Concept of Human Nature according to God and John Locke: an Examination In the attempt to define the attributes of man, his needs, and his capacities, the concept of human nature is an intrinsic part of political discussion. Over the centuries, various concepts of human nature have evolved along with the development of political theory. In this discipline, the concept of human nature provides the hub around which a theory revolves. It provides the theory with its basis as well as a presupposition or premise to the political theory's conclusion."(i) Moreover, a concept of human nature helps us to define the way one sees oneself and the world in which one lives. As well, the concept of human nature in political theory is an essential part of the construction of thought regarding the political environment and the limits of action within that environment. It is through the use of the concept of human nature that we develop our paradigms(ii). Furthermore, by answering the question "what is man's nature?", one can proceed to answer the question "what is required to fulfill the needs of men and to secure a better existence?"(iii) Politically, this demonstrates the utility of the concept of human nature. When constructing a concept of man's nature, political theorists provide some moral justification for their postulates. The purpose is to provide the theory with a substance, appealing to the conscience of men. Similar to other theorists, John Locke gives his concept of human nature moral justification by alluding to and making explicit reference to the commands of the Judeo-Christian God. For example, Locke tells us that men are "all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign God."(p. 9) and are therefore equal. While Locke attributes the source of his theories or concept of human nature to a moral Judeo-Christian God for the purposes of moral justification, it is questionable as to whether or not his theories or concept of human nature is in agreement, partially or completely, with the word of God as outlined in the Bible. The purpose of this essay is to investigate a God-given concept of human nature while contending that Locke's inferences about the commands of God regarding the state of nature and man's nature within that state are contrary to what is outlined in the bible. In this essay the term "human nature" and "state of nature" are used almost interchangeably.(iv) Biblical Outline of the state of Nature In the book of Genesis, the biblical creation narrative is found. It is here that one must begin the search for a biblical concept of human nature or of man within his original and natural state. In the first book, God creates man in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). Because of this, it is necessary to observe some of the attributes of God to obtain some insight into the attributes of man. An example of some Godly attributes are holiness, purity, completeness and magnanimity. It follows that man was made in the image of these Godly traits. As well, God is spirit and therefore man had a likeness of God's spirit within him. In essence, God is perfect and therefore man, in his original state, was a resemblance of God's perfection. In Psalm 8.5 it says, God made man "...only a little lower than the angels, and placed a crown of glory and honour upon his head." More simply, God is good and man, in his original state, was an image of this goodness(Gen. 1:31 King James version). God not only created man but also the earth. From the beginning, a special relationship existed between man and nature. In the bible, it tells us that man lived in the garden with all the plants and the animals. Above all creation, man held a special place (Gen. 1:27-28, Psalm 8:6). He was commanded by God to populate the Earth and to subdue it. Yet "subdue" did not mean to destroy or to control with force but for the offspring of Adam to prevail over the Earth in great numbers. Within nature, God also provided for all of man's needs. God said to man "I have provided all kinds of grains and all kinds of fruit for you to eat;" Gen 1:29 There was no need for man to farm or to work. He stood within nature, moving about God's creation. He was in charge of the animals as authorized by God yet he did not use any means of force to maintain control. Man lived in harmony with the animals as they did not run from man nor did he run from them. God also commanded men to cultivate and to guard the garden of Eden;(Gen.2:15) He was its gardener and was to tend and to care for it. To explain further; Man's "dominion," of course, is as God's steward, not as one that is given license to "destroy the earth"(Rev. 11:18). "The Earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein"(Ps. 24:1). Nevertheless, although God retains ownership, man has been placed in charge of the Earth and all its systems, living and non-living.(v) In his natural state, man was not an irrational being. Unlike the animals, God gave man the capacity to reason and to make choices. As man was made in God's image and God is a rational being, rationality is also a part of man's nature. By the very nature of the command to cultivate and guard the garden, God gave man the ability of mind(vi). He would not have given man any commands if man was a mindless ("robotic") being incapable of following or disobeying. Moreover, it is within the garden of Eden, and within his original natural state of being, that man exercises his ability to make choices. "Come now let us reason together, saith the Lord:,"(Isaiah 1:18) After God made all of the animals, He brought them to Adam to see what he would name them. God Honoured Adam's choices as the names of the animals remained unchanged. Adam also named Eve, calling her a woman. Afterwards, he explained the reason for the name, saying "woman is her name because she was taken out of man."