The History of Restoration Moses Family 2

This is a series I teach every Wednesday evening, except during the summer, going through the Principle very slowly. It takes about a year to get through the whole thing, with quite a lot of detail, stopping for conversations and discussions. We're not trying to get to the end of anything, so feel free to stop me and ask questions or express disagreements. At the moment, we're looking at the history of restoration, and we got as far as Moses. Last week, we started looking at Moses's course, examining how things went wrong, how he went into the desert, and how he came back after meeting God. Now, we're looking at the second course of restoration to Canaan. During this course, Moses formed a relationship with God and established a Foundation of Faith, allowing him to stand as a central figure for the foundation of substance. People could experience and feel God working through him, and it was important for him to have this Foundation of Faith as a leader. His relationship with God provided him with wisdom and the right words to say at the right time.

Moses became the leader, and the Hebrews were supposed to work together with him and unite with him. They should love and respect Moses, realising that God was working through him. They needed to listen to what he had to say and follow his directions, which would allow them to multiply goodness and create many good things together. So far, we have reached the point where Moses has gone to speak to Pharaoh. God commands Moses to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country, but He also says that He will harden Pharaoh's heart. Despite multiplying signs and wonders in Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to Moses. Today, we will examine some of the ten plagues.

First of all, did these things happen? What about the moral issues? God says He will harden Pharaoh's heart, which raises ethical questions. Is it fair to hold Pharaoh and the Egyptians responsible if God is hardening his heart? If Pharaoh is not a free agent, does that mean he is not responsible for his actions? Freedom and responsibility are intertwined; without freedom, there is no responsibility. These moral issues are important to consider. Who here thinks these events happened? A few hands go up. Who thinks they didn't happen? No one. Who hasn't thought about it before? It's honest to admit that. Sometimes people read this and wonder if it was possible. Let's explore that first issue: can we believe what's written in the Bible?

This is a book called 'The Miracles of Exodus' written by Professor Sir Colin John Humphries, who was a Goldsmith Professor of Material Science at Cambridge University and is still a Professor of Experimental Physics at the Royal Institution in London. He is an intelligent person and a believer, though not a fundamentalist Christian. He has a curious mind and is interested in whether these events could have happened. He wrote a book about it, and I want to share some of his explanations. There is a video I would like to show, but I will skip the first ten seconds.

Over 3,000 years ago, a series of catastrophes befell the land of Egypt. These events are told in the Old Testament book of Exodus. Could they have really happened? The story of the ten plagues has fascinated and mystified scholars throughout the centuries. This mystery has become irresistible for scientists who want to explore what may at first seem inexplicable. We find positions across the spectrum, from those who take a very strict historical perspective that everything happened exactly as described, to the other extreme where nothing in the text actually happened and is considered legendary. Many of us want to find a way between those two extremes. The Bible is a very strange book in many ways, containing many different kinds of literature: poetry, short stories, history, and chronology.

When planning an investigation, we first need to see what we have to explain. About ten years ago, I read a letter in a British journal that alluded to the ten plagues of Egypt, and I wondered if anyone had looked for rational explanations for each of the ten plagues. I became really interested in the Exodus story because I thought science could provide insights. The eruption of a volcano could have affected the Mediterranean region significantly. It is known that the ash found in the area comes from Santorini, as the chemical composition is identical to the composition found in the remains of Santorini. There was a steady buildup of volcanic activity over several months, which could have led to a range of phenomena occurring in Egypt. Fallout may have changed the river water's composition, allowing algae to grow, resulting in a reddish colour. This phenomenon is known as a red tide, which can emit toxins and kill fish.

The next group of plagues, such as frogs, lice, and flies, may have been related to problems in the ecosystem caused by the impact of the eruption on the river. If there were holes that allowed frogs to mature, there could have been a massive explosion of baby frogs that subsequently fled to land and died. Their decaying bodies attracted lice and flies. The Arabic term for lice could refer to anything small. By examining the science of what happens and the subsequent effects, we can understand what these plagues may have been. The biting insects affected both humans and animals, suggesting that the insect involved does not bite both humans and dogs. The same is true for lice. If we look at the sequence of events, there would have been a lot of conditions allowing flies to proliferate.

