OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments, by Greg Koukl

[Trout]

Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments? by Gregory Koukl

www.str.org

If you want to call moral rules absolutes in the sense that they can never be trumped, then that is probably too strong a definition and not a Biblical definition. And if you are not careful, it makes God subject to His own rules in a way that puts the rules above God instead of God above the rules.

If it is immoral for us to kill people, why is it okay for God to kill people? Doesn't God keep His own commandments? And if He doesn't keep His own commandments, then what does it mean to call such commandments an absolute when God Himself doesn't have to keep them? And, if they are not absolutes, then why do we have to keep them? Then one begins to wonder, maybe God's rules are not necessary, they are just things He cooks up for us that apply to us and mess up our fun. This is a tact that people take in raising this particular issue. So, how are we to take the commandments seriously?

The first thing in answering the objection is to make sure we understand exactly what the commandment says. "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a misquote. The commandment isn't against killing; it's against murder. Just as in English, the Hebrew language has two different words; and the word murder is what is described in the commandment, not killing. It should be fairly evident to people that God is not proscribing all killing because part of the very Mosaic law that God gave capitol punishment as an appropriate punishment for quite a number of crimes. You can't say, I forbid you to kill, and by the way, kill. That would be an obvious contradiction, and that is obviously not what God has in mind. No, the prohibition is against murder, which is an inappropriate kind of killing. And then God talks about certain circumstances when killing is legitimate and other circumstances when it is not legitimate. Taking a human life without proper justification is murder and is wrong. But if the circumstance changes and there is appropriate justification, then arguably this is a morally relevant factor that changes the moral nature of the act of taking a life. Therefore, you would be justified in taking his life in self-defense. When the circumstance changes in a morally relevant way, the application of the moral rule changes.

The question is, does the circumstance change in a morally relevant way when God is the subject in view? To kind of clarify that, I could ask a question: What is your most prized possession? Say it's a mountain bike. Okay, if you owned your mountain bike is it okay if you disassemble it and spread it around? If it's yours it would be okay. I can do what I want with my own things. But what if someone else did that to your bike? Well, that would be wrong because someone else doesn't have the liberty to do that with something that is not their own. Yet, you being the owner of that thing do have the liberty to do whatever you want with what is yours.

I think that is the same principle that informs this question about God. God tells us that we should not kill other human beings. Why shouldn't we? You see a clear picture of the rationale against murder in Genesis 9 right after the flood. We see God prohibiting the shedding of man's blood. There is the metaphor for murder. The way God puts it is this: "When man sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed for [here is the rationale] in the image of God, God created man." God is saying, You kill another human being and other human beings can kill you because when you kill another human being you are killing someone who is made in my image. There is a factor that is morally relevant to the circumstance: the factor of ownership. This factor is a morally relevant distinction that makes a different moral rule applies there.

Why is murder wrong? According to Genesis 9 the reason that murder is wrong is you are destroying something of God's, something that bears His nameplate - His image. You destroy another human being and you will be punished for destroying God's property.

Can God destroy God's property? The answer seems to be yes. You see, God is the King of the universe. He is King of the universe not because He is the most powerful, and not by some arbitrary rule, but because He created it and it belongs to Him from the beginning. God can do what He wants with His universe. If He chooses to give life, He can give it. If He chooses to take life, He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of His own property.

While I was reading the Scriptures this morning, in the Gospels Jesus is giving the parable of the landowner who had hired different people at different times of the day, but paid them all the same thing. The landowner paid the guy who came in last at 4 o'clock the same as the guy who came in early in the morning. The guy who came in first was upset. Here is what Jesus said, speaking as the landowner, Can't I do what I want with that which is mine? We had an agreement and I paid you what we agreed. Now, if I want to give my money away to somebody else for less work, it's my money. Can't I do what I want with my own money?

I think the principle applies here, too. The universe is God's, and if He wants to take life, He can do so. I'm not saying He doesn't have reasons, but I'm saying He doesn't have to give reasons because it is fully within His purview to do as He wishes.

