The Scriptures start by telling us that we are created in the “image of God.” Why should we not be able to discover that image in our genetic make-up?

Some Preliminary Clarifications

Let me say at the outset that this article does not argue that human beings have a gene (or perhaps two genes) inscribed with the Ten Commandments.

Instead, it is an examination of the Scriptures in light of recent genetic discoveries to see whether they can cast any light on those discoveries.

I should also stress that the arguments in this article build on the arguments elaborated in Parts II and III of my article on Intellectual Conservative titled “A Response to Dr Kerwick’s Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism” (which in turn is more fully argued out in my article previewing my forthcoming book The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God).

For the benefit of those who have not read those articles, let me briefly summarize the argument so far.

I read the symbolism of Genesis (the first 3 chapters) to say that human beings are programmed with certain instincts, particularly the instinct for the pursuit of pleasure and the instinct to conquer (to perpetuate and provide security for the species), but that we were also programmed to reason, and our ability to reason acts as a counterforce to prevent our primitive instincts from running amuck.

And I read the symbolism of other parts of the Scriptures to say that the Ten Commandments form the basic Principles which act as that counterforce.

Interpretation

Let me also make another preliminary point. In response to my previous IC article, an astute Commenter (Leigh) raised the question of interpretation – that the Scriptures are amenable to many interpretations.

Not only do I agree with that observation, the Scriptures themselves tell us that.

To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
– Proverbs 1:2–7

It is also clear (if this is not itself an instance of interpretation) that these "levels" of interpretation apply not just to Proverbs, but to all the Scriptures.

Yet, the very next book of the Scriptures (and one of my favorites) warns against being tempted to cast oneself amongst the “wise:”

Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
– Eccl 8:17

So, with those bits of "house-keeping" out of the way, let me make the argument that we are genetically programmed by, and with, the Ten Commandments, or more properly, the Principles which underlie the Ten Commandments.

A “Belief in God” Gene?

Several scientists claim to have "discovered" what we could loosely describe as a "god gene." Two interesting books on the subject are The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes by Dean Hamer (a molecular geneticist), and Robert Winston’s The Story of God.

Hamer identifies the VMAT2 gene. But the gene is not itself actually "programmed" to believe in God, rather, argues Hamer, it regulates “mood-altering chemicals in the brain” which has the effect of increasing "spirituality."

Winston identifies the DRD4 (the dopamine D4 receptor gene) as the culprit. This is also a gene that controls chemical flow to the brain. Winston wrote a summary of his arguments (or are they discoveries?) in an article in Britain’s Guardian newspaper (October 13, 2005).

However, in that article Winston notes that research shows even young children have the ability to “distinguish between moral rules (for example, not hitting someone) and conventional rules (such as not talking when the teacher is talking).” He then says that “this would suggest that there is a sort of ‘morality module’ in the brain that is activated at an early age.”

Now, apart from that last observation by Winston, these “god gene” theories simply come down to brain activity producing "feelings" of "spirituality." And the evolutionary arguments to support the "creation" to genes to regulate the flow of chemicals to the brain to produce these "religious feelings" are as varied as those who make them – social cohesion, enhancing survival instincts, preserving moral codes, explaining tragedy in their lives, etc etc.

So what can we glean from this hotchpotch of “god gene” theories?

First, all they seem to suggest is that religious experience is simply another form of pleasure. Claiming that the gene which creates a neurotransmitter that releases certain chemicals to produce certain "feelings," is precisely the same thing as saying that certain physical stimuli induce those same (or a different set of) neurotransmitters to produce a feeling of pleasure, as in sexual intercourse. And it is interesting that it was Mr. Hamer who claimed to have discovered the DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality.

Secondly, these theories link the “god gene” to “mystical experiences,” or better, ecstatic experience. That is, that the neurotransmitters in a person’s brain sort of let loose with the chemicals to produce the feeling that some god must be speaking to them. The same effect could of course be produced by the use of drugs – or so I am told.

But to portray the Prophets, for example, or Jesus Christ, as the same thing as a drug-crazed pop star is a stretch, and totally at odds with the Scriptural message.

In respect of the Prophets, for example (I look at the issue in respect of Christ later), Leon J. Wood, in his book The Prophets of Israel, argues persuasively that prophesy is not based on, or derived from, ecstatic experience. The three terms used for Prophets in the Old Testament all refer to someone who “sees,” hence a “seer.” As Wood says, “the fundamental thought signified by them [the words for Prophets) concerns insight regarding God’s will.”

(As an aside, which I think will become clear as I develop the arguments in this article, I do part ways with some of what Wood says regarding the revelation of God’s will.)

