http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645
Situation Ethics—Extended Version
Human beings throughout history have been susceptible to a desire to be
freed from the dictates of higher authority. Most people wish to be
free to do whatever they desire to do. This attitude runs rampant among
the baby boomers whose formative years occurred during the 1960s.
Expressions that were commonplace at the time included “Do your own
thing” and “Let it all hang out.” These simple slogans offer profound
insight into what really was driving the countercultural forces at that
time. Underneath the stated objectives of love, peace, and brotherhood
were the actual motives of self-indulgence and freedom from
restrictions. This ethical, moral, and spiritual perspective has
proliferated, and now dominates the American moral landscape.
The Israelites at Mt. Sinai provide a good case study of this. Their
unbridled lust manifested itself when they cast aside restraint.
Awaiting the return of Moses, they “sat down to eat and drink, and rose
up to play” (Exodus 32:6)—“play” being used euphemistically to refer to
sex play (cf. Genesis 26:8) [Harris, et al., 1980, 2:763; Clarke, n.d.,
1:464]. The drinking and dancing (vs. 9) apparently included lewd, even
nude, party-like revelry, with the people being “naked” (KJV), “broken loose” (ASV), “unrestrained” (NKJV), or “out of control” (NASV—vs.
25). The “prodigal son” was gripped by this same “party on” mentality.
He went to the far country to party, to live it up, and to “get down.”
There he indulged himself in riotous, loose living—totally free and
unrestrained in whatever his fleshly appetites urged him to do (Luke
15:13).
Despite all of their high and holy insistence that their actions are
divinely approved, and the result of a deep desire to do Christ’s will
and save souls, could it possibly be that those within Christendom who
seek to relax doctrinal rigidity are, in reality, implementing their own
agenda of change simply
to relieve themselves of Bible restrictions?
Is it purely coincidental that the permissive preachers have been both
willing and eager to accommodate the clamor for “no negative, all
positive” preaching? Is it completely accidental and unrelated that many
voices are minimizing strict obedience under the guise of “legalism,”
“we’re under grace, not law,” “we’re in the grip of grace” (Lucado,
1996), and that we are “free to change” (e.g., Hook, 1990)?
No, these circumstances are neither coincidental nor unrelated. They
are calculated and conspiratorial. Those who have aversion to law have
breathed in the same spirit that has led secular society’s psychological
profession to view guilt as destructive, while unselfish, personal
responsibility is labeled “co-dependency.” They have embraced the same
subjective, self-centered rationale that secular society offers for
rejecting the plain requirements of Scripture in order to do whatever
they desire to do: “God wants me to be happy!” and “It meets my needs!”
The spirit of liberalism has indeed taken deep root, both in the country
and in the Christian religion (see Chesser, 2001).
SITUATIONISM DEFINED
In the mid-1960s, Joseph Fletcher published the book,
Situation Ethics,
thereby securing for himself the dubious distinction “the Father of
Situation Ethics” (1966). Of course, Fletcher was by no means the first
to advance the ideals of situationism. Men like Emil Brunner (
The Divine Imperative), Reinhold Niebuhr (
Moral Man and Immoral Society), Harvey Cox (
The Secular City), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (
Ethics), and John A.T. Robinson (
Honest to God)
promoted ethical relativism before Fletcher’s popular expression of the
same. Existentialist philosophers like Sartre, Kierkegaard, and
Heidegger promulgated this same subjectivism. Though Fletcher at first
attempted to deny this tie to existential philosophy (1967, p. 75), he
ended up admitting it (pp. 77,234). However, we need not think that
situation ethics is a twenty-first-century phenomenon that was invented
by modern theologians and social scientists. Situationism goes all the
way back to Eden when Satan posed to Eve circumstances that he alleged
would justify setting aside God’s law (Genesis 3:4-6).
Fletcher summarized his ideas in terms of six propositions that he came
to identify as “the fundamentals of Christian conscience” (1967, pp.
13-27). This ethical theory stresses “freedom from prefabricated
decisions and prescriptive rules” in exchange for “the relative or
nonabsolute and variant or nonuniversal nature of the situational
approach” (p. 7). “Right and wrong depend upon the situation” (p. 14).
The “situation” is defined as “the relative weight of the ends and means
and motives and consequences all taken together, as weighed by love”
(p. 23). The situation ethicist feels free to “tinker with Scripture”
and to form “a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the ‘greatest
good of the greatest number’” (pp. 18-19; cf. p. 56).
Situationism is simply ethical relativism, in that it moves “away from
code ethics, from stern and ironbound do’s and don’ts, from prescribed
conduct and legalistic morality” (p. 24). Situationism bears close
affinity with existentialism (pp. 26,77,234). “Imitative practice,”
uniformity and conformity, and “metaphysical morals” are all disdained
(pp. 26,106,240). Objective principles and abstract rules are
repudiated, in exchange for “freedom and openness” (pp. 72,76,233,235).
Concrete absolutes are viewed unfavorably as “authoritarianism” and
“rules-bound thinking” (p. 240).
In contrast, situationism calls for “creative” moral conduct,
accommodation to “pluralism,” “freedom,” and “openness,” as well as
“spontaneity and variety in moral decision-making” (pp.
78,123-124,235,241). Constant emphasis is placed on “love” as the only
intrinsic good, with the loving thing to do depending on each situation
that arises. Since “love” is the only inherent, intrinsic value, the
moral quality or value of every thing or action is extrinsic and
contingent—depending upon the situation (pp. 14,26,34,38,55,76,123-124).
Though Fletcher offered formal expression to these concepts several
decades ago, it would not be an exaggeration to state that situationism
has “gone to seed” in American society and now constitutes the
prevailing approach to making ethical decisions. As pollster guru George
Barna remarked in a 2003 survey of American moral behavior:
This is reflective of a nation where morality is generally defined according to one’s feelings. In a postmodern society, where people do not acknowledge any moral absolutes,
if a person feels justified in engaging in a specific behavior then
they do not make a connection with the immoral nature of that action….
Until people recognize that there are moral absolutes and attempt to
live in harmony with them, we are likely to see a continued decay of our moral foundations (2003, emp. added).
FLAWS IN SITUATIONAL THINKING
At least two foundational errors cause Fletcher’s theory of
situationism to be irreparably flawed. The first is the failure to grasp
the Bible’s identification of the
central concern of human
beings: to love, honor, glorify, and obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Micah
6:8; Matthew 22:37; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:9; 10:5; 1
Peter 4:11). Fletcher is virtually silent on this dimension of human
responsibility. Instead, he focuses his entire theory on love for
fellowman. While love for fellowman is certainly crucial to Christian
ethics and absolutely mandatory for the Christian (e.g., Luke 10:25-37)
it must be viewed in its rightful position, subsumed beneath the
greater, higher responsibility of loving God. One cannot love God
without loving one’s neighbor (e.g., 1 John 4:20-21). But,
theoretically, one could love another person without loving God.
Consequently, love for fellowman must be viewed in the larger framework
of focusing one’s life on pleasing God first and foremost.
Since this must be the singular all-consuming passion of human beings, God’s Word must be consulted in order to determine
how
to love God and fellow man. In other words, to comply with the number
one responsibility in life, one must consult the absolute,
prefabricated, prescriptive, ironbound do’s and don’ts of Scripture!
This, by definition, is love for God (1 John 5:3; John 14:15). It
follows, then, that Fletcher is incorrect in identifying the
only intrinsic good as “love” for fellow man (1967, p. 14). According to the Bible, intrinsic good
includes fraternal love. But superceding even this love is
filial
love, i.e., love for God (Matthew 22:36-37; cf. Warren, 1972, pp.