By the way, we have an intuition that informs us. I have been drawing on this intuition by giving parallels. There is an argument that people have offered against capitol punishment that I actually don't think works, but it turns out to draw on the same intuition. The part that draws on this intuition I think is accurate. One thing critics say about capitol punishment is that we shouldn't kill other human beings through capitol punishment because "we shouldn't play God." That is, we ought not be doing the kind of thing that is God's prerogative but not ours. I certainly agree with the principle that we ought not to do things that are only God's prerogative, but not ours. I don't think that principle applies in the circumstance of capitol punishment because, as far as I can tell, God Himself is the one that gave the application for governments to use capitol punishment to punish people under certain circumstances. So, there is a delegated authority there. But notice the intuition. It is appropriate for God to do what He wants with is His own. We shouldn't play God, but is it appropriate for God to play God because He is God. That is, He can do the things that only God should be doing. And in this line of thinking, only God should be taking life. That implies that God has the legitimacy to take life when He wants. As I said, if He takes the life of one individual or millions of individuals through some large-scale judgment, that certainly is His prerogative.

The simple answer is, no, God does not have to keep all the Ten Commandments. In fact, it is hard to imagine how many of them even apply to Him. Does God have to keep the Sabbath? Does God have to dedicate a portion of His week to the Lord? No, that's for His subjects, not for the King. Should God not have any other Gods before Him? That's kind of ludicrous. It doesn't apply. He doesn't have to honor His parents. He doesn't have parents. What about coveting? Thou shall not covet. What is coveting? Isn't it desiring something that is not your own? Is it possible for God to covet? What is there that is not properly His? Nothing, therefore God can't covet. The Ten Commandments are an expression of God's desire and in many ways an expression of His character, but they are expressions of His character that have a certain application to human beings who are His subjects and the rules do not apply to Him in the same way.

The question that is raised here is the question of absolutes. Then those rules aren't absolutes. If what you mean by the word absolute is that there is a rule that is somehow fixed in heaven and applies to everything under heaven by its own force and there are no exemptions or exceptions to the rule, and everything and everyone and everybody must bow to the rule, including God for it to be an absolute, well, then there aren't any absolutes like that. I think that is an abuse of the word. No, I think an absolute isn't the kind of thing that never is exempted, but is an objective moral rule that has to do with a circumstance and is always applicable in those circumstances applied in the same way. But when the morally relevant circumstance is changed, like you go from man to God as the players, then it may not be that that objective principle applies in these other circumstances.

That is why I avoid the word absolute in my discussion of these issues. An absolute is seen by many in an extreme way when, in fact, what we have in the Scripture are objective moral principles that are staggered in their significance, but some are more important that others. This is clear from things that Jesus said and from other teachings in the Scripture. There are greater goods and lesser goods. Sometimes you are stuck in what is called a moral dilemma and you have to do one thing or another, both of which are wrong. You must either protect human life and lie or hand over the innocent life to be killed. It happened to Corrie ten Boom and she chose to lie to protect Jews from the Nazis. In so doing, she did not do something wrong. She didn't do the lesser of two evils in my view. She did the greater of two goods. Therefore, lying in that circumstance was even morally obligatory. There are two instances in the Bible where we see exactly the same thing, the Egyptian mid-wives protecting the Hebrew newborns and Rahab protecting the Jewish spies. These people are even praised for what they did.

If you want to call moral rules absolutes in the sense that they can never be trumped, then that is probably too strong a definition and not a Biblical definition. And if you are not careful, it makes God subject to His own rules in a way that puts the rules above God instead of God above the rules.

-=-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For more articles like this, please visit our friends at www.str.org

Moderated By: Trout

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Trout]

[Glenn P]

That is why I avoid the word absolute in my discussion of these issues. An absolute is seen by many in an extreme way when, in fact, what we have in the Scripture are objective moral principles that are staggered in their significance, but some are more important that others. This is clear from things that Jesus said and from other teachings in the Scripture. There are greater goods and lesser goods. Sometimes you are stuck in what is called a moral dilemma and you have to do one thing or another, both of which are wrong. You must either protect human life and lie or hand over the innocent life to be killed. It happened to Corrie ten Boom and she chose to lie to protect Jews from the Nazis. In so doing, she did not do something wrong. She didn't do the lesser of two evils in my view. She did the greater of two goods.