(Gen.2:23) Later, Genesis 3: 2,3 depicts man's choice to eat of the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil. Verse 6, Chapter 3(living Bible) says that Eve was "convinced" to eat of the fruit. The word "convinced" indicates that Eve had reached a conclusion through her faculty of reason. Although she knew that she was not to eat of the fruit, she was tempted with the choice of doing so. Verse 6 goes on to say that Eve saw how lonely and fresh the fruit was and that she believed the devil's promise that it would make her wise. Gen 3:13 depicts God's confrontation with Eve over the act of disobedience. The Lord said "How could you do such a thing?" "The serpent tricked me" she replied. More simply, the serpent tricked her sense of reason through temptation and as a result, while exercising her ability to make choices, Eve ended up making the wrong choice ultimately. As Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, man committed the first sin. Defined as a transgression of the command or will of God, It follows that sin is doing something which is contrary to God's nature. As man was made within the nature of God and was an expression of his goodness, the act of disobedience resulted in Man being cursed to stand outside of God's nature. While God had provided for all of Man's needs within the garden, (the fruit of the trees, the natural grains, the water of the river), man was forced to provide for his own needs outside of it (Gen.3:23). God cursed the earth so that man would have to struggle to extract a living from it with sweat and toil until his dying days (Gen.3:17-19). Before this, man did not die. Death was contrary to God's intentions. In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, it tells us that God did not invent death; that when living creatures die, it gives him no pleasure. It says that he created everything so that it might continue to exist. (Wis.1:12-14) Soon after, the affects of sin became apparent. Cain killed his brother Abel out of envy. Before Adam's disobedience, there were no sentiments of this sort within the world. The first act of disobedience resulted in the rupture of fellowship and harmony with God, nature, and man. All of this was diametrically opposed to God's will and intentions. Nevertheless, this is not to say that reason and making choices is sinful but that man made the wrong choice due to the utilization of twisted reason; twisted by the Serpent's tempting. The result was that man's, once obedient, Godly, good, nature had changed becoming disobedient, ungodly, and carnal. He had lost his original nature, acquiring a sinful nature. He was no longer empowered by God's spirit but was fleshly. As time passed, God provided man with the ten commandments which, if followed, would prevent men from hurting one another. Primarily, the three main points of emphases behind the commands were to love God, love your neighbour as you love yourself and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you (John 13:34, Luke 6: 30). As love with and for ones fellow man was lost through sin, the commandments were a guide for men to follow throughout life. In overview, man's original nature or state of nature was Godly, pleasing to his creator, and was considered good. All of creation was under his charge as he fulfilled his role as a steward. He was commanded to prevail over the earth by being fruitful and multiplying. He was also to care for it and not to destroy it. He shared the garden with the animals and with Eve(his mate) and provided all with their names. Moreover, man was at peace with God and stood rightly before him, unified and harmonious with the creator and creation. As well, God gave man mind, providing man with the ability to reason and to make choices; both wrong and right apparently. He had made man sufficient to stand yet free to fall. Upon making a wrong choice, man acted contrary to his God-given nature which was to maintain relationship and connection to God and was forced to leave the garden. Forever more, man's nature was altered, becoming sinful. Therefore man, in a state of nature, given by God, is not his present nature. His true nature is the one which he possessed before he disobeyed God's command. The result of Adam's disobedience was the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. At this point, man stood outside of the garden, outside of nature, and was unnatural. All enmity, evil, and strife entered the world resulting in discord with God, the rest of creation and fellow man. This prompted God to provide man with the Ten commandments so they may live a life in accordance with His will. In Ecclesiastes 7:39 it is written, "God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated." John Locke provides us with a different picture of what man was like in a state of nature given to men by God. In this state, Locke speaks of men having possessions. He tells us that the earth had been given to mankind in common.(p. 18) To support this, he makes reference to Psalm 115:16 which says "The Heavens even the heavens are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." Yet, he endeavours to demonstrate how men came to own property out of what was in common. He argues that every man has property within himself and the labour of his body. Therefore, if man mixed his labour with anything that was left in the common state, it became the product of his work, making it his property. It is labour which makes the distinction between what is in common and what is in private. No consent of any other man was necessary. It was a right given to men by God. At the same time, there were limits to how much a man could appropriate for his own use. He could not appropriate more than he could use. God did not allow men to spoil or destroy.