So much insight in this one Justin, and yet, my brain keeps going back and forth on this one!
One interesting part here is when you referenced Daniel. I initially assumed you referenced him as it had to do with him being thrown into the lion's den for his disobedience of continuing to worship God and not the king. And as we all know, God sent His angel to protect Daniel, causing the king to make a great decree over his life, and Daniel prospered greatly during this time.
But prior to all of this in chapter 6, we first come to chapter 3, a chapter where Daniel is nowhere mentioned, but his presence is implied by the sheer fact of all the important people King Nebuchadnezzar summoned. If we assume that unlike his friends, Daniel actually bowed and worshipped the golden image in fear of his life, it's obvious that God did not hold this gesture against Daniel. Daniel was still very much favored by God. (And BTW, Daniel is actually one of my favorite people in Scripture...and I think it's because of how relatable he is, at least to me).
Now, I understand that this is not lying—however, it is disobedience to governmental authority.
All this to say, I get what you're saying in this article....and what "you're not saying"😉 We must know God's Word for ourselves, develop a serious relationship with Him so that we also know His voice, and do our best to fulfill our highest moral obligation.
I've just always thought the contrast between Daniel in chapter 3 and Daniel in chapter 6 was very interesting. It actually demonstrates both sides of your article.
Thanks for the feedback and input! This is actually very interesting. I never considered whether Daniel was present in Ch 3 during the event. I had to go look into that theory just now, because I’m curious.
Some appear to suggest that the three thrown into the furnace may not have been the only ones that refused, they were simply the targets of opportunity to make an example of. Others seem to suggest that Daniel was away on business. This one’s difficult because the text does not say like you mentioned, so you bring up a really fascinating point.
I like to use the government example because it seems a lot more clear cut than deception and lying, which is definitely more grey.
I’m also glad you “didn’t hear what I am not saying” 🤣. I get nervous with this topic, because my goal is to demonstrate moral hierarchy, to help account for what might people might think are apparent contradictions. Some people think that means I am saying lying can be good, which I am definitely not.
Thanks again for chiming in, I have some new stuff I want to study now. For everything I study, I seem to find two more things I need to study. It never ends 😂.
Thanks Jonathan I appreciate it. I was a bit worried with this one admittedly, because I feel like it’s easy to mistakenly confuse the argument for situationism, utilitarianism, or license to sin.
My main goal is to show that moral obligations appear to be scripturally hierarchal to a degree, so that those defending their faith can be better prepared when asked to account for what appears to be “scriptural conflict.”
I’m excited to see how you tackle this. BTW I am in the last chapter of your theodicy. Man, it’s just so good!
Solid stuff. What are your thoughts on Rahab or David lying to get bread for his soldiers? I think both fit naturally into this article and also raise the question of what it means to love God and love your neighbor.
Thank you, and great question! I think the Rahab account is a stronger example in support of Graded Absolutism, though not everyone would agree.
In my view, she recognized that the spies were on a mission ordained by God and that her people stood in opposition to Him. She appears to choose God as the higher moral duty, and the overall outcome at least appears to affirm that decision.
The David account is less clear to me, if I’m being honest. Navigating the David/Saul situation is difficult because both were appointed by God, and David generally seeks to honor Saul, even while being persecuted by him. I would need to study that account more before drawing a firm conclusion.
Though I think Graded Absolutism is true, and is better argued using examples from Jesus and Daniel, I also think navigating conflicting moral obligations can still be difficult. As such, I am very thankful for God’s grace.
I agree! Graded absolutism is thankfully grounded in an unchanging moral standard. Even though that standard may come into conflict in a fallen world, it still has an immutable grounding.
True situationism on the other hand asserts that the situation completely determines right or wrong, and that there is no real underlying standard. It basically leads to relativism though, because everyone’s view is different if there is no external grounding.
Definitely confusing since both have a “situation” aspect to it, so even with grounding it can feel messy, because our understanding is fallible. Hence why I am very thankful for scripture, people smarter than me 🤣, and God’s grace.
I’ve thankfully never been in the situation either, but you bring up a good point. How we may want to act in such a situation is not so black and white.
This is why examining our hearts is so important. Is our ultimate choice based on what we think its the best path toward obedience, or the best path towards our own personal comfort?
But even then may admittedly get it wrong. We are fallen people, in a fallen world, who need a savior. This is why I am so thankful for God’s grace.
So much insight in this one Justin, and yet, my brain keeps going back and forth on this one!
One interesting part here is when you referenced Daniel. I initially assumed you referenced him as it had to do with him being thrown into the lion's den for his disobedience of continuing to worship God and not the king. And as we all know, God sent His angel to protect Daniel, causing the king to make a great decree over his life, and Daniel prospered greatly during this time.