87ff.). Consequently, God defines what love entails in man’s treatment
of both God and fellow man. But those definitions are found in the Bible
in the form of prescriptive rules, regulations, and ironbound do’s and
don’ts.
The second fundamental flaw of Fletcher’s brand of situationism is the
subtle redefinition of “love.” While Fletcher was correct when he
identified love as an active determination of the will rather than an
emotion (pp. 20-21), his idea of “love” is materialistic and secular,
rather than scriptural or spiritual. “Love,” to Fletcher, is what
human beings
decide is “good” or “best” in a given situation. This humanistic
approach allows man and his circumstances to become the criteria for
defining morality, rather than allowing God to define the parameters of
moral behavior: “The metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic values and
laws says, ‘Do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.’
The situational moralist says, ‘Whether what you do is right or not
depends precisely upon where the chips fall!’” (1967, p. 26).
But the Bible simply does not place law and love in contradistinction
to each other. In fact, according to the Bible, one cannot love either
God or fellow man
without law. The only way for an individual to
know how to love is to go to the Bible and discern there the specifics
of loving behavior. When Paul declared, “love is the fulfilling of the
law” (Romans 13:19), he did not mean that it is possible to love one’s
neighbor while dispensing with the law (see Fletcher, 1967, p. 70; Hook,
1984, p. 31). Rather, he meant that when you conduct yourself in a
genuinely loving manner, you are automatically acting in harmony with
the law (i.e., you are not killing, stealing, coveting, bearing false
witness, etc.). God, in His laws,
defined and pinpointed how to love. To treat any of God’s laws as optional, flexible, or occasional is to undermine the very foundations of
love.
In situationism, human beings become the standard of morality. The
human mind, with its subjective perceptions of the surrounding moral
environment, becomes the authority, in direct conflict with the words of
an inspired prophet: “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself;
it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).
The psalmist certainly could be accused of being a “metaphysical
moralist with his intrinsic values and laws.” In his great psalm on the
law of the Lord (Psalm 119), the writer conveyed his conviction that
objective, prescriptive rules and prefabricated principles were
indispensable to his survival. Observe closely a small portion of his
unrelenting extolment of divine laws: “You have commanded us to keep
Your precepts diligently” (vs. 4); “I would not be ashamed, when I look
into all Your commandments” (vs. 6); “Behold, I long for Your precepts”
(vs. 40); “I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love”
(vs. 47); “I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given
me life” (vs. 93); “Through Your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way” (vs. 104); “The entirety of Your word
is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever”
(vs. 160); “My soul keeps Your testimonies, and I love them exceedingly.
I keep Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before
You” (vss. 167-168).
To Fletcher, “love” directed toward one’s fellowman is a
materialistically defined love that he calls “personalism.”
“Personalism” is “the ethical view that the highest good, the
summum bonum
or first-order value, is human welfare and happiness” (1967, p. 33).
Fletcher’s ethical humanism is “a personalist devotion to people, not to
things or abstractions such as ‘laws’ or general principles.
Personal interests come first, before the natural
or Scriptural
or theoretical or general or logical or anything else” (p. 34, emp.
added). What such assertions really mean in practical, behavioral terms
is that, ultimately, human beings may do whatever they deem “good” or
“best.” A glance at Fletcher’s illustrations shows that the most
“loving” decisions are those that ease physical pain, alleviate
hardship, lessen emotional suffering, or accommodate human desire and
personal preference. For Fletcher, “evil” is physical imprisonment,
separation from family, the hardship of unjust labor, an unpleasant
marriage, or lack of commitment to a person (e.g., pp. 32,39). “Human
happiness” is, by definition,
what human beings think will make them happy—not what God says actually will bring
true happiness—even in the midst of, and while enduring, unjust or unpleasant circumstances.
Sin, in situationism, is not “transgression of God’s law” (1 John 3:4).
Rather, “sin is the exploitation or use of persons” (p. 37). It is
withholding what a person perceives to be the means to personal
happiness. But this understanding of sin is a radical redefinition of
love and happiness in comparison to the Bible. In contrast, Scripture
makes clear that “intrinsic evil on the purely physical level does not
exist” and “neither pain nor suffering is intrinsically evil” (Warren,
1972, pp. 93,40). Since sin (i.e., violation of God’s law) is the only
intrinsic evil, “evil” and “good” exist only in relation to the will of
God (pp. 39,41).
By Fletcher’s definitions, many people in Bible history were not
sinners as previously supposed, but were, in fact, mature, responsible
individuals who acted lovingly: Eve (Genesis 3:1-6); Cain (Genesis 4:3);
Lot and Lot’s wife (Genesis 13:12; 19:16,26); Nadab and Abihu
(Leviticus 10:1-3); the Israelites (Numbers 21:4-6); Balaam (Numbers
22-24); Saul (1 Samuel 13:9; 15:9,21); and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). On
the other hand, if situationism is correct, many persons in the Bible
were not righteous, as is claimed, but were slaves to abstract rules and
principles, and were unloving in their conduct toward their fellow man
including: Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5); Joseph (Genesis 39:7-12);
Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14:6-9); Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-9); Joshua
(Joshua 7:24-25); and John the baptizer (Mark 6:18-19). Here were people
who set aside the preferences of their fellow man, ignoring their
contemporaries’ desire for “happiness” and “self-fulfillment,” and
instead followed divine prescriptions—even though those precepts were
considered to be contrary to the consensus view.
Taking into account the components of “the situation” as Fletcher
recommends—“the end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences” (1967,
p. 25)—Uzzah would have to receive Fletcher’s sanction as a loving,
moral person (2 Samuel 6:1-7). His
motive was unquestionably good, since he wanted to avoid the unpleasant
end and
foreseeable consequences of the Ark of the Covenant toppling from its precarious resting place. The
means
that Uzzah used were the only ones available to him at that particular
moment in time. His only mistake, which resulted in his immediate
execution by God, was his failure to give heed to the prefabricated,
prescriptive, abstract, legalistic, absolute, metaphysical,
ironbound “don’t” of Numbers 4:15 [For a useful treatment of situation ethics, especially for young people, see Ridenour, 1969].
SITUATIONISM ILLUSTRATED
The true nature of any false philosophy or ethical system is often
apparent in the concrete examples that advocates set forth as
illustrative of their position. Fletcher is no exception in this regard.
He approves of divorce “if the emotional and spiritual welfare of both
parents and children in a
particular family can be served best”
(1967, p. 23, emp. in orig.). He would approve of the suicide of a
captured soldier under torture to avoid betraying comrades to the enemy
(p. 15). Two additional instances are seen in the following comments.
Fletcher said that he knew of
a case, in which committing adultery foreseeably brought about the
release of a whole family from a very unjust but entirely legal
exploitation of their labor on a small farm which was both their pride
and their prison. Still another situation could be cited in which a
German mother gained her release from a Soviet prison farm and reunion
with her family by means of an adulterous pregnancy. These actions would
have the situationist’s solemn but ready approval (p. 32).
Additional examples of situation ethics at work are seen in the
statements: “Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth.
Stealing could be better than respecting private property” (p. 34).
Fletcher asks: “Is the girl who gives her chastity for her country’s
sake any less approvable than the boy who gives his leg or his life?
No!” (p. 39). Further,
a couple who cannot marry legally or permanently but live together
faithfully and honorably and responsibly, are living in virtue—in
Christian love. In this kind of Christian sex ethic the essential
ingredients are caring and commitment.… There is nothing against
extramarital sex as such, in this ethic, and in some cases it is good (pp. 39-40, emp. in orig.).
Consider the situation ethicist’s view of abortion:
When anybody “sticks to the rules,” even though people suffer as a
consequence, that is immoral. Even if we grant, for example, that
generally or commonly it is wrong or bad or undesirable to interrupt a
pregnancy, it would nevertheless be right to do so to a conceptus
following rape or incest, at least if the victim wanted an abortion” (p.