The fifth plague was the death of livestock, which was caused by a virus that killed 70% of the livestock. The biting insects from the third plague could lead to the death of livestock. The specific livestock affected by the sixth plague, boils and blains, were not just one thing; they affected both the Egyptians and their animals. This could have been caused by the fourth plague of flies, as the stable fly inflicts painful bites that can lead to infections and boils. The fourth plague could have led to the sixth plague. This sequence could be explained in the context of a volcanic eruption, as the ash pumped into the atmosphere acts as nuclei for water droplets to form. If these droplets are carried high enough, they can form hailstones, leading to torrential rainstorms and hailstorms during volcanic eruptions.

After the plague of hail came the plague of locusts, which only happen in certain years when conditions are right. The locusts find damp ground, which would have resulted from the heavy rain and hail, allowing them to lay more eggs. This could explain the swarms of locusts eating everything after such weather. I have been in volcanic areas where you can't see your hand in front of your face due to ash. The Tambora eruption, one of the biggest eruptions in the last thousand years, caused pitch darkness hundreds of kilometres from the eruption site. This could explain the plague of darkness in Egypt. The final plague was the death of the firstborn, which occurred after dinner and killed the Egyptian people and their animals within hours. It left no external visual signs, but the preceding plagues likely caused hunger and starvation among the Egyptians. The stored grains would have been contaminated by the feces of the locusts, leading to toxins and illness. This is a plausible reason for the death of the firstborn.

An alternative explanation is that the ash that fell in the region could have carried toxic chemical elements. This is not unprecedented; a large eruption in Iceland in 1783 caused widespread illness due to contaminated ash. It seems that science can explain what appears to be an unnatural sequence of events, suggesting that natural phenomena may have been witnessed and recorded faithfully in the Old Testament. This raises the question: were these miracles? Did God intervene supernaturally, or were these events simply natural occurrences? Did God cause the volcano to erupt, or did it happen naturally? How could we tell if an event was supernatural or natural? If you were there at the time, how would you distinguish between the two?

Having at the moment, or would you think, well, this is God doing it? What would you think? I don't know. Maybe some people thought, well, this is an amazing lot of weather we're having. Some people may think, well, this is a miracle, or was it just something completely natural, in which case it was a coincidence that it happened. Anyway, this is what Einstein said: there are two ways you can live. You can live as if nothing is a miracle, or you can live as if everything is a miracle. It depends on what you mean by a miracle. I think, obviously, it seems to be a natural phenomenon, all these ten plagues, which can be explained scientifically. But if you look at it from another perspective, you can see, or maybe this is a miracle; maybe this is God working.

So then Moses went to meet Pharaoh, and we go through these plagues in a bit more detail to see what was going on. Aaron threw down his staff in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh summoned his wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same thing by their secret arts. Each one threw down his staff, and it turned into a snake, but Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard, and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said. So why did Pharaoh's heart become hard here? Did God make his heart hard, or what? Put yourself in Pharaoh's shoes. If you know Moses and Aaron come along and do these little magic tricks, and your magicians have done the same sort of thing, but Aaron's snake has swallowed up their snakes, would that have been convincing enough to persuade you to let them all go? It would probably upset me even more.

So his heart became hard; he hardened his heart in that he wasn't convinced. That wasn't enough. After this, the Nile turned to blood, which, as we saw, was probably the consequence of a volcanic eruption. All the frogs came out of the Nile because all the algae meant the fish died. The tadpoles weren't eaten up, so there was an overabundance of frogs, and they jumped out of the water and went into everybody's bedchambers and made a nuisance of themselves. Pharaoh said to Moses, 'Pray to the Lord to take the frogs away from me and my people, and I will let your people go to offer sacrifices to the Lord.' So what's Pharaoh doing here? He's saying if the frogs go, then I will let your people go to make sacrifices. But when Moses prayed, the frogs all died and disappeared. However, when Pharaoh saw that there was relief from the frogs, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.

Again, he hardened his heart; he made that choice as God predicted he would. After the frogs, there were the gnats. The magicians said to Pharaoh, 'This is the finger of God,' but Pharaoh's heart was hard, and he would not listen, just as the Lord had said. So what's going on here? Pharaoh's magicians and wise men can see what's happening; they realise that this is not magic. It's not something they are capable of doing themselves; they realise it must be something supernatural. They say, 'This is the finger of God,' but Pharaoh, though, closes his heart. He doesn't want to listen to them; he's made up his mind. After the gnats, there were the flies, and Pharaoh said, 'I will let you go to offer sacrifice to the Lord your God if you get rid of the flies.' Moses answered, 'I will pray to the Lord, and tomorrow the flies will leave.' But Pharaoh was deceitful again by not letting the people go to offer sacrifices to the Lord.