But Wood very appropriately (and central to the argument I set out here) refers to Isaiah 30:9 & 10: “That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the LAW of the Lord: Which say to the seers; see not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.” [my emphasis]

The Psalmist makes the point even more emphatically: “Be still, and know that I am God.” (Psalm 40:6)

Surprisingly, Winston did not develop his reference to the “morality module.”

But why is that important? Well, we need to consider that in respect of the quote from Isaiah. What we see in the Isaiah quote are repeated references to people who will “not hear,” who want the Prophets to “see not,” who don’t want to hear “right things,” but “smooth things,” and want essentially to be deceived. At first glance, we may wonder why on earth someone would want to be deceived, but it will become clear.

So in Isaiah we see references to hearing, seeing, right things, smooth things, and deceits. But what are these people supposed to be hearing and seeing; what are the right things versus the smooth things; and why deceits?

Well, this is where the “morality module” comes in, and the Scriptural clarification of genetics (if that is not being too emphatic).

The “Morality Module” in the Scriptures

What the rebellious people did not want to hear, or for the Prophets to see, was the “morality module” (to use Winston’s phrase). They wanted to hear “smooth things” – that is, they wanted to hear things that appealed to their primitive instincts (of pleasure and power). They were even happy, as most people are today, to be deceived as to their purpose of life on earth as long as it made them feel good.

But if there is such a thing as a “morality module” in the human brain (and I accept that the phrase was almost a throw-away comment by Winston), then where did it come from, and what morality does the module contain?

As I understand the human organism, the brain structure is dictated by the genes. That must mean that any morality module is the result of certain genes which dictate the makeup of the human brain. But that would not mean that the gene itself is programmed with the principles of morality, only that it sets up a brain structure capable of "discovering" the morality contained in its structure. And since we all have the same basic genetic make-up, all human beings must be "programmed" with this brain structure that Winston calls the morality module.

Wow!! I hope that makes some sense.

Unfortunately, Winston doesn’t explore this aspect of his morality module.

Remarkably, he actually constructs it in opposition, so to speak, of a religious morality. He says this: “But this is not the whole story. Although religion may be useful in developing a solid moral framework – and enforcing it – we can quite easily develop moral intuitions without relying on religion.” Thus he comes up with his morality module.

It obviously didn’t occur to him that "religion" may simply be a distorted version of the morality module he uses to disparage (not too strong a term, I hope) religious morality.

So, since none of the “god gene” theorists can provide any real theory, and since Winston doesn’t provide any insight into his morality module, let me look again at the Scriptures to see whether they can cast any light on these scientific "discoveries."

Genetics in Genesis

At risk of irritating those familiar with these verses, and those who have read my previous articles on the subject, let me set out again the relevant verses for ease of reference.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
– Genesis 1:26-28.

As I argue in my previous articles, the symbolism here suggests that man is being "programmed" in several ways.

First, he is being programmed to feel pleasure (an instinct for pleasure) for the primary purpose to “be fruitful, and multiply.” And we now know that pleasure is induced by the release of chemicals in the brain in response to certain stimuli (primarily sexual for the purpose of reproduction). Further, we know that those neurotransmitters that regulate this function are "created" by certain genes.

Secondly, man is being "programmed" to conquer for the purpose of subduing the earth and to “have dominion over the fish of the sea . . .” etc. That is, man is programmed with powerful survival instincts which compel him to enhance his security by subduing his environment.

Thirdly, the symbolism of God speaking to man symbolizes man being "programmed" with an ability to reason.

Fourthly, we have the symbolism of man being created in the “image of God.”

Now, whenever we see the words “And God said” in the first chapter of Genesis it applies to things created – that is, laws applied to the elements in order to create something. And it is the “word of the Lord” that does this. (Psalm 33.6) Thus, the “word of the Lord” symbolizes the laws which govern the universe.

In short, where we see the words “And God said,” they are always followed by something being "programmed" by certain laws which dictate how that thing will act.

Thus we have this: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding SEED, and the fruit tree yielding fruit AFTER ITS KIND, WHOSE SEED IS IN ITSELF, upon the earth: and it was so.” (Genesis 1:11)

The symbolism here speaks volumes. The reference to “whose seed is in itself” clearly implies that the fruit is programmed to recreate itself.

Again, at Genesis 1:14 we find the same wording preceding the creation of the “lights in the firmament” which would “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”

But when it comes to the creation of man we see that the words “And God said” are used twice. First, the words seem to be directed at someone else – “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Then, after God had created man, He blessed them. That is followed once again by the words “And God said . . .”, but this time those words are directed at the man and the woman God had just created.

So what we see here is symbolism of a two-step process for the creation of man. First, he is created in the pure image of God. That pure image is pre-instructions.

Then God gives that pure image of Himself instructions: “And God said unto them, be fruitful . . .” etc.