36; cf. Hook, 1984, p. 34).
When one abandons the
objective standard conveyed by the eternal
God from Whom flows infinite goodness, the means for assessing human
behavior is “up for grabs” and pitched into the subjective realm of
human opinion in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes”
(Judges 21:25). Such a person will inevitably begin misrepresenting the
biblical
treatment of Christian liberty and freedom, and will maintain that
“freedom in Christ” means being relieved of the “burden” of a “legal
code.”
FREEDOM IN THE BIBLE: JOHN 8:12-59
The Bible certainly speaks of the wonderful freedom that one may enjoy in Christ. But biblical freedom is a far cry from the
release from restriction, restraint, and deserved guilt
touted by the antinomian agents of change (cf. Hook, 1984, pp. 43ff.).
The Bible does not speak of the “flexibility and elasticity” of God’s
laws (pp. 29-31). Rather, with sweeping and precise terminology, Jesus
articulated the sum and substance of what it means to be “
free in
Christ.” In a specific context in which He defended the validity of His
own testimony (John 8:12-59), He declared the only basis upon which an
individual may be His disciple. To be Christ’s disciple, one must
“continue” in His word (vs. 31). That is, one must live a life of
obedience to the will of Christ (Warren, 1986, pp. 33-37). Genuine
discipleship is gauged by one’s persistent and meticulous compliance
with the words of Jesus.
Freedom in Christ is integrally and inseparably linked to this emphasis upon
obeying
God. While it is ultimately God and Christ Who bestow freedom from
condemnation upon people, they do so strictly through the medium of the
written words of inspiration (vs. 32). The “perfect law of liberty”
(James 1:25) is the law that gives liberty to those who are “doers of
the word” (James 1:22). These same words will function as judge at the
end of time (John 12:47-48).
It thus becomes extremely essential for people to “know the truth” in
order for the truth to make them free (vs. 32). What did Jesus mean by
“the truth?” “The truth” is synonymous with: (1) the Gospel (Galatians
2:14; Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5-6—genitive of apposition or
identification); (2) the Word (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 4:2);
(3) the Faith (Acts 14:21-22; Ephesians 4:5); and (4) sound doctrine (1
Timothy 1:10-11). In other words, “the truth” is the content of the
Christian religion. It is the New Testament—the doctrines of the one
true religion (cf. James 5:19). For a person to “know” the truth, he or
she must both understand it and submit to it. Christ’s teachings must
become the supreme law of daily life. The servant must both know his
master’s will, and act in accordance with that will (Luke 12:47).
The freedom that Jesus offers through obedience to His truth is noted
in His interchange with the Jews over slavery. Those who sin (i.e.,
transgress God’s will—1 John 3:4) are slaves who may be set free only by
permitting Christ’s teachings to have free course within them (vs.
34-37). This kind of freedom is the only true freedom. Genuine freedom
is achieved by means of “obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16).
Freedom from sin and spiritual death is possible only by
obedience to God’s words (vs. 51).
Nevertheless, these Jews—though they were believers (vs. 30-31)—were
unwilling to obey Christ’s will, and to function in a faithful manner as
Abraham had (vs. 39). Consequently, Jesus labeled them children of the
devil (vs. 44). They were not “of God” because they were unwilling to
“hear” God’s words, i.e.,
comply with them (vs. 47). Though they
believed, they would not
obey
the truth. “Indignation and wrath” await those who will not “obey the
truth” (Romans 2:8). J.W. McGarvey summarized the interpenetration of
freedom, obedience, and knowing the truth: “Freedom consists in
conformity to that which, in the realm of intellect, is called truth,
and in the realm of morality, law. The only way in which we know truth
is to obey it, and God’s truth gives freedom from sin and death” (n.d.,
p. 457).
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS: THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN
Another way to grasp the substance of a false philosophy is to assess
the way in which the Scriptures are given treatment to support the
philosophy. The remainder of this article will confine itself to
examining several favorite proof texts frequently marshaled in an effort
to defend situationism.
“What about the woman taken in adultery? Didn’t Jesus
free her
from the rigid restrictions of the Law?” One of the most misused,
mishandled, and misapplied passages in the Bible is the narrative of the
woman caught in adultery, recorded in John 8:1-11. [For a discussion of
the technical aspects of this passage as a textual variant, see
Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224; 1971, pp. 219-222; McGarvey, 1974 reprint,
p. 16; Woods, 1989, p. 162.] This passage has been used by situation
ethicists (e.g., Fletcher, 1967, pp. 83,133), libertines, and liberals
to insist that God is not “technical” when it comes to requiring close
adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom has abetted this notion
by decontextualizing and applying indiscriminately the remark of Jesus:
“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first”
(vs. 7). The average individual, therefore, has come to think that Jesus
was tolerant and forgiving to the extent that He released the woman
from the strictures of God’s law that called for her execution. They
believe that Jesus simply “waved aside” her sin, and thereby granted her
unconditional freedom and forgiveness—though the Law called for her
death (Leviticus 20:10). After all, isn’t it true that Jesus places
people “in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996)?
Those who challenge conclusions such as these are derided as
“traditionalists” who lack “compassion,” and who are just like the
“legalistic” scribes and Pharisees who cruelly accused the woman and
wanted her handled in strict accordance with Mosaic Law. Did Jesus set
aside the clear requirements of Mosaic legislation in order to
demonstrate mercy, grace, and forgiveness? A careful study of John
8:1-11 yields at least three insights that clarify the confusion and
misconception inherent in the popular imagination.
First, Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only
if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15).
One
witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy
17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act”
(vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or
witnesses.
There may have been only one, thereby making execution
illegal.
Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the
woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact
that
both the woman
and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the
man?
The accusing mob completely sidestepped this critical feature of God’s
Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit
the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment.
Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go!
A third consideration that often is overlooked concerning this passage
is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you…”
(vs. 7). If this statement were to be taken as a blanket prohibition
against accusing, disciplining, or punishing the erring, impenitent
Christian, then this passage flatly contradicts a host of other passages
(e.g., Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians
3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). Jesus not only
frequently
passed judgment on a variety of individuals during His tenure on Earth
(e.g., Matthew 15:14; 23; John 8:44,55; 9:41; et al.), but also enjoined
upon His followers the necessity of doing the same thing (e.g., John
7:24). Peter could be very direct in assessing people’s spiritual status
(e.g., Acts 8:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction concerning
their fornicating brother: “Do you not
judge those who are inside? …Therefore put away from yourselves
that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added). Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must
judge
(i.e., make an accurate evaluation of) a fellow Christian’s moral
condition. Even the familiar proof text so often marshaled to promote
laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew 7:1) records
Jesus admonishing disciples: “…then you will see clearly to remove the
speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current culture-wide
celebration of being
nonjudgmental (cf. “I’m OK, You’re OK”) is clearly out of harmony with Bible teaching.
So Jesus
could not have been offering a blanket prohibition
against taking appropriate action with regard to the sins of our
fellows. Then what did His words mean? What else could possibly be going
on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine, and
terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack
Him, by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Christ’s words
that had such power to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their
clamor faded to silence and they departed “one by one, beginning with
the oldest” (vs. 9)?
Most commentators suggest that He shamed them by forcing them to
realize that “nobody is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley
crew—with their notorious and repeatedly documented
hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had
conveyed the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is
perfect,” or “We’ve all done things were not proud of.” These heartless
scribes and Pharisees were brazen enough to divert her case from the
proper judicial proceedings and to humiliate her by forcibly hauling her
into the presence of Jesus, thereby making her a public spectacle of
her. Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters, they
cruelly subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2)
who had come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been
discouraged from their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus
that “nobody’s perfect.”