Moses prayed, and the flies left, but this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go. You can see here that Pharaoh is very deceitful; he says one thing and then changes his mind. Because of this, he is hardening his heart. His character is changing because he is doing evil; he is becoming evil because he is not keeping his promises. His conscience has been eroded; he is becoming harder and harder, a worse person, step by step. After the livestock died, Pharaoh investigated and found that not even one of the animals the Israelites had died, yet his heart was unyielding, and he would not let the people go. He was becoming very obsessive. You get this with dictators sometimes. Do any of you remember when Iraq was invaded in 2003? The Iraqi government minister of information would come on television every day, saying what great victories the Iraqis had won and how the Americans would be defeated. It was clear; everybody knew what was going on, but he and Saddam Hussein were living in cloud cuckoo land, completely disconnected from reality.

You can see that often dictators become like this. Hitler became the same kind of person as the war went wrong. People would tell him the truth, but he didn't want to hear the bad news; he only wanted to hear good reports. He became more and more obstinate and eventually just killed himself. He wouldn't face up to reality, and that's what you can see Pharaoh doing, step by step. After the hail, Pharaoh said, 'This time I have sinned. The Lord is right, and I and my people are in the wrong. I will let you go; you don't have to stay any longer.' So, you know, a change of heart, a change of mind. Moses replied, 'But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the Lord God.' Moses realised that Pharaoh was just going to change his mind again; he wasn't sincere.

When Pharaoh saw that the hail had stopped, he sinned again; he and his officials hardened their hearts. Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs among them. You may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, that you may know that I am the Lord.' So, in the first five plagues, if Pharaoh hardened his own heart, by this stage, once you got to that point, was it then possible for him to genuinely repent and change? He really got to the point where, as I said, he was becoming like many dictators, completely obsessive.

Then you have the locusts. Pharaoh's officials said to him, 'How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the people go so they may worship the Lord their God. Do you not yet realise that Egypt is ruined?' All his officials realised the reality of the situation and were telling him, 'Don't you realise?' But he became completely stubborn and obstinate, refusing to change. Even his officials realised the truth. Pharaoh then said, 'Okay, Moses, go worship the Lord your God, but tell me who will be going?' Moses told him, 'We'll all be going: men, women, children, families, the whole lot.' Then Pharaoh said, 'No, have only the men go and worship the Lord.' In other words, all the women and children should stay behind. Again, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

By this time, he had completely hardened his own heart to become an individual tyrant. So now, who is the problem? Why do you think God did so? In the last few plagues, it says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Now, why do you think God would be doing that? The Israelites were going to become a problem. When Moses first went to Pharaoh to say, 'Let my people go,' do you think the Egyptians would have been happy for all their slaves to pack up their bags and leave? No, would the officials be happy? No, would Pharaoh be happy? No. After a few plagues down the road, how do you think public opinion is changing? The ordinary Egyptians, who are the ones suffering, probably thought, 'You know, go.' But the officials realised, 'Well, that's our labour force; we want to keep them.' A few more plagues down the road, the officials realised Egypt is ruined. Now, who is stopping it? It's only Pharaoh.

The point here is that by the time they left, the Israelites didn't feel any sense of animosity towards the Egyptians; they only felt animosity towards Pharaoh because they realised it was only Pharaoh who caused the problem. They didn't have any bad feelings towards the Egyptians. As you will see later, they got on very well with the Egyptians; they had a very good relationship with them. It wasn't the Egyptians that were the problem, so they wouldn't later be blaming the Egyptians. They would only later be blaming one single person: this individual tyrant, the dictator. You could say this is why God hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that only Pharaoh would be seen as the one causing the problem.

After the darkness, Pharaoh said, 'Go worship the Lord; even your women and children may go with you, only leave the flocks and your herds behind.' But Moses said, 'Our livestock too must go with us; not a hoof is to be left behind.' In other words, we're not leaving anything; we're just going. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go. Finally, there was the death of the firstborn son, which we looked at. Every firstborn son in Egypt would die, including the firstborn son of Pharaoh, as God said. During the night, Pharaoh called Moses after his own son had died and said, 'Leave my people, you and the Israelites; go worship the Lord. Take your flocks and herds and go, and also bless me.'