The symbolism here is absolutely fascinating. The pure image is the “word of the Lord” – that is, God’s Law. That symbolism suggests that man was "programmed" by, and with, God’s Law from the beginning. This is what we could call Winston’s morality module. That is, the symbolism suggests that man was "programmed" from the start with a gene, or genes, which would "create" a brain structure that, once connected up, would replicate pure morality, or the pure image of God.

But, according to Genesis, God wanted this image replicated and perpetuated on earth. To do that, the symbolism suggests that man had to be "programmed" with certain additional physical characteristics in order to achieve that objective. Thus God is said to speak to the image He had just created. The words “And God said” are used – that symbolizes, as in the other instances in which those words are used in Genesis, that the image God had created was "programmed" with genes that "create" those basic (primitive) instincts in order to achieve the objective of perpetuating the image.

This two-stage creation process also deals with one of the common sources of ridicule by non-believers: non-believers scoff at the idea that man is created in the image of God by simply pointing to the number of knuckle-heads we see in the world – could such morons really be an image of God? But when we see that the image of God is the pure Law of God "programmed" into man, but that pure image had to be "programmed" with primitive carnal instincts in order for the image to be perpetuated, it is then easy to see that the knuckle-head variety of the species are those who apply their reason not to discover the image of God within them, but to service their primitive instincts.

Yet, even if we leave God out of all this, what this imagery projects is a pure programming of morality in man which is soiled (for want of a better term) by the basic instincts man needs to perpetuate the species. That is, that man has been "programmed" with a morality module that is independent of his more primitive instincts (his animal instincts) but, it seems, responds or reacts to those instincts. That, in turn, suggests that man has the ability – his reason – to balance these often competing demands from his morality module on the one hand, and his primitive physical instincts on the other.

But, if we have been programmed with a morality module in the brain, it begs the question of how it got there. Winston doesn’t offer any explanation.

The “morality module” and the Garden of Eden

The symbolism of the Garden of Eden does however offer an explanation.

As I note in my previous articles, man is put into the Garden twice – first, after it is “planted” but before God causes the trees to grow and waters the Garden (Genesis 2:8-10), then again after all the trees had grown and had been watered (Genesis 2:15). The trees in the Garden represent man’s genetic make-up which includes the two elements of the creation sequence in Genesis 1 – the “image of God,” and man’s primitive instincts.

The named trees (the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and the “tree of life”) represent the “image of God,” or what Winston calls the morality module (but excluding the tree of life), while the other trees represent our other primitive instincts.

But when man is first put in the Garden, the Garden has only just been planted – the garden appears barren. That to me symbolizes man’s primitive evolutionary state. The second putting in the Garden symbolizes man’s developed state.

In my previous articles I noted Philo’s observation about this process of man’s development. It is worth repeating that reference:

And very beautifully after [God] had called the whole race 'man', did he distinguish between the sexes, saying, that 'they were created male and female'; although all the individuals of the race had not yet assumed their distinctive form; since the extreme species are contained in the genus, and are beheld, as in a mirror, by those who are able to discern acutely.

So Philo deduced from the Scriptures that the creation of man was an evolutionary process under the direction of God. And we know now that the process ended up with a specific genetic make-up which we call the human genome.

But if we look again at the symbolism of the Garden of Eden we see that Genesis 2:8 says simply that God had “planted” the Garden when man was first put in it. It is only in the next verse that God makes the trees to grow out of the planted Garden.

Genesis doesn’t say what God “planted” in the Garden in the first instance, but it is clear that out of this planting he caused the trees to grow. If we combine that with Philo’s observation of an evolutionary process and what we know today about genetics, it seems to suggest that the first planting was the initial human gene which would be the catalyst for the other genes to "grow," which would end up with the final distinctive form of the human species.

Now at this point we run into some interesting considerations, the principal one being how that first gene "creates" new genes which eventually culminate in the final distinctive human form (assuming that our current form is the final form).

So, can genetics (or any evolutionary theories) provide some answers?

John Maddox, in his book What Remains To Be Discovered (1978), says this:

. . . the recipe for the development of an embryo to an adult is encoded in the genes. Yet two important caveats are necessary. First, the recipe specifies the ingredients, but says nothing of how they should be mixed together. Second, virtually nothing is known of the manner in which one gene will switch on, or activate, a whole suite of genes beneath it in the developmental hierarchy – nor the manner in which the gene products give individual cells their specific character. A grander question, hardly asked as yet, is how this complex system evolved, and when.

I am not a scientist, although I do try to follow scientific developments, but I am not aware of any significant inroads over the last ten years that answer any of these questions raised by Maddox.

If that is the case, and still little is known of these caveats, then it seems, once again, that science, or genetics, fails us. So it must be back to the Scriptures to see if we can find any answers – and specifically, to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

But before I get to that, let me address the last part of Maddox’s caveats – “how this complex system evolved, and when.”

