Does the Bible teach situational ethics?

Here, however, there must be a distinction drawn between judging what one has to do in certain circumstances, and being guided by them. He who allows himself to be guided by them always acts blindly as to the knowledge of the will of God: there is absolutely nothing moral in it; it is an external force that constrains. Now it is very possible that I may have no judgment beforehand as to what I should do: I know not what circumstances may arise and consequently I can make no resolution. But so soon as the circumstances are there, I judge with a full and divine conviction what is the path of God's will, and of the Spirit's intention and power. This requires spirituality, and abiding in communion with God. It is not to be guided by the circumstances, but to be guided by God in them, being near enough to God to be able to judge immediately what one ought to do, as soon as the circumstances are there.

Here, however, there must be a distinction drawn between judging what one has to do in certain circumstances, and being guided by them. He who allows himself to be guided by them always acts in the dark as to knowing the will of God. There is absolutely nothing moral in it; it is an external force that constrains. Now it is very possible that I may have no judgment beforehand of what I shall do: I know not what circumstances may arise, and consequently I can make no resolutions. But the instant the circumstances are there, I judge with a full and divine conviction what is the path of God's will, and of the Spirit's intention and power. That demands the highest degree of spirituality. It is not to be directed by circumstances, but to be directed by God in them, being near enough to God to be able to judge immediately what one ought to do, as soon as the circumstances are there.

Here, however, we need to distinguish between forming a judgment as to what it is right for us to do in certain circumstances, and our being directed by them. He who allows himself to be directed by them is ever acting blindly as to the "will of God." There is absolutely nothing of that which is moral in it - that which influences is from without. But it is very possible that I may have no judgment arrived at beforehand as to what I should do; I know not what circumstances may transpire, and consequently my mind is not made up. Yet so soon as the circumstances are there, I judge, with a full and divine conviction, what is the path of the "will of God," and of the intent and power of the Spirit. This requires spirituality. It is not a being guided by circumstances, but being guided by God in circumstances, through being near enough to Him to judge at once what is right to be done when the circumstances are there.

If this, then, be so, I can understand that He should now instruct us how to deal with cases of evil around us. "Of some have compassion, making a difference; and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire." Some might say, there is partiality, that is never right; yet God calls upon us to make a difference: but we must take care that we do not make differences in order to please ourselves, but because we believe that God would have us do it. Nothing more calls for an exercised conscience than this. Saints very often have a common routine, a rule for dealing with everybody: but this is not God's way. There are numbers of circumstances, principles, states of souls, that have to be weighed and acted upon in the various cases that come before the saints of God. There may be hardly two persons that would have to be dealt with alike; and there is the blessedness and importance of having the word of God for our guide, and not a mere rule which must be always acted upon exactly alike. We have not got a human canon, but a divine word; and one that establishes the very thing that the flesh does not like. Of course, it would be easier to have one routine; it saves trouble: but it is not of the Spirit of God, who exercises the people of God in every case, whether of recognising Christians or owning the work of God. There may be some cases where the work of God is most evident - others where it is not so. Nothing could be more foolish than to put it on the same ground.

We may learn from this to avoid and resist the notion that there can be but one principle to govern our conduct. It is not so, if the relationships and the circumstances of the parties wholly differ. Wisdom in that case would rather seek from God's word the Spirit's instruction for our guidance in each case respectively. Nature and tradition constantly tend to a dead level, which is as far as possible from the wisdom of God, in which we are called to judge and act. A principle however true and sound, as for instance not to circumcise Titus, might entirely fail to meet Timothy's case whom grace circumcised to stop the mouths of Jews though the letter of the law would rather have put him away than circumcise him. Routine is sure to mislead in the things of God. An eye single to Christ and His grace will discover the true way, and grace knows where to be inflexible and when to yield. It was the wise procedure of one who, free from all made himself bondman to all that he might gain the more; who became to the Jews as a Jew in order that he might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law (not being himself under law) in order that he might gain those under law, to those without law as without law (not as without law to God but as lawfully subject to Christ) in order that he might gain those without law.

The former verse shows that he who regards the day or eats as the case may be, does so to the Lord; and he who does not regard the day or does not eat, refrains equally to the Lord. The mind of the Lord is one, and cannot therefore lie in two opposite directions; but in acting or not acting, both alike were governed by loyalty to the Lord as far as they understood His mind, and this was pleasing to Him, and counted for more than correctness of understanding.