So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Jesus was striking
at precisely the same point that Paul drove home to hard-hearted,
hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man,
whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn
yourself; for you who judge
practice the same things”
(Romans 2:1, emp. added). Paul was especially specific on the very point
with which Jesus dealt: “You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you
commit adultery?” (vs. 22). In other words, no person is qualified to
call attention to another’s sin when that individual is in the
ongoing practice of the same sin.
Again, as Jesus previously declared, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank
from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck
out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). After all, it is the “
spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).
Consequently, in the context under consideration, it may well be that Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were
guilty of the very thing
for which they were willing to condemn her. (It is not beyond the realm
of possibility that the fellow with whom the woman had committed
adultery was in league with the accusers.) Jesus was able to prick them
with their guilt by causing them to realize that
He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the
first
stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked
legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or ineligible. Jesus was
striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were unqualified to
fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus
deserved to be brought up on similar charges. They were intimidated into
silence and retreat by their realization that Jesus was privy to their
own indiscretions—and possibly on the verge of divulging them publicly.
Observe carefully that at the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a
technical legal question when he asked to: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV).
The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had
brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated
the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be
established and sentence passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord”
(vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning
of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were
not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held
legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as
an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither do I
condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be
judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous!
The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was
declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under
judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities.
But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it!
You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”
Incredible! These scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a
trap. Yet Jesus, as was so often the case (e.g., Matthew 21:23-27),
“turned the tables” on His accusers and caught
them in a trap
instead! At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and abiding respect
for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and His Father
had authored. Jesus was the only person Who ever complied with Mosaic
legislation perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). He never
sought to excuse human violation of law, nor to minimize the binding and
authoritative application of law to people. Any interpretation of any
passage that depicts Jesus as
violating God’s law in order to
forgive or accommodate man is a false interpretation, as is any
interpretation that relegates law to a status of secondary importance
(cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11; Romans 7:12). Jesus was
not in sympathy with the permissive mindset of today’s doctrinally lax
thinkers who soften doctrine and the binding nature of law in the name
of “grace,” “freedom,” or “compassion.”
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS: THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW
“But doesn’t the Bible make a legitimate distinction between the
‘letter of the law’ and the ‘spirit of the law’?” It is argued that
sometimes it is necessary, even mandatory, to violate the “letter of the
law” in order to act in harmony with the “spirit of the law.” According
to this line of thinking, those who insist that obedience to the law of
God is
always required without exception are “hung up on the
letter of the law” instead of being led by the “spirit of the law” (cf.
Hook, 1984, p. 42).
This perspective naturally breeds and nurtures a relaxed attitude
toward obedience. It militates against a desire to be precise and
careful in conformity to biblical teaching. One individual explained how
his feelings of devotion to Jesus made him feel that as long as he
maintained a close “sense of nearness” to Christ, he did not have to
fret over “nit picky” concerns, like whether Christians should be
meticulous in their obedience to the laws of the land. Another person
avowed that she did not “sweat the small stuff” since she was living her
life in recognition of God’s grace, and felt certain that Jesus would
“cut her some slack.” The “small stuff” to which she referred included
such things as whether God would accept instrumental music in worship to
Him, whether God would approve of unscriptural divorce and remarriage,
and whether sprinkling may pass for New Testament baptism.
The primary passage in the New Testament marshaled in an effort to
support the “spirit vs. letter” antithesis is Paul’s remarks to the
church of Christ in Corinth (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). I urge the reader to
pause and read the third chapter of Second Corinthians before reading
the analysis that follows. Two phrases are typically excised from the
context and used as proof texts to support a notion contrary to the
chapter: “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but
the Spirit gives life” (vs. 6), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty” (vs. 17). These phrases are set forth by some as proof
that Christians ought not to be too meticulous in conforming strictly
to various New Testament directives. Those who suggest such assume that
“letter” refers to the commands of God—the written statements of
Scripture that specify and regulate human behavior. They also assume
that “spirit” refers to one’s attitude or feelings. Hence, if the
individual
feels devoted, concerned, and sincere, he or she is
deemed in line with “the spirit of the law.” On the other hand, the
individual who appears inflexible and rigid, or overly concerned with
strict obedience, is perceived to lack “compassion” and “sensitivity,”
and too concerned with “the letter of the law.”
However, if a person takes the time to study God’s Word and refrain
from mishandling its intended meaning (Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1
Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), he or she will see that neither Paul nor
any other inspired writer agreed with such thinking. In a pericope
dealing with his apostolic ministry, Paul crafted a beautiful
allegory—what D.R. Dungan called “the most perfect antithesis to be
found in the whole Bible” (1888, p. 349). By arranging the contrasting
phrases of the antithesis into two columns, the Bible student is able
more easily to grasp Paul’s intended meaning:
| 2 CORINTHIANS 3 |
| Old Covenant |
New Covenant |
|
Ministers of the new covenant (vs. 6) |
| Of the letter (vs. 6) |
Of the Spirit (vs. 6) |
| The letter kills (vs. 6) |
The Spirit gives life (vs. 6) |
| Ministry of Death (vs. 7) |
Ministry of Spirit (vs. 8) |
| Written/Engraved on stones (vs. 7) |
|
| Ministry of condemnation (vs. 9) |
Ministry of righteousness (vs. 9) |
| Glorious (vss. 7,9.11) |
Much more glorious (vss.8-9,11) |
| Passing away (vs. 7) |
Remains (vs. 11) |
| Veil on Moses’s face (vs. 13) |
Great boldness of speech (vs. 12) |
| Veil remains in reading O.T. (vs. 14) |
Veil taken away in Christ (vs. 14) |
| Veil lies on their heart (vs. 15) |
Veil taken away when one turns to the Lord (vs. 16) |
Comparison of “the letter” vs. “the spirit” of the law (O.T./N.T.)
It should be immediately evident to the unbiased observer that “the two
legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old
Covenant” (Dungan, p. 268). Precisely the same meaning is conveyed by
the same terminology in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:29; 7:6). The Old
Testament legal system, though an excellent system for what God had in
mind (Romans 7:12), was unable to provide ultimate forgiveness for
violations of law and, in that sense, “kills.” It took Jesus’ death on
the cross to make “life” possible, i.e., actual cleansing from sin.
When one recognizes the existing contextual meaning, it becomes apparent that these verses
have absolutely nothing to do
with the alleged “spirit vs. letter” contention! In fact, the Bible
nowhere postulates such a thing. Like all liberal thinking, one must
refrain from thinking too much about it if one does not wish to see the
absurdity and nonsensical nature of it. The “spirit vs. letter” contrast
is “better felt than told” gobbledygook that makes no sense. In an
article titled “The Letter That Killeth” written on April 3, 1897, J.W.
McGarvey responded to just this type of thinking:
Just once in the course of his writings Paul makes the declaration
that “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians
3:7); and no remark that he ever made has been applied in a greater
number of unlicensed ways. If a man insists upon preserving some
ordinance in the very form of its original appointment, such an
ordinance as baptism or the Lord’s Supper, for example, he is accused of
contending for the letter that killeth, while the man who makes the
charge, and who changes the ordinance, claims that he is following the
spirit that giveth life. All of that large class of writers who make
free with the Scriptures while claiming to reverence their authority,
employ this device to excuse their departures from the word of God,
while those who remonstrate with them for their license are denounced as
literalists or sticklers for the letter that killeth. In all these
instances, it seems to be claimed that if you stick close to the
ordinance as Christ gave it, you will kill somebody. The last example
that attracted my attention was in connection with the number of elders
that should be appointed in a church. The writer says: “It has been
thought to be a greater evil to have a congregation without a plurality
of elders than to have an eldership without the requisite
qualifications;” and he adds: “This is to do violence to the spirit of
the New Testament in an effort to be loyal to its letter.” But which, in
this case, is the letter, and which is the spirit? To have a plurality
of elders is certainly the letter of the New Testament; that is, it is
the literal requirement; and the literal requirement also is to have
elders of prescribed qualifications. Where, then, is the spirit as
distinguished from the letter? Echo answers, Where? The writer was so in
the habit of using this favorite expression where he wished to justify a
departure from Scripture precedent that he evidently applied it in this
instance from pure habit and without thought. The watchful reader will
have seen many examples of the kind (1910, pp. 160-161).
