Part 2: All Alone
With the Garden experience behind them, the descendents of
Adam and Eve spread out to the far corners of the ancient world to find a place
for themselves. The humans were now on
their own searching to recapture the sanity, the justice and the peace of that
Garden sanctuary.
It would be convenient to state absolutely what early
humanity understood obedience to be, but harder to prove. What we do know is that
from the earliest written records there was a searching to reestablish the
order of the Garden, the peace, and the stability through standardized written legal codes . These set the limits for “right” and “wrong” and
listed the consequences of doing what was unacceptable in the society they
represented.
In about 2050 B.C.E. one of the earliest such “ law books “ was
written. Today, only fragments of The Codex
of Ur-Nammu exists but it reveals clearly an early attempt to follow some
higher course than humanity’s own basic, and often base, instincts. These laws consisted of social justice that
addressed issues of taxation, standardized measurements, legal recourse, and
the rights of the widows and orphans. (The World of The Bible. Eerdmans, 1986,
p.223).
Like its predecessors, The Code of Hammurabi attempted to set
up a standard of ethical conduct for the people of Babylonia and the regions
which adopted the code for their own use.
The Code was written about 1700 B.C.E. and was inscribed on a stone slab
(stele) of black diorite eight feet tall discovered in Susa in 1902 (The
Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Southwestern Company. Nashville.
1972, p.332).
Some of these laws have a familiar ring to them : 196, “If
an awilum has put out the eye of a mar-awiliam (lit.’son of an awilum’), they
shall put out his eye.” (Babylon, Joan Otes.
Thames and Hudson, 1979, pg. 75). Others are quite harsh: 195, “If a son has
struck his father, they shall cut off his hand.” Consider laws 229-30 stating a
builder whose work was shoddy, causing the death of the owner, the builder was
put to death.” (Babylon, Joan Otes. Thames and Hudson, 1979, pg. 75).
Both laws, and the later Law of Moses, are examples of what
scholars call the “casuistic” style. Each
law or code shows how a wrong action “causes” an opposite reaction as society
deals with the lawbreaker. Each
attempted to correct the imbalances in society by saying what was right and
what was wrong. Humanity was learning that limitations on conduct were needed so that the rights of another were
not trampled.
No matter how far away humanity might roam from the garden,
the instinctive urge and innate need for obedience to a standard of conduct
dogged their steps. In all cases, the ingredients do not match, but the basic
formula was there: the recognition that humanity need to be obedient to
something in order to achieve a small portion of the harmony known in the
Garden setting.
Why was there one set of laws in 2050 B.C.E., another in
1700 B.C.E., and yet another around 1280 B.C.E. (The Hittite Code)? If humanity realized the need to a obey a
higher standard of life, why was there a constant move to rewrite and reiterate
the laws? Without a doubt, even the
earliest human found it impossible to respond effectively to the sense of “moral
oughtness” existing within.
In his book, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction:
Discipleship in an Instant Society, Eugene H. Peterson tells of being in a
hospital room with a man who swung between rational thought and harsh
hallucinations of death, which caused him to scream out “I’m going to die!” He would then beg his pastor, Peterson, to
pray for him. Later, in moments of
lucidness, the man would recant any such prayer. “The parabolic force of the incident is this”,
Peterson noted. “When the man was scared, he wanted me to pray for him, but in
between…he didn’t want anything to do with a pastor.” (Peterson. A Long
Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship in an Instant Society.
Inter-Varsity, 1980, g. 17-158).
Early humanity was in this condition. There was a need to
obey that sense of moral oughtness when the individual was violated, when his
property was stolen, or her burdens were intolerable. Sometimes, a person might rise to altruistic
heights and cry out for the rights of others. Yet, those urges were at war with
a stronger urge to see to his or her own needs met, even if it meant at the
expense of another person. When the
stark injustice was pointed out, they would decry the situation. When injustice
visit her home, she could pull her hair and cry, “It isn’t fair!” In between those times, the commitment was
not always as clear or strong as might be wished. Man found he wanted to obey, but found he could
not unless he was made to through accepted legal codes.
The old joke about when it rains we see the need to fix the
roof, but when it stops – where’s the need, could apply to early humanity
ability to and desire to keep the moral laws.
Repeatedly the rules , the codes, had to be set down, recognized and set
into action because of the fallibility of humanity.
In Romans 1:19-21, Paul hints at this innate search for
answers to what is “right”:
“because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the
creation of world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse;
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
darkened.”
People were given a witness of God and a chance to respond
to those “higher” urges of morality which were evidences of God. In addition, there was no doubt, especially
in these early years that a remnant of those Garden days lingered on in stories
around the campfires and in the towns.
The “witness” of right and wrong was there, weak at times, but
definitely there.
The discoveries of biblical archaeology seem to illustrate
clearly that certain things were accepted among nearly all early people of the
Ancient Middle East. A close reading of
the Pentateuch reveals the people had followed many standards of conduct and
law later formalized into the Code of Moses.
Even today people become tangled in “customary laws” or common ethics
that allow a person to be “good” without being righteous. They allow modern mankind to attain a degree
of ‘civilization’ and harmony, but, as always, these are supports of glass that
shatter under the weight of daily use because a crucial element is
missing.
Secular history presents us with documented records of both
the human failure to live up to the moral expectations as well as the tendency
of depraved humanity to distort understanding of the nature of right, wrong,
and obedience.
The Code of Ur-Nummu and the Code of Hammurabi were both
collections of social laws listing the expectations and accepted legal , religious,
social and civic actions of the Mesopotamian cultures. The tenor of each is constantly harsh and
negative, dealing primarily with death and mutilation. Humans understood a need for obedience but of
what that obedience was to consist of was largely unknown.
In seeing obedience defined as laws limiting activities,
enforcing life styles and plainly stating specific ethics, the laws underscore the inability of humans
to live up to their own expectations of what was right. They could envision , but could not reach the
goal.
Humanity was ever aware of a desire to do right, but was
always unable to achieve that vision in reality. Some piece of the puzzle was missing and
until that piece was found, obedience had become, and would remain, a
tantalizing elusive goal.