Gene ‘Creation’ according to the Scriptures

To do so, we need to go back to Genesis 1:2–3. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Before the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters we see that “the earth was without form, and void.” And further, we see that “darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

Now that description fits pretty much precisely with what we know about the early universe. There was dense matter, but without any form.

The Scriptures then tell us that the “spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The symbolism here seems clear to me – laws were applied to the matter that was up until then “without form, and void.” That is, without laws as to how this matter should "behave," that is all it was – matter. The application of laws to the matter gives the matter certain properties.

I thus read the symbolism here to say that ALL the laws of the universe were instituted at one and the same time; when the “spirit of God moved upon the waters.”

The reason is obvious, because after this event we find no further references to the “spirit of God” doing anything in creation – we only find the words “And God said” which are followed by the next stage of creation.

What this means is that once the laws were established, everything then followed a pre-set pattern.

First, we see that the application of laws to "dead" matter gives that matter certain properties. At a certain configuration, or mixture, that matter responds to the laws which govern it, and we have an "event." The words "And God said" signify that the matter configured in such a way that the laws which govern it came into play. The matter reaches "critical mass," so to speak, and we have a tremendous explosion.

That reaction creates matter now hurtling through space. That is the first “day” – a “day” of probably millions of years.

The initial matter has now adopted new properties and becomes subject to a different, or additional, set of laws. And when this new matter in turn configures in a certain manner, it activates another set of laws. So we see again the words “And God said” to signify this event which brings about the creation of the firmament on the second “day.”

The dividing of the “waters” by the “firmament” itself activates another set of laws for this transformed matter. Again, these new laws are signified by the words “And God said.” On this, the third day, we thus see the basic structure of the planet earth. But interestingly, we also see that this newly configured matter triggers another set of laws, also on the same “day” – “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, and the herb yielding seed . . .” etc.

Now, until recently, this sequence would have sunk my interpretation of the Scriptural account of creation. The reason for that is that the sun was not "created" until the following “day,” day four. And it was held to be a scientific truth that we could not have life without the sun. But that has now changed. Scientists seeking the origins of life have discovered that life takes hold even at depths of the ocean where sunlight cannot penetrate. They have also discovered primitive life forms at extremely high temperatures deep within the earth where there is no sunlight.

But we should remember that the symbolism of the creation in Genesis Chapter 1 does not mean (as in the case of man) that the “grass and herb yielding seed” etc were created in that form on this “day.” What it clearly means is that the configuration of this matter in a new form makes it susceptible to new laws. Thus, this new matter is itself reconfigured (acquires properties by virtue of those laws) which create the basic organism that can, or will, respond to the application of further matter, or conditions, that will trigger those laws which will create, over a period of time, what will be “grass, and herb yielding seeds” etc.

Science therefore has had to adapt itself to these new discoveries, and in doing so, confirms the Scriptural account of the creation of early life forms. And I suspect that this will not be the last time that science has to adapt to come into conformity with the Scriptural account of creation.

So, for the sake of brevity, let me skip over the next few “days” of creation, and go straight to the creation of man.

It seems that the laws established in the universe dictated that matter had to have assumed certain predetermined properties before the conditions were right for the creation of man. That is, once certain configurations of matter were brought together in certain quantities, specific laws were activated to determine how that basic configuration would behave, or "evolve" if you like. But remarkably, the Scriptures tell us that the laws which this configuration first activated were laws which reflect the image of the Creator of all the other laws. In short, it seems that even the first basic cell structure that would evolve into the human organism was configured to respond to what we could call God’s Law, or to use Winston’s description, to create a morality module in the brain.

Now that is not to say that we could dissect that first "human" organism and find a gene inscribed with this law, but simply that the basic configuration of matter that constituted this primitive organism could only develop in accordance with the laws which its basic constitution responds to.

Now, let us look again at Maddox’s first caveat, which is this: “the recipe specifies the ingredients, but says nothing of how they should be mixed together.”

Well, the Scriptures do tell us that. It is the laws which prevail in the universe that tell us how matter configured with certain properties (the “ingredients”) will be mixed together in a manner that creates what we recognize as a human being.

Personally, I find it difficult to understand why Maddox seemed perplexed by the fact that our genes only specify the ingredients. Scientific experimentation uses precisely that method in order to discover physical laws. We mix certain “ingredients” together in certain proportions to see what happens. When we get a reaction, we in effect "discover" the laws that apply to the matter mixed together. In this way we have discovered the properties of much of the matter we are familiar with, and have identified the manner in which that matter will react when mixed with other matter in certain quantities – that is, we have discovered the laws that come into play when certain matter is brought together.