Indeed, redefining the biblical expressions “spirit of the law” and
“letter of the law” enables the situationist to promote his agenda under
the cloak of Bible backing.
If one wishes to use the expression “the spirit of the law” to refer to
a proper attitude, and “the letter of the law” to refer to compliance
with the explicit dictates of Scripture, it is certainly true that a
person can distort or disregard “the spirit of the law” while following
carefully “the letter of the law.” A person may engage in external, rote
compliance without heartfelt, genuine love for God and His will. But it
is impossible to represent faithfully “the spirit of the law” (i.e., to
have the right attitude) while acting out of harmony with the specific
details of the law. When Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My
commands” (John 14:15), He pinpointed the fact that “love” for Him
includes
“obedience.” It is possible to obey and not love; but it is not
possible to love and not obey. One may have good intentions in one’s
religious pursuits, but if those religious actions are contrary to God’s
specified will, the activity is unacceptable to God. The situationist’s
claim that sincerity and feelings of “love” legitimize whatever action
“love” takes, is in direct contradiction to Bible teaching.
The fact of the matter is that God has always required that people
approach him “in truth,” i.e., according to the divine directives that
he revealed to man. The only worship that has ever been acceptable to
God has been that worship which has been undertaken with (1) a proper
attitude, frame of mind, and disposition conducive to spirituality, and
(2) faithfulness to the specific items which God pinpointed as the
proper external acts to be performed. Jesus made this fact very clear in
His encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:23-24). God has never
accepted one without the other. He has always required both. He has
always required two facets of response to His will: the right action
with the right attitude. Notice the following chart of scriptures:
| PASSAGE |
ATTITUDE |
ACTION |
| John 4:24 |
spirit |
truth |
| Joshua 24:14 |
sincerity |
truth |
| Ecclesiastes 12:13 |
fear God |
keep commands |
| Acts 10:35 |
fear Him |
work righteous |
| James 2:17 |
faith |
works |
| 1 John 3:18 |
word/tongue |
deed/truth |
| Deuteronomy 10:12-13 |
fear/love—heart |
walk/ways |
| Romans 1:9 |
with my spirit |
in the gospel |
To emphasize one dimension of obedience over the other is to hamper
one’s acceptance by God. Bible history is replete with instances of
those who possessed one without the other and were unacceptable to God.
The Pharisees (Matthew 23:3), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:2-4), and the
people of Amos’ day (Amos 5:21-24) engaged in the
external forms, but were unacceptable because of their
insincerity. Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:1), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2), and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6) all demonstrated
genuine motives, but were unacceptable to God because of their failure to observe the
right forms.
Think for a moment of the many in biblical history who failed to
approach God “in truth,” that is, they approached God, but did so
without sufficient attention to complying with the details and
guidelines that God had articulated. Adam and Eve, regardless of the
condition of their attitude, were condemned by God for the
external act
of eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17; 3:11). Likewise, Nadab and
Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3), the Sabbath breaker (Numbers 15:32-36), Moses
(Numbers 20:11,12), Achan (Joshua 7), Saul (1 Samuel 13:13,14;
15:19-23), Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1-7; 1 Chronicles 15:12,13), King Uzziah (2
Chronicles 26:16-18), and Ezra’s contemporaries (Ezra 10)—all
experienced the displeasure of God for their deviation from divine
directions.
God has not changed in His insistence upon man’s loving obedience to
His instructions (John 14:15; 15:14; 1 John 5:3). The Old Testament was
written, among other reasons, in order for Christians to learn from the
example of those who departed from God’s way (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians
10:11). New Testament faith, the kind of faith that Christians must
possess if they wish to be pleasing and acceptable to God, is
obedient trust—trust that conforms to God’s will (Hebrews 11; James 2).
The psalmist understood that God’s truth consisted of God’s written
words (cf. Psalm 119:30,43,142,151,160). So did Jesus when He said, “Thy
word is truth,” and declared that the basis of judgment would be the
words that He spoke (John 17:17; 12:47-48). Worshipping God “in truth”
is equivalent to “doing truth,” which entails “deeds” or external
actions which are prescribed by God (John 3:19-21; cf. loving “in truth”
in 1 John 3:18). When Jesus taught the way of God “in truth” (Matthew
22:16), He related information that accurately represented God’s will.
When the Colossians heard “the word of the truth of the gospel”
(Colossians 1:5), they heard the specific tenets, doctrines,
requirements, and teachings to which they had to conform their lives.
Situationism, antinomianism (freedom from law), and liberalism (loosing
where God has bound) share in common their mutual aversion to law
keeping. Christians must not fall prey to these sinister forces that
attempt to soften and obscure the clear call from God to render
obedience to His directives. What He seeks from people is conformity to
His laws out of hearts full of sincerity, earnestness, and love.
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS: THE GRAINFIELD
“But what about that time when the Pharisees reprimanded Jesus’
disciples for picking grain and eating on the Sabbath? Was not that
incident a clear case of Jesus advocating freedom from the ‘letter of
the law’ in order to keep the ‘spirit of the law’? Was not Jesus
sanctioning occasional violations of law in order to serve the higher
good of human need and spiritual freedom?”
A chorus of voices within Christendom is insisting that the report of
Jesus’ disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8) does,
indeed, advocate Christian “freedom” (i.e., freedom from law) and its
priority over rule-keeping (e.g., Clayton, 1991, pp. 21-22; Collier,
1987, pp. 24-28; Lucado, 1989; Woodruff, 1978, pp. 198-200). Abilene
Christian University professor David Wray wrote in reference to Jesus:
“He healed and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. Jesus
then used ‘theological reflection’ to help his followers understand
that
people take priority over rule keeping and legalism” (1992, p. 1, emp. added). Richard Rogers claimed: “Jesus taught…that people took priority over
the rules” (1989, p. 14, emp. added). Compare these statements to the one made by Randy Fenter: “It is not
what we follow, but
who
we follow; not a set of values but a Person. ...Are you committed to a
set of Christian values, or are you committed to Jesus Christ who died
for you?” (1993, p. 1, emp. in orig.). Frank Cox claimed that Jesus had
“the power to
modify or change the rules of Sabbath observance. Sabbath observance must
bend to human needs” (1959, p. 41, emp. added). Another writer insisted that “there are occasions when
necessity outweighs precept,
as Jesus himself indicated in Matthew 12:1-5” (Scott, 1995, p. 2, emp.
added). Still another writer claimed that Jesus was suggesting, “the
Sabbath commandment was
optional if inconvenient” (Downen, 1988, emp. added). Hook insists, “David and his soldiers ate the bread of the Presence and
Jesus gave His approval of the action” (1984, p. 30, emp. added).