(p. 20) Further in his argument, he infers that God gave the world to men for their greater benefit and did not intend for the world to remain in common and uncultivated. As a result, Locke argues that it was given primarily to the " industrious and rational...not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious" who would leave it to waste. Moreover he contends that God's commandment to subdue the earth instructed man to "improve it for the benefit of life."(p. 21) To do this, Locke argued man was required to labour. Adding to this further, he writes that God commanded, and (man's) wants forced him to labour; that was his property which could not be taken from him wherever he had fixed it.(p.22) From this, he concluded that subduing, cultivating, and having dominion over the earth were one and the same, and that God's commandment to subdue authorized man to appropriate property. Through these arguments, Locke justified the acquisition of property within the state of nature. It was in this natural state that men enjoyed perfect freedom, ordered their actions, disposed of their possessions and persons, as they thought fit within the bounds of the law of nature.(p.xiii) This law of Nature is defined as "that which forbids anyone harming another or destroying himself, and requires each to try when his own preservation comes not in competition" to preserve the rest of mankind."(p.xiii) Further, he says that all of mankind was under the obligation of this law and that it was synonymous to reason. Within this state of nature governed by natural law, there existed liberty, equality, and independence. Yet, Locke also tells us that there would be those who would transgress the law of nature, declaring themselves "to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security." Such transgressions would result in the state of nature regressing into a state of war. Yet, it was within the state of nature that all of this occurred. Having looked at the concept of human nature according to the word of God and the one proposed by Locke where an effort was made by Locke to justify his theory with biblical references, it is clear that the two concepts disagree. The first area of discrepancy is the way in which the state of nature is defined. Locke defines it as the state in which men live together according to reason, "...without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them."(p. 15) Differing from this, a biblical definition would assert that the state of nature is one in which men lived in obeyance to the will of God. In other words, it was a state void of sin. In all of Locke's theory there is no mention of the original sin. In many cases, Locke makes reference to Adam but apparently ignores the event. As a result, he ignores the fact that Adam's nature had changed from its original Godly state into a sinful one. Because of this, Locke interprets the commands which God gave to Adam incorrectly. As outlined earlier, the command to "subdue" the earth is found in the same verse where God commands Adam to fill the earth with his progeny.(Gen. 1:7) Therefore, when read in context "subdue" did not mean to labour and to acquire property but to dominate the earth in great numbers. Moreover, God explicitly tells Adam that all of his needs are provided for within the garden.(Gen.1:29) Work was not necessary. Because of this, it is apparent that the command to cultivate the garden was not a command to labour for one's needs or for possessions but to "dress and to keep" the garden as would a gardener(Gen.2:15). As a result, it is evident that Locke interprets these commands with out making reference to man's original state, God and man's relationship with man, and God's provisions for mankind. In fact, Locke's theory on the state of nature is more congruent with what the bible tells us about man in his sin nature. Labour was a part of man's curse. As well, there was no concept of property before sin. A man would only say "mine" when he was in fear or concern of someone taking away what was in his possession (By possession, I do not mean something that one owned but something that one had taken up to provide for his needs; for example, a seed or an apple to eat. Man had no consciousness or knowledge of the concept "mine" because there was no threat of someone taking the seed or the apple away). In man's obedient nature, there was no sin, therefore there was no fear of being attacked or robbed by an adversary. It was only when sin entered the world that the fear of being attacked or murdered became a reality. Such acts occurred in Locke's concept of the state of nature yet according to the biblical text such acts could have only occurred when man was outside of his nature state and within his unnatural sin nature. To Locke, this state was governed by the law of reason. Apparently, he assumes that reason was always right and that man had to simply live by the reasoning of his mind. When man transgressed the rights of another, Locke argued that they were living contrary to reason and deserved to be punished. This is not defined as sin but as a transgression of the law of reason which God gave to all men. This transgression was committed not against God but against another man. Therefore it was not God who punished but man. He says that