What I also find odd is how scientists seem to turn scientific enquiry, or the principles underlying scientific experimentation, on its head when it comes to evolution, and especially morality. As I have explained, the usual procedure is to mix ingredients together to discover the laws which apply to them. Yet, when it comes to evolution (especially of man), they seem to suggest that certain matter coming together "create" the laws that then govern the "mixture." The same applies to morality – they seem to refuse to recognize that there may just be moral laws which are no less real than other physical laws. They expect the "mixture" coming into contact with other "mixtures" to "create" the laws, not reveal the laws.

Now let me at this point add a caveat of my own. I am not arguing here that we can find this moral law, or as I prefer to call it God’s Law, in nature. Nature can tell us nothing about morality – it tells us simply that survival (nature) is one long killing spree from the top down, and from the bottom up – and the trick is to be the one doing the killing rather than the one being killed.

So, applying all this to the Scriptural account of the creation of man, we see that a certain configuration of matter activated laws which would dictate how that configuration would result in a human being. But it is important to remember that the Scriptures say that humans had an additional element – moral laws, or God’s Law, which dictated how the basic organism should develop. And, if Winston is right about a morality module in the brain, then we could even be on the verge of scientifically discovering what that morality is – or, as I shall now argue, of discovering how we are in fact programmed by the Ten Commandments, and that we are thus capable of discovering the Laws and Principles which underlie those Commandments. That is, that by virtue of having been created in the image of the Creator we are capable of "seeing" the Creator’s Laws. And if we can see those Laws, we can, in the end, implement those Laws on earth. And where the King’s laws are, there also is His Kingdom.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Up to now I have postulated that the human species is "programmed" by and with moral laws which I argue are the Ten Commandments. So now I want to look again at the Scriptures to see what they say about that, and then to see whether history can provide any support for my claim. Simultaneously, I will consider Maddox’s third caveat – that “virtually nothing is known of the manner in which one gene will switch on, or activate, a whole suite of genes beneath it in the developmental hierarchy.”

So it’s back to the Garden of Eden.

In my previous articles I said that the symbolism of Adam and Eve being tempted to eat of the tree symbolized the first humans’ succumbing to their instinct for pleasure, which in turn activated shame, and fear.

But the symbolism does not suggest that the act of succumbing to pleasure "created" some morality gene, or even that it "activated" reflection on their actions. The Tree of which they ate was planted in the Garden well before they ate of it.

They did not "create" a morality; it seemed that certain actions (which the Scriptures tell us relate to our instinct for pleasure) activated a pre-existing structure which had the effect of generating shame, and fear.

That is, their pre-existing morality module seemed to have been activated. When that happened, they had this strange reaction – they suddenly felt shame, and then fear. Adam says in response to God’s question “Where art thou?” – “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid . . .” (Genesis 3:9 & 10)

Now let me pause there for a moment to refer back to the first reference quoted in this article: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7)

The “FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”! It seems that Genesis 3:10 is telling us that Adam had embarked on his quest for “knowledge.”

It seems obvious from the symbolism here that Adam and Eve had a very discomforting experience – they discovered that certain actions seemed to produce guilt. That in turn causes them to identify this guilt with a higher power. In my previous articles I give the illustration of the rather sensitive type (Adam and Eve?) first wrestling with this new found awareness. In that illustration I imagine the person who challenges what until then had been traditional, honorable, and courageous actions by his tribe. He concludes that if such actions are wrong, but that they will never be brought into judgment on earth, there can only be one explanation – that there is someone else, or something else, that will bring them into judgment, and that may well be on death. In short, the “Fear of the Lord” had been activated.

And this set man on his way to searching for those laws which would bring them into conformity with the will of the higher power which they take to be the guardian and creator of those laws.

And Genesis even identifies more or less where all this happens – in Mesopotamia.

Now it is not at all surprising that Genesis identifies Mesopotamia, because that is where Abraham started his journey which would result in the establishment of the Jewish People, and the handing down of the Ten Commandments.

But history tells us a great deal more about what happened in this region as the initial search for knowledge got under way in earnest.

Although earlier Codes are known to have existed, in respect of the Code of Ur-Nammu (21st century BC) we actually have much of the text. The Preamble reveals that Ur was attempting to establish what he considered God’s law in his kingdom. The Preamble says that the Code is established “in accordance with his [God’s] principles of equity and truth . . . And in accordance with the true word of Utu, [to] establish equity in the land.”

Ur’s Kingdom was in Southern Mesopotamia.

In the same area, some 300 years later, we get the Code of Hammurabi. Again we see Hammurabi claim that his Code was inspired by God: “then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak.”

More interestingly, Hammurabi inscribed his Code on stone to signify its immutability.

From what we know, Abraham lived during, or towards the end of, Hammurabi’s Kingdom; and he lived in Mesopotamia before he was called by God.

