 From 1974 and until he passed away in June of 2005, Frank Caw devoted a considerable amount of time to research and study in Bible prophecy and related philosophical and theological issues. This website is dedicated by his family to his memory and work and is as he presented it at the time of his death. The family of Frank Caw, Jr. would like to thank Tim McHyde of EscapeAllTheseThings.com for hosting his website.
While always insisting on a plain, literal and sensible approach to scriptural exegesis,
he has pieced together many new scriptural insights on a number of extraordinary
prophetic developments that are poised to be fulfilled in our immediate
future!
Thus, it is safe to say that things are not going to happen the way many people think
they will happen.
But, this book will give you the scriptural keys for truly understanding what God has
preordained will happen, and how you can survive the incredible scenario of prophetic
events about to unfold! |
This ministry is dedicated to the loving memory of my
late wife, Debbie, who went to be in the presence of God on October 23, 1997, and who was
so instrumental in helping me to prepare for my ministry during those many long, difficult
years.
|
|
|
When Biblical Moral
Principles
Unavoidably Conflict With Each Other
An Ipsos poll says that 25 percent of adults believe it is at least somewhat likely that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in 2007 2008. Of white evangelical Christian adults it's 66%. Want to know why Jesus won't come in 2007 2008, before most find out in Jan 1, 2008 2009? »» Read Featured Article
The Bible clearly demonstrates the truth that a hierarchy of Divine moral values exist which should govern
all of our moral decisions in life.
Thus, no moral principle is completely autonomous to itself. That is why God is a God of love and mercy, but
also a God of justice and judgment. In such instances, then, complexity, not contradiction, is the dynamic
involved.
Accordingly, whenever moral laws and principles come into direct and unavoidable conflict with each other,
and due to circumstances, it is impossible to comply with all of the moral principles relevant to the matter at
hand, then it is our moral duty and obligation to choose the highest level of good possible under the
circumstances.
Which means, of course, that we must violate one moral principle in order to make it even possible to comply
with another more-important and relevant moral principle.
For example, if telling a lie was the only way possible to save an innocent life from death, then obviously you
should do so because the higher law (preservation of innocent life) should take precedence over the lower
law (truth), as the following biblical scripture demonstrates:
Joshua 2:3-4
3 And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.
4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: (KJV)
Hebrews 11:31
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. (KJV)
James 2:25-26
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (KJV)
The preceding scriptures portray an instance whereby God accounted an individual as righteous when they
were forced to tell a lie in order to save the lives of innocent human beings. Now compare this example with
the following one:
Exodus 1:15-21
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. (KJV)
Here is yet another situation where God looked very favorably upon individuals who lied in order to save
innocent human life. The midwives, in this instance, very courageously lied to the Pharaoh because it was the
only practical way of saving the innocent Hebrew babies from being
slaughtered.
Likewise, the following scripture illustrates the morality of being forced to kill a thief who is in the process of
robbing you and possibly even threatening your life:
Exodus 22:1-2
1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. (KJV)
The following passage actually portrays God instructing an innocent individual to lie so he would not be killed
unfairly and unjustly.
Some people might argue that God did not really tell Samuel to lie because when Samuel told anyone that he
was there to make a sacrifice to the Lord (as God instructed him to do if anyone should inquire as to why he
was going to Bethlehem), he was telling the truth.
But truth-telling, in its fullest, complete sense of the meaning, is not necessarily limited to the strict semantic
sense of the words employed by a person, but rather, it is the impression or message which a person intends
for his audience to receive when he or she is communicating ideas through words and gestures and overall
demeanor.
That is why in our judicial system, a person promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
A seemingly redundant pledge of this type is necessary because it is very possible to deceive people by
giving only completely truthful statements while still withholding vital information which prevents the audience
from understanding the entire situation correctly.
But, sometimes, making truthful statements in order to deceive someone about the whole truth of a matter,
as in the following example, is morally justifiable because they involve situations where one is forced by
circumstances to choose between two evil actions or consequences in an effort to choose the highest level
of good possible when no completely good options exist:
1 Samuel 16:1-5
1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.
3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.
4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice. (KJV)
The following scriptures illustrate the truth that there is a hierarchy of moral values because some moral laws
are more important than other moral laws:
John 19:11
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (KJV)
Matthew 5:19
19 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. (KJV)
Matthew 23:23
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (KJV)
Genesis 9:6
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (KJV)
Acts 5:29
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (KJV)
James 4:17
17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (KJV)
Hebrews 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, (KJV)
Compare the following scriptures which state that Jesus was sinless and without
blemish:
Hebrews 4:15
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (KJV)
I John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (KJV)
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (KJV)
1 Peter 1:19
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: (KJV)
Now compare the preceding scriptures, which say that Jesus was sinless, with the following passage which
portrays Jesus as disobedient and unresponsive to His parents' wishes when they conflicted with God's
wishes:
Luke 2:44-49
44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (KJV)
Therefore, I think we have established beyond any reasonable doubt that there does exist a biblical hierarchy
of moral values which should govern all of our thoughts and actions in life, shaping our moral decisions into
conformity with the revealed Divine nature of our Creator.
Thus, philosophers generally use the expression “Objective Moral Relativism” to describe the process
involved when circumstances force a person to violate a lower moral law so that a higher moral principle
can be complied with in order to achieve the highest level of good possible when no completely good
options exist.
However, this methodological process should not be confused with “Subjective Moral Relativism” where
objective moral principles are not even acknowledged because all moral values are perceived as
completely subjective and relative in nature, often resulting in a code of conduct where "the
end justifies the means."
Consequently, we should always obey all of God's moral laws unless circumstances force us to violate one
of His moral commandments no matter what course of action or inaction we choose to
follow because no completely good options exist.
But when such occasions do arise, our only rational and moral response should be to maximize the
highest level of good possible under the circumstances.
NOTE: This article is based on material adapted from Chapter 3, Section 1 in my book.
Copyright © 1996-2005
Frank L. Caw, Jr.
All Rights
Reserved.
The Ultimate Deception
http://www.frankcaw.com
Send e-Mail
|
|
|