The two bolded parts contradict, as best I can tell.

[technomage]

Well ... they do contradict on an absolute scale. The point Koukl is making is that though Corrie Ten Boom did lie, her lies saved lives.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic, but even were I Christian, I could not bring myself to condemn her. Fortunately, if I were Christian, such judgements would be "above my pay grade."

[Glenn P]

They really do contradict at every level. he claimed that in a dilemma like this, you are doing something wrong no matter which option you choose. Corrie chose one option, and Koukl says she did something wrong. I see absolutely no way around it.

1) There are moral dilemmas, wherein if you choose either option, you are doing something wrong.
2) Corrie Ten Boom chose one option in a moral dilemma.

3) But Corrie Ten boom did nothing wrong.

Sorry, at least one of these statements absolutely must be false. I think it's the first statement.

[technomage]

That's one way to look at it--frankly, I'm not sure how else one can classify a choice between lying and handing over an innocent person to die.

[Philosophickle]

Graded absolutism says that even though in and of itself lying is wrong, there are situations when wrong is the right choice.

[Glenn P]

I fully understand that What Koukl is doing is presenting a hierarchy of duties. I understand that in graded absolutism, some duties are higher than others.

But when lying becomes a duty, it becomes the right thing to do. In fact a duty just is the right thing to do, and not wrong. This means that it was a mistake to say that in such a dilemma, either choice involves doing something wrong. In this case, the choice is between doing something objectively right (lying), and something objectively wrong (letting the Jews die). The correct thing to say would have been that in a dilemma it is often the case that we must do something that would be wrong in many circumstances.

Remember: There is no scenario in which you ought to do something that is wrong. (Wrong = "that which you ought not do.")

[technomage]

But when lying becomes a duty, it becomes the right thing to do.

From a Christian point of view, I must point out that the Bible is mostly silent on such situations. Admittedly, there is no condemnation of Rahab (for lying to hide the spies) or even of Rahab (who lied to hide her theft of Laban's household idols), and one must also acknowldge that Christian tradition has long indicated that unless the Bible explicitly speaks against something, one is free to follow one's conscience. (ref Rom 14:5, 23)

But there are many--Christian and non-Christian--who use a strict absolute standard, rather than a "graded absolute" or the pragmatic ethics you seem to be advocating. WhileI certainly see the point of your posts, I think Greg's lesson is still workable for those who use an absolute scale.

[YoungOne]

I like it :)

[Glenn P]

From a Christian point of view, I must point out that the Bible is mostly silent on such situations. Admittedly, there is no condemnation of Rahab (for lying to hide the spies) or even of Rahab (who lied to hide her theft of Laban's household idols), and one must also acknowldge that Christian tradition has long indicated that unless the Bible explicitly speaks against something, one is free to follow one's conscience. (ref Rom 14:5, 23)

But there are many--Christian and non-Christian--who use a strict absolute standard, rather than a "graded absolute" or the pragmatic ethics you seem to be advocating. WhileI certainly see the point of your posts, I think Greg's lesson is still workable for those who use an absolute scale.

Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.

[technomage]

Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.

I do agree that Greg could have stated that part of the argument more clearly.

[Sparko]

nice article. I am surprised wyzaard and minnesota are not in here since they seem to post on this sort of thing a lot.

[JonLanceBarker]

they were scared out of their skivvies by the sheer logic of the article.

[Glenn P]

Well, I don't mean to put forward a "pragmatic" approach. I just mean there is nothing that it is a duty to do and which it is wrong to do, for that is a contradiction. I guess it means that I don't believe layig is always wrong. Koukl believes that too, so i was just nit picking at his claim that a dillemma requires us to do something wrong.

So I'm not disagreeing with Greg's conclusion. Not intentionally, anyway.

layig.....