Interestingly enough, these remarks are insidiously reminiscent of the
very ideas promoted by the most theologically liberal sources
imaginable. The “Father of Situation Ethics,” himself, wrote that
“Christians, in any case, are commanded to
love people, not principles” (1967, p. 239, emp. added). He referred specifically to Matthew 12 when he said that Jesus was “ready to
ignore the Sabbath observance” and that He “put his stamp of approval on the
translegality
of David’s action, in the paradigm of the altar bread” (pp. 15,17, emp.
added). A Fort Worth First United Methodist Church minister stated:
“Instead of putting the Scriptures first we should put God first” (as
quoted in Jones, 1988, 1:8). This sort of humanistic inclination
constitutes a great threat to the stability of the church and the
Christian religion. It undermines the authority of Scripture, and
further fosters the shift to emotion, feelings, and subjective
perception as the standard for decision-making (see “The Shift to
Emotion” in Miller, 1996, pp. 52-63).
It never seems to dawn on those who promulgate the “love Jesus vs. love
law” antithesis that they are striking directly against the Bible’s own
emphasis. Their contrast is not only unbiblical, but borders on
blasphemy. Was the psalmist “legalistic” when he declared to God, “Oh,
how I love Your law!” (Psalm 119:97)? Was he “idolatrous” or guilty of
“bibliolatry” (book-worshipping) when he declared: “How sweet are Your
words to my taste; sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalm 119:103)?
Over and over again, he affirmed his
love for God’s Word: “…Your commandments, which I
love” (vss. 47-48); “I
love Your law” (vs. 113); “I
love Your testimonies” (vs. 119); “I
love Your commandments more than gold” (vs. 127); “Your word is very pure; therefore Your servant
loves it” (vs. 140); “I
love Your precepts” (vs. 159); “I
love Your law” (vs. 163); “Great peace have those who
love Your law” (vs. 165); “I
love them exceedingly” (vs. 167). He claimed that God’s words were
his delight (vss. 24,35,70,77,92,143,174),
his hope (vss. 43,49,74,81,114,147,166), and
his life (vs. 50). He even stated: “I opened my mouth and
panted for, I
longed for Your commandments” (vs. 131; cf. vss. 20,40).
The fact of the matter is one cannot
love God or Jesus
without loving and being devoted to
Their teachings.
That is why Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”
(John 14:15). “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who
loves Me” (John 14:21). “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word” (John
14:23). “He who does not love Me does not keep My words” (John 14:24).
John echoed his Savior when he said: “[W]hoever keeps His word, truly
the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him”
(1 John 2:5), and “For this is the love of God, that we keep His
commandments” (1 John 5:3). How ludicrous and contrary to the essence of
deity to place
in contrast—to pit
against each other—God
and God’s laws. This is a bogus, unscriptural juxtaposition. It is not a
matter of either/or; it is both/and. To minimize one is to minimize the
other. Those who do so are surely in the same category as those of whom
Paul spoke: “…they did not receive the
love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10, emp. added).
It likewise does not seem to dawn on those who espouse the “rules must
bend to human necessity” philosophy that they are insulting the God of
heaven—He Who
authored the rules. Does it even remotely begin to
make sense that God would author a law, tell humans they are obligated
to obey that law, but then “take it back” and tell them they do
not have to obey that law if it is “inconvenient,” or if it is in conflict with “human need,” or if necessity requires it? And
who,
precisely, is to make the determination as to whether God’s law in a
particular instance is “inconvenient”? Surely not man—since “it is not
in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). And
which people in all of human history
ever found conformity to God’s laws “convenient”? “
Every way of a man is right in his
own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2, emp. added; cf. 16:2).
Imagine parents telling their children that it is the will of those
parents that the children obey the following instructions: “Do not
steal, cheat, or lie.” Then imagine those same parents additionally
stating: “But kids, if any of these requirements are inconvenient, or if
your friends ask you to go help them steal a car, or if you feel you
must cheat on a test to insure graduation, hey, ‘people take priority
over rules,’ so if you must, feel free to ignore these requirements.”
Those parents who take this approach to parenting inevitably produce
lawless, undisciplined, unruly, irresponsible children. In fact, those
parents eventually find that their children
do not love them!
MEANING OF MATTHEW 12:1-8
Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against
Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge.
However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain
from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly
lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25).
Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun
harvesting
the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However,
they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an
action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that
which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). The Pharisees’ charge that the
disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply
an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).
Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating
logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific
scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational
device designated by logicians as
argumentum ad hominem
(literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of
this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the
opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that
the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as
hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s
inconsistency,
and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged
reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by
self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).
Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’
strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When
David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the
jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob,
tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him
into giving them the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (twelve flat
cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus
25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6]), to his traveling companions—bread that
legally was reserved
only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf.
Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the
law. Did the Pharisees condemn
him? Absolutely not! They revered
David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years
after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1
Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus,
1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus,
who were
innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was
guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.
After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to
answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their
attention to the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath (12:5;
e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—
not guilty—of
violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be
performed on that day. After all, the Sabbath law did not imply that
everyone was to sit down and
do nothing. The Law gave the right,
even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not
constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Examples of such
authorization included eating, temple service, circumcision (John 7:22),
tending to the care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4;
Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the
needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The
divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests
proved that
the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was
false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech
known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of
according to appearance,
opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan,
1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the
“mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father”
of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be
“foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men”
(e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the
appearance
of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger
classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of
catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true
according to the
mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (p. 676, emp. added)].
After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on
the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is
One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually
has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on
tabernacle/temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples
were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God!
After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater
than the pre-Christianity temple service conducted by Old Testament
priests.
For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had
disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took
His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated
beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused
on their
hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire
mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless”
(12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea
6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere
external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to the
neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while
treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who
confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s
law. They were masquerading under that
pretense (cf. Matthew
15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring
careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping
was
hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and
concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more
concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest,
genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.
They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void
the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the
significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew
23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was
laudable, their
misapplication of it, as well as their
neglect and rejection
of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified
promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the
teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83].
God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the
Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather,
He was saying that He did not want sacrifice
alone. He wanted mercy
with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are
just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.
Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as
great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice
of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than
the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the
essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting
Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e.,
alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke
screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to
destroy
all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these
things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law
when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have
condemned the
guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).
While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the
Pharisees had made up (supposing the injunction to be a genuine
implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of
a technical violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for
enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law
upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a
kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake
rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.
Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this
occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire
affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In
other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials
and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law
of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and
application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!
Matthew 12 does
not teach that Jesus sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are
never
optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s
will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12;
19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that
if the heart is receptive
to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard”
(Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other
hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it,
then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60),
“narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and
grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS: "LEGALISM"
“But this all sounds so legalistic! I thought the Bible condemned
legalism.” One pervasive cultural phenomenon in American society is the
predilection to be averse to law, restriction, and limitation. “Freedom”
gradually has come to be conceptualized as freedom from restraint.
Those who do not embrace a lax, casual, and open attitude toward moral
value and ethical behavior are labeled “intolerant” and “mean-spirited.”
Even within Christian circles, stressing the need to conform strictly
to the will of God in all matters of faith and practice can cause one to
be labeled as a “fundamentalist.” He is set aside as an immature and
pharisaical misfit who simply has never “grown” to the point of grasping
the true spirit of Jesus. He is “negative” and lacks “compassion.” And,
yes, he is a “
legalist.”
Listening carefully to the majority of those who fling about the term
“legalistic,” it is soon apparent that they understand the term to refer
to
too much attention to legal detail. In the 1960s, Fletcher pinpointed the popular notion of “legalism”:
In this ethical strategy the “situational variables” are taken into
consideration, but the circumstances are always subordinated to
predetermined general “laws” of morality. Legalistic ethics treats many
of its rules idolatrously by making them into absolutes.… In this kind
of morality, properly labeled as legalism or law ethics, obedience to
prefabricated ‘rules of conduct’ is more important than freedom to make
responsible decisions (1967, p. 31).