Thus the Jews are genetically from the stock of this area, the stock which first seemed to get a glimpse of some moral law – a moral law they ascribed to God.

But both Ur and Hammurabi seemed only to get vague flashes of the Law. They translated these flashes into specific laws with specified punishments, and in the case of Hammurabi, even procedural rules to establish a breach of the law.

We have to wait another thousand years (more or less), before someone "sees" the Principles that underpin the Law. That person was Moses.

Discovery of The Law

Now, in order not to offend those who scoff at the idea of a God, never mind a God who "speaks" to human beings, let’s assume that the events in Egypt and the Sinai are all symbolism; imagery in order to convey a message.

I deal with the pre-Ten Commandments symbolism of Moses’ calling in my article "The Law: Salvation, the State, and the Kingdom of God" (under the heading Bondage to our Primitive Instincts).

What I want to look at here is the "discovery" mechanism itself. That is, where and how do we find The Law.

In the Old Testament we see references to the “voice of the Lord.”

Thus we find this: “If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.” (Deuteronomy 30:10)

But it is the next verses that are interesting.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
– Deuteronomy 30:11-15.

The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

And in Deuteronomy’s account of the Ten Commandments we find this immediately after the Ten Commandments are set out: “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone . . .” (Deuteronomy 5:22)

These passages suggest that God’s Law, the Ten Commandments, are within us. All we need to do is find them that we “mayest do them.”

But if we look at the moment the Ten Commandments are "discovered" by, or "revealed" to Moses, we see that the moment is quite terrifying – the discovery appears to come “out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice.”

It seems that those who find The Law see it with an almost terrifying clarity.

But when I refer to a “terrifying clarity” I don’t mean terrifying in an emotional sense; what they seem to see is the complete whole of The Law, and its consequences, as a single image, or picture, much as a gifted musician will "see" a whole composition as a single whole. And like the musician who will see that one wrong note will destroy the image, so those who see The Law also seem to see the consequences of a breach of The Law. And perhaps more importantly, in seeing The Law they see also that although it exists within them, it is also external – in that it existed before human beings existed. Hence the reference to the “fear of the Lord” being the beginning of knowledge.

So we see again the Psalmist saying this: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Psalm 40:8)

And Psalm 19:7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”

The Prophets clearly "saw" The Law in this way. It is much more than simply reading the Ten Commandments, and professing to do them.

Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord.
– Isaiah 1:10,11

The Prophets "saw" clearly the whole meaning of The Law, and they understood the consequences of ritualizing or breaching The Law.

The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken His word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth languish. The earth is also defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
– Isaiah 24:3-6.

This overall "seeing" of The Law is best summed up by Proverbs.

I wisdom dwell with prudence . . . the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the world was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water . . . When [God] prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above . . . when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was his daily delight, rejoicing always before him . . . For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all them that hate me love death.
– Proverbs 8:12-36.

And, of course, we find almost the exact same description concerning Christ when it comes to the New Testament.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
– John 1:1-4.

But before I look at The Law in the New Testament, we should consider at least one prophesy regarding Christ’s mission – that of Isaiah 42. I have dealt with this Chapter in my previous articles, but I now want to deal with it in the context of The Law being part of our genetic make-up.

Isaiah states Christ’s mission as being “to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.” (Isaiah 42:7)

The symbolism is clear! The “eyes” clearly refer to The Law – they already exist, they just can’t see. Likewise with the “prisoners” – they already exist, they are just in prison, and need to be freed. The blindness and the prison house clearly symbolize our primitive instincts which make us blind to The Law, or imprison The Law by pandering to those instincts.

So let me now return to the New Testament. But first, we must remember that Christ said emphatically that He had not come to change The Law, but to fulfill it. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)

The Kingdom of God

Now, reflecting on the description of “wisdom” in Proverbs, and the “word” in John, we find confirmation of what I said regarding Genesis 1:2 – that the “spirit of God” moving across the face of the waters symbolizes the establishment of the laws which dictate how the universe, the earth, and life will take shape.

And I have argued that those laws, and in particular the Law which created man in the image of God, were also reproduced in man. That is, God’s Law is within us, we only need to find it; and when we find it, we find also the Kingdom of God.

So let me go first to the “Charge to the Twelve.” In giving instructions to His disciples to announce to the cities of Israel that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 10:7), Christ also says this – “for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.”

But we do not find the disciples returning after visiting all the cities of Israel and saying to Christ – "you phony, we’ve been through all the cities, but no 'Son of man' has come."

So perhaps the disciples did "see" the Son of man come.

Again, we have Matthew 16:28: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they SEE the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” [my emphasis]

Now, if we impose a "physical seeing" onto these verses, we can only conclude that Christ was wrong – all of those who stood before Christ that day are clearly dead, and no Kingdom has come, or not at least in the form many have expected it.