The first is stated in verse 4. We may call it the principle of Christian liberty. In these matters that have to do with personal behaviour and conscientious service to the Lord, we are set free from the lordship of our brethren, by being set under the over-lordship of Christ. We may be right or wrong in our judgment, but the thing of prime importance is that we each, with a single eye for our Master, do what we believe to be pleasing to Him. The exhortation which hinges upon this is, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

God intends us to be exercised as to such matters, each for himself. Were there a definite command in Scripture there need not be the exercise. Then, simple obedience is the only course pleasing to God. But these other matters, how many they are. Should I go here or there? Should I partake of this or that? May I enjoy this pleasurable recreation or not? Ought we to carry out this service or this ordinance in this way or that way? What acrimonious and harmful controversies have raged around such questions. And the answer is so simple. Let the wrangling cease! Hands off each other! Each man to his own knees, in the presence of his own Master, that he may get, as far as in him lies, the knowledge of his Master's will.

However, the Lord's answer is remarkable. He refers them to David when he and his men were hungry, and were given the showbread by the high priest, though it was lawful only for priests to eat it. This was of course a ritualistic law and was in this exceptional case set aside because of human need. Of course it is evident that man cannot flagrantly set aside the moral principles of truth and righteousness in order to satisfy his temporal needs, but ritualistic laws were a different matter. In David's case, he was God's anointed king, but not being recognized by Israel, he was suffering rejection, and God cared for him. Now Christ, the Son of God had come, but was rejected as David had been, along with His disciples. Therefore even the ritualistic demands of law must give place to their needs. If so, how much more must the mere traditions of Pharisees be set aside!

He sums this up by announcing principles of vita! significance in verses 27 and 28. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. It was in man's best interests to have a day during the week when he might rest, yet often he will not do this unless he is virtually forced to. God was seeking the blessing of man in providing him with one day of rest during the week. Now Pharisees were turning it into a virtual curse for man by their rigid traditions. More than this, the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath: His authority is far higher than that of the sabbath, and certainly infinitely higher than the assumed authority of Pharisees, little as the Pharisees were willing to recognize it.

298 Let us now see what the New Testament directly affords us on the sabbath. Is any hint as to its sacredness to be found? Matthew 12:1 is evidently of great consequence here. The Pharisees complained of the disciples' plucking and rubbing the ears of corn. The Lord's answer is remarkable. It is not to rebuke the Pharisees as He does elsewhere, but to shew that the sabbath and other ceremonial enactments have been set aside for sufficient cause, and that a greater than any obligation of the sabbath was there. Could God say, I am greater than a moral commandment? Would that be a divine way of putting things if it were a question of hating a brother or coveting another man's wife? Such a thought would revolt at once. But that is the Lord's reasoning as to the sabbath. First a rejected Messiah made all common, for another obligatory commandment, the sabbath, gave way under God's own eye. Christ was greater than the temple; and if they knew God's heart, they would not have condemned His disciples. All this proved the Pharisees wrong and unjustifiable. But, besides, the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath. Surely this could not be said of a commandment as to right and wrong! He had a title to dispose of the sabbath, through the dignity of His person and office. Could all this have been said if the Lord were insisting on the maintenance of its authority? He adds that it is lawful to do well on the sabbath. The parallel passage in Mark adds, The sabbath was made for man.

Matthew's gospel gives us dispensational changes, and, on that ground, Christ's person as divine; and the place He took as Son of man laid the ground for dealing with the sabbath as Lord of it. Here Christ is the servant-prophet, and we have another ground laid: the sabbath was made for man. It was in favour of — for — man; and hence He who ordered all for man, as the head of the race according to God, was Lord of it. It was a benefit conferred on man for his advantage, and the Son of man was the competent disposer in the matter. Could this be said of a divinely binding law?

16 I now turn to another point, that the same rule of conduct must be given of God at all times. It is a theory founded on a theory. No doubt God's nature is immutable, and certain principles are immutably true in one who is a partaker of the divine nature; but to say that the law is this, or that the rule given to us to follow is the same, is false. This is the effect of an unscriptural use of the term "moral law." God did give another rule to His creatures for their obedience. Did He not give the law of Moses? — the only law, remark, He ever gave (save the prohibition to eat the forbidden fruit). That is, the only law God ever gave to His creatures for their obedience was another from the present rule of walk. It had commandments given, because of the hardness of their hearts, which Christ abrogated. "The law made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19); and therefore "there is a disannulling of the commandment going before." It was said of old, so and so, "but (says the Lord) I say unto you."