View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Radboud Repository PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/84460 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2017-12-06 and may be subject to change. ‘Thou shalt... do the will of God’ Do New Testament ethics have anything to say today? INAUGURAL SPEECH BY PROF. JAN VAN DER WATT Radboud University Nijmegen v\9Q'V/ in a u g u r a l speech p r o f . jan van der w a t t Can the New Testament be taken seriously in current ethical debates, having been Ä written two thousand years traditional lists of injunc­ tions. It will be argued that ethical action is formed in a context that begins with a person or group’s symbolic universe and continues through identity formation, value determination, and principles, finally leading to actions. A comprehensive anthro­ pology is developed implicitly and explicitly in the New Testament, not limiting ethics to specific actions, but presenting the person as a whole as an ethical agent. New Testament ethics, when approached in this way, can contribute to debates on ethical issues, even today. Jan Gabriël van der Watt (b. 1952, Germiston, South Africa) was appointed Professor of the Exegesis of the New Testament and Christian Source Texts in the Faculties of Theology and Religious Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen in March 2009. He had been a Professor at the University of Pretoria since 1986. Since 2001 he has also been an adjunct professor at the Christian University of St Petersburg and is also extra-ordinary professor at the North-West Univer­ sity, South Africa. He has delivered guest lectures in many countries. At Radboud University, Prof. van der Watt will be responsible for teaching and research in the field of New Testament and the study of Christian source texts. Radboud University Nijmegen ' t h o u s h a l t ... d o t h e w i l l o f g o d ' d o n e w t e s t a m e n t e t h i c s h a v e a n y t h i n g t o say t o d a y ? ‘Thou shalt... do the will of God’ Do New Testament ethics have anything to say today? A lecture delivered on taking up the Chair of Exegesis of the New Testament and Christian Source Texts in the Faculties of Theology and Religious Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen, on Thursday, September 16, 2010 By Prof. Jan van der Watt 4 Vormgeving en opmaak: Nies en Partners bno, Nijmegen Fotografie omslag: Gerard Verschooten Drukwerk: Van Eck & Oosterink ISBN 978- 90-9025827-0 © Prof. Jan van der Watt, Nijmegen, 2010 Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd en/of openbaar worden gemaakt middels druk, fotokopie, microfilm, geluidsband of op welke andere wijze dan ook, zonder voorafgaande schrifte­ lijke toestemming van de copyrighthouder. t h o u s h a l t . d o th e w i l l o f g o d 5 i . introduction Ethics is the air societies breathe. It sustains life and makes social interaction possible. ‘Clean air’ results in healthy societies, while dirty air can do serious harm. Since the ancient discussions between Socrates and the Sophists1 the issue of what this ‘clean air’ is and where it comes from remains an enduring topic for discussion. A fundamental question was - and still is - whether ethics is based on ‘objective good’ or whether all ethical systems remain subjective. The Sophists (i.e. Protagoras [485^.410 bce], Antiphon [480-411 bce], and Thrasymachus [5th century bce]) argued for the subjective nature of ethics, i.e. for ethical relativism. Their basic opinion was that what is good or right is a matter of social convention designed to make life tolerable within societies. Plato remarked about Protagoras: ‘Whatever things seem just and fine to each city, are just and fine for that city, so long as it thinks them so’.2 ‘Thus, Protago­ ras stated that the foundations of an ethical system needed nothing from the gods or from any special metaphysical realm beyond the ordinary world of the senses’ (Singer 2007: ad loc.). The famous argument by Herodotus illustrated the problem: he discusses the ethical problems that could result from the Greeks and the Persians adapting the same funeral practices - the Greeks cremated their corpses as part of their journey to the underworld, while the Persians found this practice abhorrent. If a common ethical system is the goal, this difference would result in serious conflict. Is there a right or wrong in this case and who is going to decide? Socrates, Plato (428/ 27-348/47 bce) and others, on the other hand, tried to make a case for the objective nature of ethics, trying to find objective anchors in virtue that can be known by the virtuous person, the power of reason or the good that is acknowledged by everybody, representing the ‘objective nature of things’ (Graham 2004: ^ 209-216). Plato, as a student of Socrates, took over this idea of the objectivity of goodness, as well as the ‘interwovenness’ of being (knowing virtue) and doing (act virtuously). Plato’s famous idea of the true world above that determines the shadowy world below also informed his ethical views. It’s not the particular that is the point of orientation, but the (objective) ‘general’ that is common to all the particular cases. The question how one knows this general good is answered by claiming that it can be known through participation. Things, insofar as they are good, share in this notion of good that exists eternally and outside time and space. Excursus: Discussion on morals. The discussion on morals is profiled as early as the time of Socrates in the Greek world and of course in the covenantal arrange­ ments (Torah) in the Hebrew Scriptures (for instance, Ex 20-24; Deut 10-30). For our purposes the earlier Eastern evidence is excluded, as is the Gilgamesh Epic [approx. 2600 bce], the laws of Hammurabi [approx. 1750 bce] and others. Singer [2007:ad loc] mentions that what may be considered the first ethics textbooks are series of lists learned by Egyptian boys around 3000 bce. Socrates reflected 6 p r o f . j a n v a n d e r w a t t philosophically on life orientation and his question: ‘how ought a man to live?’ could be seen as the central question of ancient Greek ethics as a whole (see Plato Gor. 550c; Rep. 344c; 352, 618). He therefore tried to establish the objectivity and absoluteness of values in light of eudaimonia, a good and successful life amidst the difficulties and evil in this world (Degenaar 1984:28). Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 1 .3.1095ab; 2 .1 .1103b27-29) argued that studying human behavior forms part of practical knowledge, enabling a person to choose the appropriate actions (for himself and his community) in specific situations on the basis of reasoned deliberation. Plato’s approach to ideas also culminates in his views on what is good and aesthetically acceptable (Dreyer 1975:31). A characteristic of these phi­ losophers was that they were not so much worried about guidelines for individual actions in specific situations, but rather focused on the highest goals individuals should strive for and the ideal type of person they should try to become in order to live a happy and virtuous life.3 Later philosophers (like Stoics or Epicureans) identified passions and false desires as culprits in living moral lives and therefore tried to develop moral character through philosophy, promoting lives of self-control (Malherbe 1986:3 1). In the argumentation of the philosophers the influence of the cosmic reality plays an important role. (Later philosophers such as Kant shifted the emphasis to the rational will of the individual [see Bach 1975:66-72]). It is clear that in Greek philosophy the emphasis also shifted according to needs and aims. In the Hebrew context the emphasis was on behavior within a covenantal relationship. By default the relationship is determined by the divine figure, God. Not human logic but divine will determines the value system generated on the basis of the covenantal relationship. The covenantal relationship requires full devotion to God and obedience to God’s commandments (Isa 1 :12 -17; Mic 6:8 - see Perkens 1992:652). In essence as well as structure, such a way of approaching the issue of moral values differs from the deliberate reasoning on values typical of the Greco-Roman approaches. A common denominator lies in the existence of a law(s) underlying the identity and existence of a community. In this sense law(s) express the opinion of the community as to the desires of the community per­ taining what is good or bad with the implication that it should determine the behavior of the individual members of that community (see Perkens 1992:652). However, the establishment of and motivation behind the law differ dramatically. In the one case the seat of decision as to the content of the law lies with the individual (or community) while in the other case it lies with God. This leads to differences in motivation and reasons for following the law. The resulting behavior should therefore also be viewed differently (for instance, in the covenantal case it is the expression of a relationship based on gratitude).