Mark Tabata’s Weekday Devotionals
Friday, October 9
More Bible Studies Available @ http://www.marktabata.com. To Receive Free Bible Studies and updates via email, contact Mark Tabata @ 606-216-1757 (SMS Only) or mailto:markatabata@gmail.com (Email). Follow me on Substack: http://substack.com/@marktabata. Also, please visit my author page: http://amazon.com/author/marktabata
Romans 2:14-15 (ERV)-Those who are not Jews don’t have the law. But when they naturally do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are their own law. This is true even though they don’t have the written law. 15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree. Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done right, and this makes them not guilty.
When the Nazis were on trial for their crimes against humanity, several tried to argue that their actions in attempting to exterminate the Jews were justified because they were acting in the best interest of their people and in harmony with the laws of their land. Therefore, they argued, they could not be held accountable, since they had not violated their national laws.
In response, notice the testimony of Robert Jackson, one of the trial judges at Nuremberg.
As we are well aware, the sufferings of the legal profession in Germany were paralleled at every level of the society, and in the apocalyptic holocaust of the Third Reich six million Jews perished. After the Nazi defeat the blood of these victims cried out for justice; war crimes trials were an inevitability. But what standard was to be used at Nuremberg to judge the accused leaders of the Nazi regime? When the Charter of the Tribunal, which had been drawn up by the victors, was used by the prosecution, the defendants very logically complained that they were being tried under ex post facto laws; and some authorities in the field of international law have severely criticized the allied judges on the same ground. 15 The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors. Faced with this argument, Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States at the trials, was compelled to appeal to permanent values, to moral standards transcending the lifestyles of particular societies—in a word, to a “law beyond the law” of individual nations, whether victor or vanquished: It is common to think of our own time as standing at the apex of civilization, from which the deficiencies of preceding ages may patronizingly be viewed in the light of what is assumed to be “progress.” The reality is that in the long perspective of history the present century will not hold an admirable position, unless its second half is to redeem its first. These two-score years in this twentieth century will be recorded in the book of years as one of the most bloody in all annals. Two World Wars have left a legacy of dead which number more than all the armies engaged in any war that made ancient or medieval history. No half-century ever witnessed slaughter on such a scale, such cruelties and inhumanities, such wholesale deportations of peoples into slavery, such annihilations of minorities. The terror of Torquemada pales before the Nazi inquisition. These deeds are the overshadowing historical facts by which generations to come will remember this decade. If we cannot eliminate the causes and prevent the repetition of these barbaric events, it is not an irresponsible prophecy to say that this twentieth century may yet succeed in bringing the doom of civilization. Goaded by these facts, we have moved to redress the blight on the record of our era. . . . . . . At this stage of the proceedings, I shall rest upon the law of these crimes as laid down in the Charter. . . . In interpreting the Charter, however, we should not overlook the unique and emergent character of this body as an International Military Tribunal. It is no part of the constitutional mechanism of internal justice of any of the Signatory nations. . . . As an International Military Tribunal, it rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidance not only from International Law but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization. . . .16. (John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above The Law, 11-12 (Kindle Edition): Irvine, CA: New Reformation Publications)
Consider two lessons this teaches us.
First, the existence of objective and prescriptive moral law within humanity points undeniably to the existence of the moral Lawgiver, i.e., God.
There is within humanity knowledge of certain moral principles which do not arise from within humanity. They are objective (factually true regardless of circumstance, and hence not subjective), and they are prescriptive (they describe how persons should behave, regardless of circumstance). These laws transcend the physical world. Moral laws may only be accounted for by lawgivers: hence, the reality of objective and prescriptive moral law demands the existence of the universal moral Lawgiver (i.e., God).
Many years ago, C.S. Lewis defended the reality of the moral law within humanity.
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else? It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table….These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics), 5-8 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.).
The existence of moral law demands the existence of God.
Second, we also see here an important lesson that is sometimes overlooked: the laws of man are sometimes unjust when measured against the law of God. Just as the unjust laws of Germany authorized the Jews to be nearly destroyed by the Nazis, so there have been many other examples of unjust laws throughout human history. Christians are called on to obey righteous laws of the lands in which we live (Romans 13:1-7). Yet if faced with unrighteous laws, it is the responsibility of God’s people to choose His Word and to peacefully refuse such.
Acts 5:29-But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.
Indeed, it is interesting to observe that many of God’s most celebrated heroes in the Bible were those who opposed unjust laws. When such laws of man disrespected God or mistreated humanity, they were rightly opposed. Some noted champions of faith in Scripture thus commended by God would certainly include Jochebed, Moses, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Nehemiah, John the Baptist, Peter, John, James, Paul, and of course the Lord Jesus Himself.
Lord Jesus, give us wisdom and discernment as we strive to serve You faithfully in this world. Amen.
Leave a Reply