But perhaps there were some standing before Christ that day who did “see” the “Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Perhaps they "saw" The Law as those before them had – perhaps Christ had “opened” some “blind eyes” as Isaiah said he would?

Perhaps we are all “a rebellious people” wanting to "believe" what we want to "see;" perhaps we too are “children that will not hear the LAW of the Lord: Which say to the seers; see not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.”

Because Christ was Himself quite adamant on this "physical coming" of the kingdom – “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo There! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20 & 21)

That is, we are created in the image of God – His Law is part of us; His kingdom is within us.

Now the next verse is very instructive: “The days will come, when ye shall desire to see ONE OF THE DAYS of the Son of man, and ye shall not SEE it.” (Luke 17:22)

Clearly “seeing one of the days of the Son of man” refers to seeing The Law – the disciples had clearly already "seen" the Law, but that ability to see it would be "switched off," leaving them yearning to be able to see it again, no doubt to help them understand some aspect of it.

If the coming of the kingdom was to be in the spectacular physical manner so many insist on, I would have expected Christ to perhaps use this sort of imagery – "imagine the Emperor of Rome with all his mighty legions descending from the hills in all their splendor – multiply that by thousands, or millions, and you have an idea of the coming of the kingdom of God."

Instead we find an altogether different imagery: “It [the kingdom of God] is like a grain of mustard seed.” (Mark 4:30)

Then there is the parable of the sower. The interesting element here is this: “And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it become unfruitful.” (Mark 4:18 & 19)

This tells us that pandering to our more primitive instincts blinds us to the Law which is in us.

Then there is the parable of the leaven: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was levened.” (Matthew 13:33)

That sounds exactly like Genesis 1:26–28. The “image of God” is put into, or better, "wrapped," in our primitive instincts. It is “hid” in our primitive instincts.

And it seems that only a few handful of human beings have ever "seen" The Law. But those who have seen it also appear to have been able to see back to the very origins of the universe and explain with extraordinary symbolism and imagery how it all started; and at the same time, these same people appear to have been able to see into the future to warn us of the consequences of not recognizing and implementing The Law.

It appears that these few people had the remarkable ability to unravel, or reverse, the sequence of  Laws which created man, starting with the moral law (for want of a better description), and thus "see" how it all started.

In the other direction, they appear to have had the ability to "see" how The Law would operate in the future.

Yet, we have not had any of those who can "see" for the last two thousand years or so.

Hence Christ’s reference to the disciples wanting “to see ONE OF THE DAYS of the Son of man, and ye shall not SEE it.”

But perhaps the reason for this itself lies in The Law, and the interaction of The Law with our other genetic programming. Those who could "see" may simply have "seen" that for The Law to be carried to the world (Isaiah 42:1 – 4) it would be done on the "back," so to speak, of our instinct to conquer. The belief in God which the discovery of The Law seemed to engender would be hijacked by those servicing their instinct to conquer – but the end result is that the Ten Commandments have become known almost universally – although no one has "seen" them for some two thousand years.

A Prediction

Ecclesiastes says this: “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.” (Ecclesiastes 3:15)

In effect, what this verse suggests is that human history repeats itself.

So, are there any comparables today to the first time man (Adam and Eve) succumbed to temptation thus "activating" The Law?

The answer is yes!

As I have argued in this, and my previous articles, Genesis suggests that The Law with which human beings are "programmed" (the “image of God”) was activated somehow by the indulgence in pleasure. Let me repeat the verse: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6) In short, that pleasure is what life is all about.

What this verse tells us is that at some point in the past human beings thought that pandering to their instinct for pleasure could sustain them (the “tree was good for food”), that pleasure made one feel good (“it was pleasant to the eyes”), and that a "regulated" indulgence of pleasure could form the foundation of a just and secure society (“a tree to make one wise”).

But in fact, eating of the tree had the opposite effect. It brought a reaction – shame and fear.

So has “God requireth that which is past”?

The answer, again, is a resounding yes! And it culminated in a man by the name of Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham (although not the first, but certainly the most influential) advocated precisely what tempted Eve, and like Eve, the modern world bought it hook, line and sinker.

Modern civilization has been founded on the entire concept of a regulated indulgence of pleasure. We even claim that God Himself endowed us with a right to indulge in pleasure – we call it the “right to the pursuit of happiness.”

But, as in the olden time (the time of Adam and Eve), that indulgence in pleasure has produced a reaction – but not by those who succumb to the indulgence, but by those in whom it triggers a sense of revulsion, and shame.

What is happening is that there is a growing rejection of the pursuit of pleasure as the primary purpose of life, or indeed any sort of foundation for constructing Principles to inform how we govern ourselves.

