Footnote 2 is a very interesting point I hadn’t considered. I knew the first four commandments dealt with how to act towards God and the following six dealt with how to act towards men, but I had never thought of it in terms of persuasion. It fits though. He is their God who brought them out of slavery. He is their only God, and not the sort who can be reverently represented with idols. *Therefore* they should honor his name and his sabbath, and treat their neighbors as he commands.
Our pastor just started a series on Exodus a couple weeks ago. I’ll have to mention this idea to him.
Absolutely. That said, rather than giving fine-grained philosophical arguments (not to say we cannot reconstruct some that are rooted in biblical principles, and not to say some rationales are either supplied or clear enough), the Lord frequently says “I am the Lord” as the sole warrant of a command, or he says, e.g., “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Ex 20:2–3) So the idea is that his identity as the sovereign Lord gives him “the kingdom, and the power, and the glory” to impose a covenant; but further persuasion comes from an appeal to gratitude. And while this is not a philosophical argument, it is a persuasive appeal to the very presence of the Living God to keep the law.
Hi, Larry. I am unable to find what you are referring to in the assigned books. In other words, nothing is marked in a manner that allows me to locate the readings. The pages, and I have more than one copy, are just a long piece of literary work.
I’ll try to make this clearer in the future. I am using the Reeve translation, which includes the Stephanus page numbers inline (Stephanus numbers are explained here). If I’m not mistaken, you are using a copy of the Jowett translation that lacks these marginal numbers. To follow along with my references, you’ll have to switch to a copy that has them.
That solves the problem. Thanks.
The preambles the Athenian describes in Book IV are intended to explain the reasons for the laws so that those who hear them may more intelligently follow them. Although he may, as I previously suggested, view right belief as secondary to right behavior, he sees encouraging right belief as the best means of producing right behavior. A particular atheist might be of a naturally kind and generous disposition, but without any reason for his behavior beyond his personal feelings, his generosity cannot be relied upon if circumstances should make him feel differently. The man who is convinced that generosity is commanded by God, on the other hand, is more likely to give sacrificially even if he does so grudgingly. Good beliefs make for good citizens, which make for good states.
Good comment, but “Right belief as secondary to right behavior” is not exactly a Platonic notion. He thought behavior was downstream to belief. See the earlier business about akrasia.
Leave a Reply to Coleman Cancel reply