Pharaoh could realise he was standing under the judgment of God, and he wanted Moses to pray for him. The Israelites then asked the Egyptians for silver and gold. The Lord had made the Egyptians favourably disposed towards the people, and they gave them what they asked for. Before the Israelites left, they went to the Egyptians and said, 'Please give us gold and silver and clothing and all sorts of things,' and the Egyptians happily gave them these things. The Egyptians got to the point where they felt sorry for the Hebrews; they realised what a nasty Pharaoh they had, who was so stubborn and causing all these problems, ruining their whole economy and society just because he was so stubborn and wouldn't admit that he was wrong. The Egyptians then felt sorry for the Israelites and wanted to give them gifts. When the Hebrews left Egypt, they did so on good terms with the ordinary Egyptians. There was no bad feeling towards the Egyptians; they just realised this was a problem of a dictator.

It wasn't from fear that they gave them all the gold; they had seen that the Lord made the Egyptians favourably disposed. In other words, they felt sorry for them; they wanted to help because they realised how much they suffered because of this tyrant, this terrible king, Pharaoh. Does that make more sense about why God hardened Pharaoh's heart? Does that help you understand? I mean, the Lord didn't really harden it; it's more his personal decisions that went into it. So was Pharaoh a free person then? Yes, until he got this power, I suppose. When he got into this spiral, he became a slave to his own concepts, his own obstinacy, and everything. He just couldn't let go. The way the Bible doesn't ask this question is whether a human being is free or not; it tells a story. You can see in this story Pharaoh, who is the most powerful person in Egypt, the most powerful person in the world. You'd think this person had absolute freedom because he could do anything he wanted. But because he made these wrong decisions, he became a slave to his own obstinacy, his own concepts, and his own prejudices. He became stuck; he couldn't let go.

He couldn't swallow his pride. Even when he did admit he was wrong, he changed his mind again. In that sense, he was not in control of himself; he was no longer acting as a rational person. You want politicians that are going to act rationally, not irrationally, such that the whole country is destroyed because they refuse to realise what they're doing is wrong, which so often happens. There have been so many dictators like that; the whole country is ruined because they refuse to admit they are wrong. You can see that in Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-il. You can just see it going on all the time, the lack of rationality. Pharaoh lost the ability to act rationally; he was no longer able to say, 'Actually, this is the best decision to make, and I'm going to do that.' He lost the freedom to choose the right thing to do because of all his own problems. Let's move on, shall we? No more questions about that?

It is much easier to take flat wraps than loaves of bread, which is why they made bread without yeast. That night, the angel of death passed over, hence the term Passover, because the angel passed over the houses of the Hebrews. However, the houses of the Egyptians were not spared, and the firstborn of the Egyptians were killed. Subsequently, the Egyptians gave the Hebrews jewellery, clothing, gold, and silver, and finally, Pharaoh allowed them to depart for three days. It was not a simple matter of letting my people go forever; it was a struggle just to get a three-day break, akin to a bank holiday or a weekend. Moses did not lie; he stated they wanted to go for a three-day journey into the desert to make their offerings.

The best explanation I have encountered regarding the subsequent events is that they left from a specific area, which is believed to be near Rameses. They took three days to reach a location called SU, and then continued walking. The yellow line on the map indicates the original route they would have taken if they had followed Moses from the beginning. After three or four days, when the Hebrews did not return, Pharaoh realised his workforce had disappeared. He thought they would be back after three days, but the Hebrews kept walking, having a three-day head start. The Egyptians had to try to catch up with them, which likely took them a day to organise their chariots and army.

People sometimes wonder if they crossed the Dead Sea, but it is important to note that crossing the Red Sea was completely impossible. It took about seven days for the Egyptians to catch up with the Hebrews, assuming they walked quickly. There are archaeological remains of two towns from thousands of years ago, one called P-Haro and the other Bal-Zon, located on either side of the Gulf of Aqaba. Between these towns, there was a land bridge that would be covered when the tide came in. This is similar to St Michael's Mount, where one can walk across when the tide is out, but when it comes in, it can be dangerous.

The evidence suggests that the Israelites crossed over after a seven-day walk, and the Egyptians tried to follow but were drowned when the tide came in. The Israelites crossed into Arabia, leaving Egypt behind. On their way out of Egypt, they were guided by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. When they reached the sea, Moses stretched out his rod, and the sea parted, allowing them to cross while the Egyptians were engulfed and drowned. This event is echoed in the book of Isaiah, which speaks of making a way in the sea and a path in the mighty waters, suggesting there was indeed a land bridge.

After crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites ran out of food and began to complain. They expressed a desire to return to Egypt, where they had plenty to eat. In response, God provided bread from heaven, instructing the people to gather enough for each day. This was a test to see if they would follow His instructions. On the sixth day, they were to gather twice as much, as the seventh day was the Sabbath, a day of rest. God was teaching them the importance of observing the Sabbath, as they had previously been slaves working every day without rest.

