source

Jesus and Situation Ethics

In his book, The Christian New Morality, O. Sydney Barr stated that “The new morality is biblical morality. Behind it lies the authority of Jesus Christ himself” (p. 6). Situationists use for proof (?) Jesus’ defense of his disciples of the charge brought against them by the Pharaisees of eating grain on the Sabbath (Matt., 12:1-8). The Pharisees considered the plucking of the grain and the rubbing it in their hands to separate the grain from the chaff, work, thereby violating the Sabbath.

Jesus vindicated His disciples, according to situationists, by His approval of David breaking the law of God in eating the forbidden showbread (1 Sam. 21:6; Lev. 24:9). They tell us that human welfare has preference over the laws of God. By sanctioning David’s action, Jesus in turn justified His disciples, and established a precedent for all time to come, they reason.

But Jesus never approved or encouraged the violation of God’s law under any circumstances. Eating on the Sabbath was not a violation of God’s law. Sin is a transgression of law (1 Jn. 3:4). Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15). Hence, He never violated a law of God. Neither did He encourage His followers to sin or try to justify their sins.

Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). From this passage we can see clearly what Jesus thinks of lawbreakers. Adherence to God’s laws is emphasized over and over in the Bible.

J.W. McGarvey, commenting on Matt. 12:3-5, stated: “Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground David excused himself for eating the showbread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him. But it can not be that he who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by a forty days’ fast . . . would approve such a violation of law as David was guilty of. Neither can it be that he allowed his own disciples while under the law to break the Sabbath. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial.

“But it is clear that by the Pharisees David’s act was thought excusable; otherwise they could have retorted on Jesus thus: Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David’s; but David sinned, and so do you. Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them” (The New Testament Commentary, pp. 103-104).

In regard to the priests profaning the Sabbath by their religious services in the temple (v. 5), McGarvey says, “Having silenced his opponents by the argument ad hominem, he next proves by the law itself that some work may be done on the Sabbath day. The priests in the temple were required to offer sacrifice, trim the golden lamps, and burn incense on the Sabbath, and these acts required manual labor. In this case, the general law against labor on the Sabbath was modified by the specific law concerning the temple service. The term “profane” is used, not because it was a real profanation, but because, being labor, it had the appearance of profanation. The example proves that the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath was not universal, and as it was not, it might not include what the disciples had just done” (Ibid., p. 104).