It would be difficult to underestimate the cataclysmic consequences of
this depiction on the moral fiber of human civilization. Typical of the
widespread misconception that “legalism” has to do with giving too much
attention to complete obedience, is the illustration given by a
preacher, college professor, and prominent marriage and family therapist
in a university lecture titled “Getting Ahead: Taking Your Family With
You:”
I found out when you’re dialing numbers...you have to dial about
eighteen numbers to get started, and then you have to dial eighteen
more—you know what I’m talking about? And if you miss, what? If you miss
ONE—just ONE—you say ugly things to yourself, don’t you? Because you know you blew it again. It is amazing how legalistic the telephone company is (Faulkner, 1992, emp. added).
The very idea that
obedience to God’s laws would one day be viewed as
negative by those who profess adherence to Christianity, and then for this obedience to be denounced as “
legalism,”
is utterly incomprehensible. Such a posture should be expected to shake
the very foundations of a nation’s standards of morality, stimulating a
corresponding widespread relaxation of moral behavior. Yet is this not
precisely what has happened to American civilization in the last forty
years?
What exactly is “legalism” according to the Bible? Is “legalism” to be
equated with too much concern for obedience? Is “legalism” equivalent to
ardent determination to keep God’s commandments? One who possesses such
a view would naturally tend to gloss over “details” of New Testament
teaching, relegating to the realm of minimal importance various matters
that he or she deems are not “weightier matters of the law.” In the
words of one rather permissive preacher, “We don’t sweat the small
stuff.”
Surprisingly, the term “legalism” does not actually occur in the Bible.
However, many extrabiblical words have been coined to describe biblical
concepts (e.g., “providence”). In its classical, negative usage,
“legalism” entails
trusting one’s own goodness. Legalism pertains to one’s
attitude
about his own person (i.e., having an inflated sense of
self-importance—Luke 18:11-12; Proverbs 25:27; Romans 12:3) and practice
(i.e., thinking he or she can
earn or merit salvation on the
basis of performance—Luke 17:10; Romans 3:9-18,23; 11:35; 1 Corinthians
9:16). Legalism does not pertain to the propriety of the practices
themselves. God always has
condemned the person who is proud of his obedient actions, who trusts in his own goodness, and who expects to receive God’s grace
on the basis of those actions (cf. Luke 18:9ff.; Romans 9:31ff.). But He always has
commended
the person who maintains absolute fidelity to the specifics of His
commands (e.g., John 14:15; Romans 2:6-7,13; 6:16; Hebrews 5:9). The
difference between the former and the latter is the
attitude of
the individual—a factor that only God is in a position to perceive (Luke
6:8). How presumptuous it is for one Christian to denounce another
Christian simply on the basis that the latter exhibits meticulous
loyalty to God’s Word—as if the former is able automatically to know his
brother’s motive, and thus somehow read his mind. Purveyors of
religious error often
redefine otherwise good terms, placing
their own spin on the word, thereby subtly slipping their false doctrine
in on unsuspecting listeners. The liberal has redefined “legalism,”
shifting the meaning from the
attitude of being self-righteous to the
action of conscientious obedience to all of God’s Word.
As proof of this contention, consider the classic examples of
“legalism” in the New Testament: the Pharisees. Why may the Pharisees be
classified as legalists? To answer that question, one must examine
wherein Jesus found fault with the Pharisees. He reprimanded them for
three central failings. First, they were guilty of
hypocrisy. They
pretended to be devoted, and went to great lengths to
appear
righteous, but they did not actually follow through with genuine,
loving obedience to God (Matthew 23:4-7,25-28). Second, they gave
attention to
some biblical matters, but neglected
others
of greater importance (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42). Jesus referred to
this tendency as straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matthew
23:24). (Of course, He was, thereby, neither advocating nor endorsing
gnat swallowing.) Third, they
misinterpreted Mosaic law (Matthew
5:17-48), and even went about binding and enforcing their fallacious
interpretations, elevating these human traditions, laws, and doctrines
to the level of scripture (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). Jesus
repeatedly upbraided the Pharisees for these three spiritual maladies.
But with these three shortcomings in mind, notice that the “legalism” of
the Pharisees did
not have to do with fervent attention to fulfilling the “letter of the law.” The Pharisees were
not
condemned because they were too zealous about strict obedience to God’s
will. They were condemned because “they say, and do not” (Matthew
23:2).
As a matter of fact, God
always has been vitally concerned that those who wish to be pleasing to Him give great care to
obeying the details and particulars
of His instructions (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-3; 2 Samuel 6:1-7; 1
Chronicles 15:12-13). Jesus even equated this crucial sensitivity to
obedience with
love for Him (John 14:15; 15:14). Many who possess
a flippant, blasé attitude toward rigid obedience, think that they are
avoiding a “legalistic” syndrome, when they actually are demonstrating
lax, weak spirituality and unfaithfulness.
“Faithfulness” is, by definition,
obedient trust or loyal compliance with the stipulations of God’s will (James 2:17-26). “Righteousness” is, by definition,
right doing
(Acts 10:34-35; 1 John 3:7). Abraham understood this (Genesis 26:5;
Hebrews 11:8). Moses understood this (Deuteronomy 4:2; 6:17; 10:12;
11:8,13,22,27-28). Joshua understood this (Joshua 23:6,11; 24:14-15).
John understood this (1 John 5:3). So did Paul (Romans 6:16).
In reality, outcries of “legalism” can serve as a convenient smoke
screen to justify departure from the faith, and to cloak an agenda that
seeks to introduce unbiblical worship innovations into the body of
Christ. Make no mistake: there are hypocrites in the church, as well as
those with critical hearts whose demands for conformity arise out of
self-righteous arrogance. But the
major threat confronting the
people of God today is the perennial problem of humanity: a stubborn,
rebellious propensity for deviation/apostasy—i.e., an unwillingness to
submit humbly to God’s directives (e.g., Genesis 4:7; 1 Samuel 15:22-23;
Ecclesiastes 12:13; Micah 6:8; Matthew 7:13-14; Romans 3:10-12; 6:16;
10:21; 2 Thessalonians 1:8). That is precisely why, after rebuking the
Pharisees for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law,” i.e.,
justice, mercy, faith, and the love of God (cf. John 5:42), Jesus
reiterated: “These [i.e., the weightier matters—DM] you ought to have done,
without leaving the others [i.e., the less weightier matters—DM]
undone” (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42, emp. added). This is also why Jesus declared: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the
least
of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven…. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness
exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no
means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19-20). He meant that
careful attention to all of God’s commandments—including those deemed
“least”—demonstrates a conscientious regard for pleasing God. Whether
under Judaism or in the kingdom of Christ, seeking to obey God with an
humble attitude is paramount. Those who relegate some doctrinal matters
to a status of less importance (e.g., worshipping God without human
additions—like instrumental music, praise teams, choirs, and baby
dedications), and teach others to participate in these unscriptural
innovations, thinking that God will not be “nit-picky” over such “minor”
things, will find themselves facing eternal tragedy.
Yes, we must avoid “legalism.” A smug sense of superiority and
spiritual self-sufficiency will cause a person to be lost eternally
(e.g., Luke 18:9-14). But who would have imagined—who could have
anticipated—that the day could come when God’s demand for
obedience would be circumvented, derided, and set aside as “
legalism”? Those who advance this viewpoint are, in actuality, advocating “
illegalism”!
We dare not mistake “legalism” for loving obedience to the will of God
in every facet of our lives. Instead, we must carefully “do all those
things which are commanded” (Luke 17:10), recalling Jesus’ words: “Why
call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).
We must stake our lives upon the grace of God, but then we must love
and obey Him, remembering that “this is love for God: that we keep his
commandments” (1 John 5:3).