The people then complained to Moses about their thirst, and he cried out to God for help. God instructed Moses to strike a rock, from which water flowed. This rock symbolised Christ, as Jesus referred to Himself as the living water. Following this, the Israelites encountered the Amalekites, a hostile tribe. Moses went to the top of a mountain to oversee the battle, and when he raised his arms, the Israelites were winning. However, when his arms drooped, they began to lose. Aaron and Hur supported his arms, and eventually, the Israelites won the battle. This was the first time the Israelites actively participated in their own defence, rather than relying solely on God to do everything for them.

Moses had a meeting with his father-in-law, Jethro, who came to see how he was managing the people. The next day, Moses sat to judge the people, resolving their disputes from morning until evening. Jethro observed this and advised Moses that he was not managing well. He suggested that Moses should represent the people before God and teach them the statutes and decisions. Jethro recommended appointing honest individuals to handle smaller matters, creating a system of judges to ensure consistency and fairness in decision-making. This system of appeals and precedents laid the groundwork for what would become the basis of English law and justice, demonstrating how biblical principles influenced modern legal systems.

Things you know, we leave. You've taken these apples from my tree; this tree belongs to me. That's wrong. The sort of custom and tradition then became the law. So how would you decide where the law is? When you have a certain hard case and you have a judgment that sets a precedent, this means when a similar situation occurs, this is where the line is drawn. That becomes the common law. It's a way of life. Tradition and custom become law, which means that who has the authority to make law? Yes, the law is created by the people. The law is there to protect the way of life of the people. The king's job, or the government's job, is to uphold the law to protect the way of life of the people. The most important thing to protect the way of life of the people is to defend the country from being invaded. That's the first function of government: to defend a country so that people can live in peace and be happy.

The second function of the government is to uphold the law, so murderers, burglars, and all these people get punished. You draw the lines partly for deterrence and partly so they get what they deserve. The way of life then becomes a source of authority for law. Traditionally in England, the king doesn't have the authority to make laws because a law is made by the people. The king's job is to uphold the law. Things became a bit blurred with Parliament starting to produce laws, which it doesn't really have the authority to do, to be honest. The most important laws in England are not written down; the unwritten laws, common law, are significant. I listened to the Today programme this morning, where there was a discussion about this, considering codifying it, writing it down because it's just unwritten on this particular topic.

An example of how this works is that up until about 25 years ago, it was not possible in England to commit the crime of raping your wife because you were married. A husband and wife being married meant that if they had sexual relations, that was legitimate, even if the man forced himself upon his wife. That did not count as rape because he had a right to have a sexual relationship with her. So, up until about 25 years ago, if a husband forced his wife to have sexual relations, she couldn't complain because he wasn't breaking any law. About 25 years ago, this changed. The wife went to court, and the judge said, 'Well, I'll let you appeal.' She appealed and appealed until it went up to the Law Lords, the highest level. They had seven or more Law Lords sit because it was a very important case, changing the law.

The judges said that up until now, the way of life of the people and the values of society were such that nobody would regard a man having that kind of relationship with his wife as being against the law. However, society has changed. The values of society have changed, the customs in society have changed, and the expectations in marriage have changed. Because society has changed, we are now moving the line. It used to be here, but now the line is here. Yes, it is now possible for a man to rape his wife, and that is now a criminal offence. It wasn't a law made by Parliament or by the king or by the state; society changed, and the law changed to reflect those changes.

The English system of government is evolving now because of the European Union. On the continent of Europe, that was the way it used to be as well, up until the Middle Ages. Under the Romans, it also used to be like this, going back to the Greeks and Solon. However, it came to a critical point with Justinian, who codified the law in the 4th or early 5th century. He said the emperor has the authority to make law. The source of authority for law doesn't reside in customs and traditions; it resides in the emperor. Here, you get the Roman idea that the emperor was God, mixing different concepts. The emperor decided he had the authority to make laws. After the fall of the Roman Empire, this was forgotten, but during the Renaissance, they discovered Justinian's legal system. English law had developed a lot, whereas on the continent, it hadn't progressed. When the kings came across Justinian's law, they thought it was a complete, ready-made corpus of law, incredibly well-developed and far more advanced than anything on the continent of Europe. They said, 'Let's implement this.' They associated themselves with the emperor and claimed, 'Because we're the king, we have the authority to impose this law.' This marked the move from the king making law to the state making law.