And this reaction started with that giant of philosophy, Emmanuel Kant.

As I say in my books (Escaping Britain and Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights) Kant so nearly “got there” – in other words, he appeared to be on the way of becoming one of the first of a new breed of "seers" – but he was encumbered by two serious preoccupations.

First, he wanted to avoid at all costs any hint of empiricism in his work, and secondly, he appeared to fear being branded as one of Bentham’s “religionists” – someone with a "narrow intellect."

So, how did Kant so nearly "get there," and why did he fail.

Well, first of all Kant recognized that our ability to reason was not simply to serve our primitive instincts. He said this:

But [man] is not so completely an animal as to be indifferent to what reason says on its own account, and to use it merely as an instrument for the satisfaction of his wants as a sensible being. For the possession of reason would not raise his worth above that of the brutes, if it is to serve him only for the same purpose that instinct serves in them; it would in that case be only a particular method which nature had employed to equip man for the same ends for which it has qualified brutes, without qualifying him for any higher purpose.

Secondly, Kant recognized that there must be such a thing as a moral law, and that human beings could become aware of it. Again, he said this:

There is something so singular in the unbounded esteem for the pure moral law, apart from all advantage, as it is presented for our obedience by practical reason, the voice of which makes even the boldest sinner tremble, and compels him to hide himself from it, that we cannot wonder if we find this influence of a mere intellectual idea on the feelings quite incomprehensible to speculative reason, and have to be satisfied with seeing so much of this a priori, that such a feeling is inseparably connected with the conception of the moral law in every finite rational being.

So Kant did recognize many of the issues I have raised here and in my previous articles and books, but as a result of his preoccupation with empiricism he made his “moral law” so abstract that he couldn’t derive any principles from it. In short, he placed his moral law "outside" the human brain – hence his reference to “the voice of which makes even the boldest sinner tremble.”

But granted, genetics in Kant’s day was not what it is today. So Kant could not "see" that his moral law may, in fact, be what "programmed" the human brain in the first place, and in turn, is "programmed" with that moral law. Winston, however, with a greater understanding of genetics, could acknowledge that perhaps the human brain has a morality module programmed into it.

Linked to this preoccupation with empiricism, Kant also wanted to avoid a charge of having a "narrow intellect" [my supposition]. So when it came to elaborating some Principles of his moral law he was at a total loss. Had he simply gone to the Ten Commandments, and turned his undeniably powerful intellect to those apparently simple ten statements, I expect he may have "seen" the moral law he reasoned must exist. Alas, he didn’t, thanks to some extent to Bentham’s pleasure machine.

But what we see in Kant’s reaction to a morality derived from a regulated indulgence in man’s primitive instincts are the first stirrings of "shame" and the "fear of God."

That is, a process has been initiated, and initiated as a result of the indulgence in pleasure, that I predict will become a wave, then an all-consuming tempest. And that tempest will produce the first of the next generation of "seers" – or, if you like, the next generation of Prophets.

It may not be in the next five years, or even ten or fifty years, but it will come. And it will come because eventually human behavior will come into harmony with the Law which governs it, and which is in it. The alternative is spelled out clearly by Isaiah 24:3-6.

The Tree of Life

Perhaps I should conclude with a brief word on the Tree of Life which was left back in the Garden of Eden.

The Scriptures seem clear that the route to the Tree of Life lies through The Law – the Ten Commandments.

“Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates to the city.” (Revelations 22:14)

How do we explain this transformation by way of the Ten Commandments?

Well, it seems obvious! Just as matter configured in a certain way activates, or becomes subject to, a new set of laws, so doing the Commandments would seem to establish a brain structure that itself triggers a new set of laws, the Law of Life, or the Tree of Life. It may just be that once the brain "discovers" The Law, and lives by it, that a new set of Laws come into effect which "create" new matter, a kind of matter we are as yet blissfully ignorant of. But the Scriptures certainly tie up unequivocally The Law with life after death.

Given that the Scriptures are right about most everything else, they may just be right about that too.

I deal with that issue, the question of salvation, more fully in my forthcoming book, and in my previous books.

One Last Word

When Hamer first proclaimed his discovery of a god gene, the religious community got quite hysterical.

The Rev. John Polkinghorne said this: “The idea of a God gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can’t cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking.”

Regrettably, I have encountered similar sentiments. But I am always a little taken aback by such reactions (although I hope that it is clear from this article that I am not arguing that God is a product of our survival instincts – quite the reverse, in fact).

The Scriptures start by telling us that we are created in the “image of God.” Why should we not be able to discover that image in our genetic make-up?

I would be more skeptical of the whole question of a God (as described in the Scriptures) if we could NOT find His “image” in our genetic make-up. How else could we have been created “in his image”?

Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2008 All Rights Reserved.