The Law Of Moses vs. the Higher Law

Today's spiritual thought is an important one. Currently, our Old Testament reading is concentrating on the Law of Moses itself, and my church teaches an interesting concept.

When Moses went up to Mount Sinai the first time, he brought down inscriptions on tablets. However, when he saw the people were worshipping the Golden Calf, he threw down the tablets, and they broke. Then Moses went up a second time and received more inscriptions. However, as my church teaches, the second set was a Lower Law, as the people proved they were not ready for a Higher Law. It wasn't until Jesus would come a couple of millennia later that we'd receive the Higher Law.

If you compare the two, the Law of Moses is long and VERY specific. It also has severe punishments. For example, Exodus 35:2 reports: "... the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."

The Higher Law spelled out by Jesus has none of the death penalties, nor a list of punishments. But rather, a set of guidelines to follow, and the rewards and punishments are more spiritual in nature, rather than physical.

In this way, my church suggests that the Lord first attempted to provide Higher Law to the people of Moses, but then when they proved themselves to be unworthy, he then provided the Lower Law, which would then prepare their descendants to one day accept the Higher Law.

If you've raised children, or entrusted something to a friend, only to see them mess up miserably, then you'd probably understand why the Lower Law was necessary. When your child or friend messed up, you probably experienced disappointment, but then you also probably didn't give up on them. You probably saw a wise way to save the situation -- thinking that the original instructions were too vague, you would probably provide much more SPECIFIC instructions going forward, perhaps not even explaining WHY, but "just do it." Then everyone learns and grows.

And what of our current environment? Perhaps we can do a little analysis, borrowing a little from math and statistics.

Every day we perform several actions. We can consider each action to fall somewhere on a spectrum between Holiness and Sin. Holiness denotes the intention to do Good and help others. And Sin denotes mal-intent, or desiring to harm others.

We can also consider each action to fall on another spectrum going from Safe to Risky. Safe acts are either benign or end up helping others. Risky acts are more likely to harm others. 

We can set up a graph with these two axes:

Suppose that we can plot each action somewhere in this framework. Holier actions appear toward the left. Sinning acts are more toward the right. Safe acts are near the bottom, and Risky acts are toward the top. It should make sense that the Safer an act is, the more likely it is to be a Good Act. And on the flip side, Risky acts are more likely to result in Bad Acts. As we study where these land in this graph, we start to see a pattern -- something like this:

A "Line of Sin" appears. Everything to the right and above this line is a Bad Act, and everything to the left and below this line is a Good Act. Ultimately, we want to help everyone stay in the Good Act zone.

Here's an example ... killing someone is clearly a Risky act. It would show up near the top. If our intent is to kill someone because we're angry, it going to be in the upper-right corner -- deep in the Bad Acts zone.

Let's say instead, our friend asks us to kill his neighbor so he can take the land and increase his own benefit. We may not harbor any ill will toward that neighbor, but we may have good intentions -- we want to help our friend. Such a killing might fall more to the upper right, but still in the Bad Acts zone.

And finally, let's say we desire to protect ourselves and our friends and family from a dangerous person. It would be better to end the one person's life in self-defense. This falls in the upper right, now in the Good Acts area (which is pretty small for the act of killing).

On the flip-side, if we're helping someone move their stuff (a pretty Safe act), we could have the worst intentions and land in the lower-right side, but still be in the Good Acts zone. Though, I've had some movers break some of our stuff -- so there's a small area to the right where these good intentions can become Bad Acts.

(Note: I realize this is grossly simplified, but stay with me) ...

Then comes the Law of Moses, which is very specific -- not much room for thinking. You do exactly what you're told. This ends up being a very Safe law. The intent is to get rid of Risky acts entirely, because ... well ... the people are just rotten, and have to be told everything down to the letter, because they just can't take care of themselves.

So, it looks like this:

The Law of Moses allows all acts below the dotted line. Thou shalt be Safe! If you go above the line, you'll be punished.

Pros: Most of the allowed acts will end up being Good (below both the Law of Moses line and the Line of Sin). And look to the right above the Law of Moses and the Line of Sin. There are a large number of Bad Acts that are AVOIDED. This is the goal of most punitive laws. Protecting people from themselves.

Cons: There is also a section to the lower right, above the Line of Sin but under the Law of Moses line. These are acts that because of bad intentions, may actually cause harm, but are still allowed under the restrictions of the Law of Moses. But this area is very small, because the Law of Moses is so Safe. Some people may call this area a Type I error -- a term used in science and statistics. 

But -- sadness -- check out all of the Good Acts above the Law of Moses and under the Line of Sin. These are wasted Good Acts, lost opportunities to help others. Life isn't as great as it could be, because no one is ALLOWED to do these acts. Some people may call this a Type II error. (Or this might be Type I and the other one is Type II, depending on how you define each type.)

The Law of Moses implies that is worth giving up these wasted Good Acts to keep the Type I error low (at the expense of Type II errors).

Around the time of Jesus, leaders of the Sadducees and Pharisees added more interpretations and punishments, which effectively lowered the line even further, making the Law Safer, while increasing Type II error.

Jesus demonstrated the drawbacks of this when he healed the sick on the Sabbath. In the new Law, healing was considered to be working, and so these acts of Jesus were forbidden. He was signaling intentionally that there existed some Type II Good Acts that were forbidden that should be allowed.

So, what would happen if we were to draw the horizontal line higher? Could that help us out? It would give us a Higher Law, like this ...

Note that this isn't THE Higher Law given by Jesus, but rather some other hypothetical law that's more permissive and fewer punishments. The line is just drawn higher.

Pros: It gives us access to most of the formerly wasted Good Acts. This means higher potential for us to do well and benefit our society. Look at how much larger the lower-left section is. Also, in the upper-right section, we are still somewhat protected from some of the riskier sins.

Cons: There is still a small section of wasted Good Acts in the upper-left corner. And -- wow -- that opportunity to sin in the lower-right is pretty large -- and with no punishments?

This Higher Law provides more AGENCY, which allows for more sin. It implies that it's better to allow us to have more opportunities to do Good -- reducing Type II error (at the expense of Type I).

Now -- try this experiment. Can you find a better place to draw the horizontal line? Perhaps in the very middle? Then Type I and Type II errors would be the same. Is Type I or Type II better to allow than the other?

If only there were some way to eliminate Type I and Type II errors entirely. Turns out, there's a simple solution:

Don't draw ANY horizontal lines. Instead, draw that line diagonally -- right on top of the Line of Sin. And this is the Higher Law given to us by Jesus. No more punishments. Maximum free will. We are in charge of our own actions and consequences. And no more Type I and Type II errors.

The only drawback ... it's a much more difficult concept to explain. We must all individually learn where that diagonal line is. We must learn the correct principles so we can discern for ourselves whether a particular act is Good or Bad.

This was too difficult a concept for the people of Moses. So, they got the Lower Law. Hundreds of pages of cans and cannots -- everything spelled out.

So what do you think? Is it better for us to have a Law of Moses? Or the Higher Law? Do we need to be protected from our sins? Or is it better to have full free will? What have I messed up in this analysis? Comments are welcome.