In modern Europe, this was picked up by Napoleon's civil code, which is the basis for all European law now, where the state has the authority to make law. The state decides what is right and what is wrong. The state can give you your rights and take your rights away. This is why it's possible on the continent of Europe to have fascism and communism because the state has the power and authority to make law. In England, the state never had that authority or power, which is why they call it statute law as opposed to common law, which is proper law. That's a little digression. Moses, as he suggested, shows us something significant. Yes, he was a very humble person. He realised that even though God appeared to him and spoke to him, he was the mediator. He thought, 'That's a brilliant idea, Jethro. I'm going to implement that.' He was a very humble person, interested in truth and good ideas, regardless of where they came from.

Now, this is the Providence of restoration centering on the Tabernacle. You might wonder what a tabernacle is. A tabernacle is a sort of mini temple. This is a picture of a tabernacle; it's a portable temple. The temple in Jerusalem is made of stone, while this one is made of animal skins, a tent that you could pack up and fold. The temple represented the Messiah, which is why Jesus regarded himself as the temple, the dwelling place of God. Within the temple, you had the Ark of the Covenant, which was the place where sacrifices were made. You might wonder what the sacrifices were about; basically, it was just a big barbecue. They would bring along a lamb, skin it, slit its throat, cook it, and then the priest would take a leg while the rest of the animal was given back to the family making the offering. They would all sit around and have a meal together with God, like a religious barbecue. They ate all of it; some part was burnt, some part was given to the priests, and a lot of it was given back to them, depending on the occasion.

This was the holy place where the priests would go, and at the back, where the smoke was coming out, was the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant was. This is the Ark of the Covenant, a gold-gilded box with a couple of sticks for carrying it. Inside were the two tablets of stone that Moses got from the mountain, Aaron's rod which turned into a snake, a sample of manna, and two cherubim on the mercy seat. God said he would speak to Moses between these two cherubim. To receive the Tabernacle, they needed to make a foundation to receive it, like a foundation to receive the Messiah. God gave the Tabernacle because if they followed the very original course, Moses's family would have been the Tabernacle and the source of heavenly law. The way of life in Moses's family would have been the way of life for the people and the source of authority for law, the heavenly law.

Moses would have represented the Ark and the Tabernacle as the mediator from God. However, if Moses did something wrong, there needed to be something for everybody to believe and follow, so the foundation of faith could be passed on even if Moses messed up. This then became different from the previous providential age, where people made offerings to mediators. In this new age, the word of God came to be the mediator, so people were justified in their faith by having faith in God's word and God's commandments. We will go into that in a lot more detail over the next couple of weeks, so I don't want to start the next bit; otherwise, we'll be here until 9:00. Any questions? As I understand, the reason for the codification into the two tablets was in case Moses would fail. So, don't you think that in Europe, the codification was in case rulers would fail? Why do people write things down? Can access be a reason? But have things always been written down? Before things were written down, how did it work? Custom? Yes, and so it's promise-keeping, promise-making.

Still today in the city of London, you have the expression 'my word is my bond.' Until very recently, if you got on the phone and told somebody, 'I want to buy 1,000 shares in this particular company, and I'll give you the money tomorrow,' you just did it over the phone or in a café. The next day, if the share price dropped dramatically, what would you do? If you said, 'I don't want to buy the shares,' what would happen? The person would never trust you again. They would tell others not to trust you, and nobody would do business with you ever again. The basis of the free market is promise-keeping; you have to be a trustworthy person. If your word cannot be trusted, nobody will do business with you. The basis of the free market economy is trust; they call it a promise. It's more based on promises, and later on, things became more complicated, leading to written notes. However, even today under English law, if you make a verbal promise, that is legally binding. A verbal promise is legally binding because that's the custom and tradition. Without it being legally binding, the free market—buying and selling—cannot work unless there are trustworthy people.

You want to weed out all the untrustworthy people by enforcing promise-making. Promise-making is basically mind-body unity; what you say and what you do are the same thing, and you can be relied upon to keep your word. As society has changed, it worked when everybody knew each other, but it has become more complicated now. Nowadays, you get contracts, lawyers involved, and all these other people. This is a very recent phenomenon of having long contracts. Before, the city of London was much smaller; everybody knew everybody. You could just get on the phone and send a little note out. It worked brilliantly for hundreds of years like that. It's only very recently that things have started to change, leading to long contracts with everything stipulated and lawyers involved. This is because people are harder to believe or trust.