The Bible Teaches Moral Absolutes

by  Daniel R. Heimbach                                                                                                                        Vol. IX, No. 8, September 1996

           As American society reaps the sad consequences of moral decline, even non-believers are having second thoughts about the culture's rejection of moral absolutes. Where there are no moral absolutes, there is no real difference between right and wrong. And, if nothing is really right or wrong, then anything goes, justice retreats, and society crumbles into anarchy.

           Today a new generation is coming of age with little on which to stand other than the self-indulgent moral relativism handed them by adults still following the siren song of the 1960s -- the illusion that utopia lies within reach of a society visionary enough to reject fixed moral bearings. Now adults of the 1960's generation, seeing the chaos wrought by children taught to believe in moral relativism, are wondering if they did the right thing. They are discovering a spiritual and moral vacuum only God can fill. This means the Church in America has never had a better opportunity than now to be a beacon of truth illuminating the real dangers that hazard a darkening culture.

           Unhappily, despite a new openness among unbelievers to consider the possibility of moral absolutes, not all who call themselves "Christians" are willing to shed light into places shadowed by moral darkness. Indeed, some Christian ethicists are embarrassed by talk of moral absolutes and cloak their objection to biblical imperatives with a mantle of contrived sophistication. Those who accept the moral absolutes of the Bible as authoritative and final -- part of the inerrant Word of God -- are dismissed as naive or simplistic.

           I recently came across an example of such contrived sophistication in an article that quoted Foy Valentine, former executive director of the SBC’s Christian Life Commission. Valentine distanced himself from biblically defined absolutes because he claimed the Bible is morally "simplistic" and needs correction by those able to exercise a more mature level of moral analysis. This view, he explained, is needed because religious people know that actions such as killing and divorce cannot always be wrong. Biblical morality, he said, must be set aside to allow for just wars, killing an intruder who threatens the life of a baby, and the use of deadly force by police officers.

           Is this a fair representation of biblical morality? Or is it just a pretext covering retreat into the darkness of moral relativism? And, if teachers of the Church retreat into the darkness of moral relativism, where will searching non-believers in the surrounding culture go to find convincing moral absolutes?

           In the face of such retreat, we must affirm, not only that the Bible teaches what it teaches about morality with authority and without error; we must also say it is not "simplistic,” meaning we cannot legitimately ignore the firmness of its moral standards just because the world in which we live happens to be complicated.

           Yes, moral standards set forth in the Bible may be strict. But they certainly are not shallow. In fact, the moral depth found in Scripture goes well beyond the limits of our human understanding, and this should not surprise us because God goes beyond the limits of human understanding. It is theologically wrong to reject the moral authority of biblical absolutes. But it is both wrong and disingenuous to reject biblical absolutes while feigning intellectual superiority based on false claims concerning the nature of biblical moral teaching.

           The proper translation of the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13 prohibits "murder" -- the intentional taking of innocent human life. It does not disallow all killing per se. Indeed, the moral framework given in the Bible requires killing, where necessary to defend justice and protect the weak, and sanctions the taking of human life to punish the wicked and to secure civil security and good order.

           Furthermore, taking the life of an intruder who threatens your family at night, far from being contrary, is specifically justified by biblical moral standards. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed" (Exodus 22:2)

           Another reason given by Valentine for rejecting the moral authority of Scripture was the strictness of the biblical standards against divorce. But again, strictness of the moral norm does not justify dismissing it as simplistic. Although the Bible makes it clear that God always hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that divorce always involves some sort of sin (Matthew 19:8), it does not say that one who goes through the tragedy of divorce is always guilty of sin for doing so. According to Corinthians 7:15, it is not a sin for a Christian to accept a divorce initiated and insisted on by an unbelieving spouse.

           My concern is that any moral teacher, Christian or otherwise, who claims to reject biblical moral absolutes in favor of some more "sophisticated" morality, is in fact following some standard of moral authority he thinks is beyond and above the Bible itself. If he does so, he cannot wear the mantle of intellectual, much less moral, integrity without first identifying what moral authority he thinks deserves recognition above the authority of Scripture.

           Biblically-minded Christians refer to the Word of God as an objective moral authority that transcends their own. The Bible clearly teaches that God has issued moral judgments which are reliable, unchanging and absolute. The God of the Bible says, "l, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right" (Isaiah 45:19). He also says, "l, the Lord, do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Jesus rebuked religious leaders in his day saying: "You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.‘' (Matthew 16:3) At a time when our culture is headed toward increasing moral darkness and even non-believers are regretting the loss of moral absolutes, Christians ought not to be embarrassed by the firmness of biblical morality. Rather we must recognize the signs of our time and affirm confidence in God's moral revelation.

           How will the world know the truth unless light penetrates the darkness? And how will the light shine, if Christians are embarrassed by the firm nature of biblical moral doctrine?

Daniel Heimbach is associate professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Seminary. He served in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam and was a member of the Bush White House. [Reprinted from SBC Life October 1995.]