close relation not only with his fellow-men but with God. So union with [[God]] becomes the highest end of man. This union, moreover, is not absorption: whatever may have been the case of some later Christian mystics, the most mystical of the early writers, St. Paul and St. John, never contemplate anything but a conscious union with God, in which the whole individuality of man is preserved. ‘From first to last the Christian idea is social, and involves the conscious communion between man and man, between man and God. And no state of things in which the individual consciousness disappears will satisfy this demand ‘(Strong, <i> op. cit. </i> p. 88). Faith, hope, and love all relate to a spiritual region above and beyond this present life, but the existing world is not excluded from it. The [[Kingdom]] of God, which occupies as large a place in the thought of the Apostolic Age, is regarded as future and as transcendental, but it is also regarded as having come already, so far as the rule of [[Christ]] has been made effective in this life. [[Thus]] a new standard for moral judgments is set up those actions and events are good which advance the coming of the Kingdom, and those are evil which impede it. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) Further, the evangelical virtues assume a unity in human nature which pre-Christian systems of thought failed to recognize. Greek thought either regarded human nature as unfallen, or it adopted more or less an Oriental view of evil as immanent in matter. When evil could not be ignored it might be ascribed either to ignorance or to the imprisonment of the soul in an alien environment. In neither ease could human nature be regarded as a whole which in its own proper being is harmonious. The body and the emotions which are closely connected with it were looked upon as things which must either be kept in strict subjection to the intellect, or, as far as possible, be got rid of altogether. In early Christian thought, on the other hand, hope and love are mainly emotional, and faith is by no means exclusively intellectual. In St. Paul’s use of the term it includes a strong element of emotion-it ‘worketh through love’ (Galatians 5:6); and it is almost more an act of the will than of the intellect. And although asceticism played a great part in some departments of later Christian thought, in the Apostolic Age there can be no doubt of the importance assigned to the body. The conspicuous Christian belief in the resurrection of the body assumes a very different point of view from that of Oriental or oven of Greek philosophy. It is clear that the first generation of Christians regarded human nature as fallen indeed, but as capable in all its parts of restoration, and they believed that none of its parts could be left out from the salvation of the whole. </p> <p> (5) <i> The conception of sin </i> .-Speaking generally, it may be said that the non-Christian view of sin regards it as natural, and that the Christian view regards it as unnatural. This is, however, a broad generalization, and requires further definition. No system of ethical thought can altogether ignore the fact of sin, though it is sometimes minimized. But there are wide differences in the way in which it is regarded. In pre-Christian thought it was often almost Identified with ignorance. It was assumed that a man cannot sin willingly, because no man desires evil for himself. [[Virtue]] is therefore knowledge, and the possibility of knowing what is right and doing what is wrong need not be considered. This was the teaching of a large section of Greek philosophy. Again, wherever Oriental ideas had influence, the seat of evil was thought to be in matter. Sometimes the strife between good and evil was explained as a contest between two rival and evenly-balanced powers. Sometimes a good deity was conceived as acting upon an intractable material. The practical conclusion was usually some form of asceticism-an attempt to be quit of the body and all that it implied; and this asceticism, by a process easy to be understood, not infrequently led to licence. These tendencies often make their appearance in [[Church]] history, and traces of them are to be found in the writings of the NT, but during the Apostolic Age the dangers of [[Gnosticism]] and [[Antinomianism]] were but rudimentary. In modern times the view of evil which regards it as undeveloped good, or as the survival of instincts that are no longer necessary or beneficial, has some points in common with the old dualisms. The common feature of all these views is that they regard evil as more or less inevitable and according to nature. It would not be true to say that they altogether disregard the human will, or deny human responsibility, but they treat the body rather than the will as the seat of evil, and they tend to look upon evil as, upon the whole, natural and necessary. The Christian view of sin, as it appears in the writings of the Apostolic Age, is in the sharpest contrast to this. It is the Jewish view, carried to its natural conclusion, and its chief characteristics may be set down under three heads. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) First, the freedom of the will is not considered from the philosophical point of view at all. The metaphysical difficulties are not even touched upon, nor is any consciousness shown of their existence. But the responsibility of man is always assumed, Nor is it for his actions alone that he is responsible. The Sermon on the Mount brings home to him responsibility for every thought, and for his whole attitude towards God. And in doing so it brings to its natural conclusion the course of ethical thought among the Jews. If, however, the root of sin is in the will, it follows that it is not in matter, or in the body, or in anything distinct from the will of man. The whole universe is good, because it is created by God, and sin consists in the wilful misuse of things naturally good. [[Asceticism]] therefore, except in the sense of such training as may help to restore the will to a healthy condition, is excluded. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) Secondly, the idea of the holiness of God, as forming a test of human action and a condemnation of human shortcomings, is another conception inherited from Judaism. [[Early]] Jewish ideas about God are anthropomorphic, but the anthropomorphism is of a very different kind from that of the Greeks, The deities of Greek mythology who aroused the contemptuous disgust of Plato were constructed out of human experience with all the evil and good qualities of actual men emphasized and heightened. To the [[Jew]] God is an ideal, the source of the [[Moral]] Law, rebellion against which is sin. So in the Sermon on the Mount the perfection of God is held up as the ideal for human perfection, and St. Paul makes the unity of God the ground for belief in the unity of the Church. </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) Thirdly, sin was regarded as a thing which affects the race, and not only individuals. The beliefs of the Apostolic Age with regard to Christ’s redemptive work imply that there is a taint in the race, and that human nature itself, and not only individual men, has to be restored to communion with God, and requires such a release from sin as will make communion with God possible. Some practical results of this belief in the solidarity of mankind are conspicuous in early Christian writings. One is the exercise of discipline. It was left that the actions and character of individuals compromised and affected the whole body, and that they could not therefore be left to themselves. The injury done by the rebellion of one injured and imperilled the whole community. Both, for his own sake and for the sake of the Church a corporate censure was required, extending if necessary to the cutting off of the offending member (1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2, Matthew 18:15-20, etc.). [[Another]] result of the belief in solidarity is the emphasis laid upon social virtues in connexion with the corporate character of the Church ( <i> e.g. </i> Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Galatians 5, etc.). It partly accounts for that special prominence of humility in Christian ethics which has been so often commented on from different points of view, for humility is regarded not only as a duty enforced by the example of Christ, but also as the practical means for preserving the unity and harmonious working of the body (Philippians 2:3-5, etc.). </p> <p> <b> 3. [[Conclusion]] </b> .-Ethics in the Apostolic Age did not consist in a re-statement of old experience or in a system of purely ethical theory, but in the recognition and acceptance in the sphere of conduct of the practical consequences of what was believed to be an entirely new experience of spiritual facts. </p> <p> Literature.-A. Neander, ‘Verhältniss der hellen. Ethik zur christlichen,’ in <i> Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen </i> , 1851, also <i> Geschichte der christl. Ethik </i> (═ <i> Theolog. Vorlesungen </i> , v. [1864]); W. Gass, <i> Geschichte der christl. Ethik </i> , 1881; C. E. Luthardt, <i> Geschichte der christl. Ethik </i> , 1888: H. Martensen, <i> Christian Ethics </i> , Eng. translation, ( <i> General </i> ) 1885, ( <i> [[Individual]] </i> ) 1881, ( <i> social </i> ) 1882; J. R. Illingworth, <i> Christian Character </i> , 1904; T. B. Strong, <i> Christian Ethics </i> , 1896 (to which this article is especially indebted); H. H. Scullard, <i> Early Christian Ethics </i> , 1907; T. v. Haering, <i> The Ethics of Christian Life </i> , Eng. translation2, 1909. </p> <p> J. H. Maude. </p>

<ref name="term_50789"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-bible/ethics Ethics from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible]</ref>

<ref name="term_55694"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/ethics Ethics from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>