But prior to all of this in chapter 6, we first come to chapter 3, a chapter where Daniel is nowhere mentioned, but his presence is implied by the sheer fact of all the important people King Nebuchadnezzar summoned. If we assume that unlike his friends, Daniel actually bowed and worshipped the golden image in fear of his life, it's obvious that God did not hold this gesture against Daniel. Daniel was still very much favored by God. (And BTW, Daniel is actually one of my favorite people in Scripture...and I think it's because of how relatable he is, at least to me).
Now, I understand that this is not lying—however, it is disobedience to governmental authority.
All this to say, I get what you're saying in this article....and what "you're not saying"😉 We must know God's Word for ourselves, develop a serious relationship with Him so that we also know His voice, and do our best to fulfill our highest moral obligation.
I've just always thought the contrast between Daniel in chapter 3 and Daniel in chapter 6 was very interesting. It actually demonstrates both sides of your article.
Thanks for the feedback and input! This is actually very interesting. I never considered whether Daniel was present in Ch 3 during the event. I had to go look into that theory just now, because I’m curious.
Some appear to suggest that the three thrown into the furnace may not have been the only ones that refused, they were simply the targets of opportunity to make an example of. Others seem to suggest that Daniel was away on business. This one’s difficult because the text does not say like you mentioned, so you bring up a really fascinating point.
I like to use the government example because it seems a lot more clear cut than deception and lying, which is definitely more grey.
I’m also glad you “didn’t hear what I am not saying” 🤣. I get nervous with this topic, because my goal is to demonstrate moral hierarchy, to help account for what might people might think are apparent contradictions. Some people think that means I am saying lying can be good, which I am definitely not.
Thanks again for chiming in, I have some new stuff I want to study now. For everything I study, I seem to find two more things I need to study. It never ends 😂.
This is outstanding Justin. So helpful!
I have some one-off articles coming up, but my next series will be: Toward an Integrated Christian Ethic.
You articulated this idea really well, and you’re on the right track for sure. 👍🏻
Thanks Jonathan I appreciate it. I was a bit worried with this one admittedly, because I feel like it’s easy to mistakenly confuse the argument for situationism, utilitarianism, or license to sin.
My main goal is to show that moral obligations appear to be scripturally hierarchal to a degree, so that those defending their faith can be better prepared when asked to account for what appears to be “scriptural conflict.”
I’m excited to see how you tackle this. BTW I am in the last chapter of your theodicy. Man, it’s just so good!
I think you succeed here.
Exciting! I’m glad you’re liking it. 😄
Solid stuff. What are your thoughts on Rahab or David lying to get bread for his soldiers? I think both fit naturally into this article and also raise the question of what it means to love God and love your neighbor.
Thank you, and great question! I think the Rahab account is a stronger example in support of Graded Absolutism, though not everyone would agree.
In my view, she recognized that the spies were on a mission ordained by God and that her people stood in opposition to Him. She appears to choose God as the higher moral duty, and the overall outcome at least appears to affirm that decision.
The David account is less clear to me, if I’m being honest. Navigating the David/Saul situation is difficult because both were appointed by God, and David generally seeks to honor Saul, even while being persecuted by him. I would need to study that account more before drawing a firm conclusion.
Though I think Graded Absolutism is true, and is better argued using examples from Jesus and Daniel, I also think navigating conflicting moral obligations can still be difficult. As such, I am very thankful for God’s grace.
Well said, I think situational ethics is fascinating but really messy!
I agree! Graded absolutism is thankfully grounded in an unchanging moral standard. Even though that standard may come into conflict in a fallen world, it still has an immutable grounding.
True situationism on the other hand asserts that the situation completely determines right or wrong, and that there is no real underlying standard. It basically leads to relativism though, because everyone’s view is different if there is no external grounding.
Definitely confusing since both have a “situation” aspect to it, so even with grounding it can feel messy, because our understanding is fallible. Hence why I am very thankful for scripture, people smarter than me 🤣, and God’s grace.
This was good. I like to look at it like this:
If someone asks if I am hiding someone whom they are after, either stay silent or tell them that I am not obligated to tell them.
I have never been in that situation, but that is how I view it because I have a hard time lying and would give myself away if I tried to lie.
Thanks Drew,
I’ve thankfully never been in the situation either, but you bring up a good point. How we may want to act in such a situation is not so black and white.
This is why examining our hearts is so important. Is our ultimate choice based on what we think its the best path toward obedience, or the best path towards our own personal comfort?
But even then may admittedly get it wrong. We are fallen people, in a fallen world, who need a savior. This is why I am so thankful for God’s grace.