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS: 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12; 10:23
Another allusion to Scripture by the situationist in an attempt to
bolster his case is Paul’s statement: “All things are lawful for me, but
all things are not helpful; all things are lawful for me, but all
things do not edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23; cf. 6:12). Fletcher appealed
to this statement by Paul as proof that moral absolutes are not binding
in all situations:
As Paul said twice in his letter to Corinth (chs. 6:12; 10:23), this
approach fails to perceive that it is not its being “lawful” that makes a
thing good but whether it is expedient, edifying, constructive—whether
it builds up. What else could make a thing “lawful” (i.e., loving)
except agapeic expediency? Theodore Roosevelt was either not quite
candid or not very thoughtful when he said, “No man is justified in
doing evil on the ground of expediency.” He was much too mired down in
“intrinsic” moralism (1967, p. 22; cf. Hook, 1984, pp. 47-48).
Fletcher makes precisely the same mistake that the Corinthians had made
in misunderstanding Paul’s teaching. In context, Paul was referring to
the legality of consuming foods sacrificed to idols, in contrast with
the inexpediency of doing so in light of weaker brothers. He was
teaching that Christians must be willing to make concessions on
indifferent,
technically lawful, matters for the sake of weak Christians.
Paul certainly was
not saying that absolute, unchanging laws do
not exist, or that God’s laws possess a “flexibility and elasticity”
that enables them occasionally to be set aside! As McGarvey and
Pendleton observed, the Corinthians “had erred in taking the rule as to
things indifferent, such as natural appetites, and so applying it as to
make it cover not only sinful things, but even those grossly so, such as
sensuous lusts” (n.d., pp. 76-77). So when Paul said “all things are
lawful for me,” he was not referring to the absolute laws of God; he was
referring to things that are
legally optional. The eating of meat to which the context refers was
lawful. But to eat or not to eat it was a matter of option and personal opinion. In such cases,
and only in such cases, Paul taught that one’s decision must be made on the basis of
expediency,
i.e., how it affected the spiritual condition of others (cf. Woods,
1986, 2:161-162). Fletcher is guilty of the very thing for which the
Corinthians were rebuked and corrected.
CONCLUSION
Probably no greater threat to the stability of society exists in our
day than the humanistic, antinomian philosophy of situationism and its
multi-faceted pluralistic and/or post-modernistic manifestations. It is
part and parcel of the general rebellion against the authority of God’s
Word that engulfs America. Vast numbers of people are living life and
making decisions based upon their own subjective perceptions and
personal feelings. For them, the concepts of right and wrong, truth and
error are obscure, blurred, hazy, gray, and complex. What is wrong in
one situation may be right and acceptable in another situation. Satan
has done his job well. He has made great strides in American culture in
the last half century in his effort to break down biblical values and
moral absolutes. He has succeeded in replacing this framework with a
tolerant, open, permissive attitude and outlook that refrains from
passing judgment on anybody or anything. The “I’m Okay, You’re Okay”
perspective has been embedded firmly into American civilization.
The mindset of today’s situationist is not new. We humans do not
generally regard rules and regulations as positive phenomena. We usually
perceive them as infringements on our freedom—deliberate attempts to
restrict our behavior and interfere with our “happiness.” Like children,
we may have a tendency to display resentment and a rebellious spirit
when faced with spiritual requirements. We may feel that God is being
arbitrary and merely burdening our lives with haphazard, insignificant
strictures. But God would
never do that. He has
never placed upon
anyone
any requirement that was inappropriate, unnecessary, or unfair. During
the Israelites' final encampment on the plains of Moab prior to entrance
into Canaan, Moses articulated a most important principle: “[T]he Lord
commanded us to observe all these statutes…
for our good always”
(Deuteronomy 6:24, emp. added; cf. 10:13). God never would ask us to do
anything that is harmful to us. He does not restrict us or exert His
authority over us in order to purposely make us unhappy. Quite the
opposite! God knows exactly what will make us happy.
Compliance with His wishes
will make a person happy (John 13:17; James 1:25), exalted (James
4:10), righteous (Romans 6:16; 1 John 3:7), and wise (Matthew 24:45-46;
7:24).
Those who wish to relieve themselves of restriction will continue to
invent ways to circumvent the intent of Scripture. They will continue to
“twist” (2 Peter 3:16) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2
Corinthians 4:2). They will exert pressure on everyone else to “back
off,” “lighten up,” and embrace a more tolerant understanding of ethical
conduct. But the “honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15) will “take heed
how [he/she] hears” (vs.18). The good heart is the one who
“reads...hears...and
keeps those things which are written therein”
(Revelation 1:3, emp. added). After all, no matter how negative they
may appear to humans, no matter how difficult they may be to obey, they
are given “for our good.”
The Bible simply does not countenance situation ethics. Jesus always
admonished people to “keep the commandments” (e.g., Matthew 19:17). He
kept God’s commands Himself—
perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26). And He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who
obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Barna, George (2003), “Morality Continues to Decay,” [On-line], URL: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=152&Reference=F.
Baum, Robert (1975),
Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1955),
Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (SCM Press).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Brunner, Emil (1947),
The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Chesser, Frank (2001),
The Spirit of Liberalism (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs).
Clarke, Adam (no date),
Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Clayton, John N. (1991), “Creation Versus Making—A Key to Genesis 1,”
Does God Exist?, 18[1]:6-10, January/February.
Collier, Gary (1987), “Bringing the Word to Life: An Assessment of the
Hermeneutical Impasse in Churches of Christ; Part II: ‘The Scholarship
Movement,’” Paper presented to the Christian Scholars Conference at
Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, July.
Copi, Irving (1972),
Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).
Cox, Frank (1959),
Treatises of Luke (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Cox, Harvey (1965),
The Secular City (New York: MacMillan).
Downen, Ray (1988), Personal letter, Joplin, MO, September 7.
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Faulkner, Paul (1992), “Getting Ahead: Taking Your Family With You” (Henderson, TN: F-HU Lectureship).
Fenter, Randy (1993), “Person or Principles: To Which Are You Committed?,”
The Christian Caller, 19:48, Golf Course Road Church of Christ Bulletin (Midland, TX), December 1.
Fletcher, Joseph (1966),
Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fletcher, Joseph (1967),
Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Hook, Cecil (1984),
Free In Christ (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author), seventh printing.
Hook, Cecil (1990),
Free To Change (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author).
Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint),
Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint),
Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jones, Jim (1988), “Methodist Minister Opposes Move Toward Bible’s Primacy,”
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 24.
Lucado, Max (1989), “When Religion Goes Bad,” Audiotape of a sermon
presented at the Oak Hills Church of Christ, San Antonio, TX, October
29.
Lucado, Max (1996),
In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910),
Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint),
Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Pendleton (no date),
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968),
The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Metzger, Bruce (1971),
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).
Miller, Dave (1996),
Piloting the Strait (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932),
Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s).
Ridenour, Fritz (1969),
The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books).
Robinson, John A.T. (1963),
Honest to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press).
Rogers, Richard (1989), “Encouraging Things I See,”
Image, 5[1]:1-2, January.
Scott, Buff (1995), “Wayne Jackson Rides Again!,”
The Reformer, 11[6]:2, November/December.
Warren, Thomas B. (1972),
Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. (1986),
The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Woodruff, James (1978), in Thomas B. Warren’s “Charts You Can Use in
Preaching, Teaching, Studying on Divorce and Remarriage” (Jonesboro, AR:
National Christian Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1986),
Questions and Answers (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Woods, Guy N. (1989),
A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Wray, David (1992), “Future Directions for Religious Education,”
Directions in Ministry, 1[4]:1, College of Biblical Studies, Abilene Christian University.