God gave man the right to punish but nevertheless God is still somewhat removed from the picture. While Locke tells us that reason and common equity were given to men for their mutual security, the bible shows us that God gave man the Ten commandments. Although reason is God given ability, it was not always right. Reason could be tricked or could lead one to do the wrong thing. As a result, it would be beneficial for men to trust God again and to live by the commandments of God than the dictates of man's fallible reason. From our analysis of Locke's theories and his attempt to justify his postulates morally with the word of God, it is apparent that Locke had no intention of agreeing with God's word and simply used it to provide a cloak of righteousness around his worldly, self-serving arguments. As it was mentioned earlier in this paper, one of the key purposes of the concept of human nature or of man within his natural state is to answer the question "what is man's nature?" so that one can proceed to answer the question " what is required to fulfill the needs of men?" As Locke tells us that man in a state of nature lived by right reason and sought to provide for his own needs as well as the needs of others, man was thereby moral. Yet, in his essay on Human Understanding, Locke says that man was also motivated by his appetites which were mainly a desire for happiness and an aversion to misery (Book 1, ch.3, sect. 3). Due to their pervasiveness, these appetites would lead men to contradict the law of reason and lead him into a state of war with others. But, only greed and covetousness and a lack of personal satisfaction with one's self with envy will lead to conflict even if a desire for happiness and an aversion to misery are pervasive.  How does envy manifest in human behaviour except but in the denial of peace with one's neighbour? Peace with your neighbour should be the essence of happiness. This truth should be the hallmark of all success in civic training and the attainment of any reference. Read Dumas and Dickens.  But, clearly, peace is troubled by man's fallen and unchecked nature.  Freedom of speech is not justification for strumming up social anarchy and moral decay in the media. Public and commercial mass media should promote the goals of a civil society and depict the moralistic values of a Judeo-Christian socio-political and economic democracy with no non-contextual violence or disrobing above and beyond what is topically depicted in the bible; for example. Batman and Disney have to provide a moral to the shooting and to the images of copulating that satisfies the purpose of a Judeo-Christian socio-political and economic democracy. Bathsheba is naked in the shower and you can see it on your LED TV by DVD or on AMC  but the child dies and David repents; for example. In the alternative, Ned is avenged and the Sheriff is dealt with for punching and cutting the face of the resident whore in the saloon( as seen in Unforgiven-the movie). That is contextual violence and disrobing with a biblical or moral lesson. The movie the Beach provides such a moral lesson in the end. The lesson is that a good West London accent is not an alibi to murder and anarchy and neither is a "stand your ground" law that vitiates the requirement  and purpose of mens rea in criminal acts; thereby offending natural law that men should be held accountable objectively for their actions with very little subjective input. One's feelings, in sight of the various objective witnesses, cannot vitiate culpability.  That is the murderers' law and the way to Anarchy Road( see Mad Max-the movie).  Regardless of whether there are movies or television, your imagination is activated by what you read. Because of this, men were constantly exposed to the potentiality of invasion of their property and persons by others, leaving them unsafe, insecure, and anxious for his life.(p. 16, P. 65) Based on this concept of Human Nature, Locke concluded that the answer to man's needs for safety and security would be to step out of the state of nature and into society or government where man's appetites could be checked by the necessary rewards, punishments, minimum rules of morality, and positive laws. In great contrast to this, the word of God tells us that man in his natural state was Godly, free from sin, in harmony with his creator and with creation, secure, in no need of labour or property, God dependent, and free from all fears. Having lost this through disobedience, he stepped out of his natural state, was forced to labour, fell out of harmonious fellowship with the creator and creation, acquired the capacity to hate, envy, and murder relentlessly (stepping into a Lockeian concept of the state of nature). Since the Ten Commandments provided only a temporary solution to the problem, based on the biblical concept of man's essential Godly nature, what men required to fulfill their needs was the reconciliation of their relationship with God. God eventually provided for this reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Exemplifying this through his words, Christ called men to come unto Him so that he couldgive them rest, that in Him, they would find rest for their souls, while receiving only thelight burdens of Christ (ie. Obedience to God, Matt 11:28). Man, in his natural state, was notrequired to labour but only to depend upon God. Therefore, it is appropriate that Christ offered rest in return for obedience. As well, he also taught that...whosoever will save his own life shall lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul.(Matt. 16:25,26) In this verse, it demonstrates that man's needs would not be met by his attempt to satisfy his own needs independent of God but that losing oneself to Him by placing all of one's life in his hands was the answer to man's ultimate needs. Answering the need for the restoration of harmony between men and God, Jesus gave men the greatest commandment; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; (that within) these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.(Matt 22:37-40) Therefore God Himself, through Christ, was the answer to the needs of men as dictated by man's nature in his natural state according to the word of God. In conclusion, the purpose of this essay was not to argue for the existence of God but to suppose that He existed while investigating what the bible had to say about man in a state of nature. That being said, Hebrews 11:6 is evident in that it says he who comes to God must believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. The intention of this essay, therefore, was to demonstrate that Locke's conception of man in a state of nature was contrary to what is outlined in the creation narrative in Genesis and to the rest of scripture. Having investigated this, it results that even though Locke uses the word of God in his arguments, he uses it incorrectly so that in the final analysis, Locke's theory conflicts greatly with the word of and the intentions of God. Because of this, the two concepts (that of God's word and Locke's) provide different answers to the needs of men as defined by the respective concepts of the state of nature. Locke proposes man-made government while the word of God proposes God's government manifested in the kingdom of Heaven through Jesus Christ: Therefore take no thought, saying what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or, wherewithal shall we be clothed?... But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.(Matt.6: 31,33) It is unfortunate for Locke, but man's reason is not perfect. It is fallible. Locke does not seem to acknowledge this. Hence, many of our world systems are inherently set on a crash course for collapse and have come to threaten man's very existence. It only took three hundred years from the time of Locke's first publishing where we must ask ourselves, how have we come to the brink of man's existence in terms of environmental failure or nuclear holocaust so rationally or is it irrationally? Our reason must be God dependent; not independent of God or presumptively right because it is called reason nor should it be worshiped as such. Our current reality is the proof of the error of our trajectory; the error of our calculation, the error of our Lockeian philosophy. A third treatise is needed which will not be so short sighted and driven by continual taking and the fear of not having enough; the profit driven, property and provision, and continual expansion paradigm. How many cars can we sell in China? Our capacity to realise a new energy paradigm based on hydrogen engines and fuel is realisable in this generation, freeing us from the doubt and global insecurity engendered by the dependence on fossil fuels (see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM&p=448B4793713D9028&playnext=1&index=23). Anything short of realising the hydrogen paradigm in the next 10 months is a failure of our collective genius (see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcsRk_gtO2U&feature=related) We are now spending critical resources and energy to consider the threat of rising water levels to global security and there were many individuals who refused to accept the scientific reality of global warming because it was decided by certain 'say so's' that it did not fit their political ideology but they do not live in Greenland or in the south pacific where the loss of polar ice caps and land mass respectively is a living reality. Our current format is impossibly unsustainable lest we subdivide the moon and the last remaining rain forests. What is needed is a third treatise which will hold in view the long term existence of all of mankind. If Locke had been honest in faith, he might have provided a theory for a system that would last not only three to four hundred years but that would have been truly inspired by the word of God and God's call to have dominion; dominion as in care for and sustain while also living from the earth. We can only leave behind what we have hoarded,once we have died. We should seek to leave 'life' and not just inanimate wealth to our own future generations; to our own children's children; to the Smiths, the Jones', the Mbakas, the Chus, the Greenspoons, the Denilsons, the Costas, the Tochukwus, the Zegatas, Grahams, ten Booms and you can add your family's last name to the list. For those who can do something about it, this will be the greatest gift that they can leave to their family's future generations. Everyone can do something about it. We must think beyond what happens when we die. There is a book written that discusses the philosophy behind the 'Terminator' movies but ultimately we are the philosophy. It is dark. It needs to change. Hopefully we will not lose sight of our God-given capacity to reason and also the need to trust in God in the effort to find a solution; a solution other than holocaust. So let it be. Concept of Human Nature according to God and John Locke: an Examination Warren Lyon   Concept of Human Nature according to God and John Locke: an Examination Warren Lyon Politics 237, University of Western, Ontario First written: March 1993 Edited: February 2010 Warren Augustine Lyon, B.A.(Hons), LL.B.(Hons), PGDL. Toronto,
 Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/warren-lyon