When taking people through the moral Law you will often face objections to an absolute moral definition for things like murder, theft, and lying. Some people will try to confuse the line between black and white in order to force a contradiction and undermine the word of God. It’s important that you know exactly how to deal with this when it arises. The two subjects most commonly used to do this are lying and murder. Be ready to answer the following questions:

Objection: "God’s Law says “You shall not kill.” But then He says “an eye for an eye” supporting capital punishment. Does that mean it’s ok to kill sometimes? Is God contradicting Himself?"

When God addresses sin through the 10 Commandments, He goes much deeper than the surface issue. He goes to the heart. Some people take “you shall not kill” to encompass all life forms including animals, insects, and grass. They are hung up on terminology and miss the true meaning. They fail to understand that God is addressing the matter within the human context. He is also addressing the heart of the matter. When God says “you shall not kill” he is talking about murder, which has to do with an evil intent and selfish motivation. Murder is defined as taking the life of another person for an unjust cause such as selfish gain, jealousy, hatred, revenge, or over a heated dispute (intolerance). On the other hand, “an eye for an eye” implies justice and restitution. If a man steals someone’s car and smashes it up, they shouldn’t just be punished for theft, they should replace it with another one of equal value. It’s the same with murder. Capital punishment is a just consequence for murder. There is a big difference between killing/murder and killing/justice (putting someone to death for murder once they have been tried and found guilty). The important thing to convey is that the commandment is emphasizing murder.

What about when Jesus changed that and said “turn the other cheek”?

Here’s the actual passage: Jesus said “you have heard it said by them of old, ‘an eye for an eye’… But I say unto you, resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Jesus did not “change the law,” he is simply emphasizing the spirit of the law. Notice He is also addressing retaliation to offences, not murder. Obviously, a murdered man cannot retaliate. There is a right way to deal with those who offend. When it comes to murder, “an eye for an eye” implies that the murderer should be put to death by a judicial process where two or more witnesses are present. Capital punishment is just, because those who murder have crossed a line of disregard for the value and integrity of human life. The intent to kill was selfishly motivated and the person should face a consequence that matches the level of his crime. Though all transgression is equally sinful, the immediate consequence should match the transgression. The act of putting a murderer to death through the justice system is not in itself murderous because it is not based on a murderous intent, it is based a just intent and designed to uphold the integrity of humanity. It is this same principle for which God ordered the execution of entire nations and also for which Jesus was sent to suffer and die on our behalf.

What about forgiveness? Isn’t putting someone to death similar to “casting the first stone”?

Forgiveness is a matter of the heart and generally concerns the immediate victim. Civil Law has been put in place to keep order and protect. Though we should forgive those who wrong us, they should still be punished for breaking the law. If there is no penalty for breaking the law, people will disregard the law and lawlessness will abound. The woman caught in adultery was about to be executed without a trial, in a civil manner. The same can be argued for punishing children. Should we “just forgive” our children when they do wrong? If there are no consequences, they will become unruly and chaotic. Those who use the bible to denounce punishment and promote unconditional forgiveness should know that the bible supports punishing criminals in Romans 13: 1-6

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God." (Also see 1Peter 2: 13-14).

What about soldiers in war, they are sent to kill, is that right or wrong? Is all war justified? Is it ok for a soldier to kill just because he’s wearing a uniform and mandated by his country?

The answer here is simply that not all killing in war is justified but war is sometimes necessary. Here’s the difference. Hitler and the Nazi regime had an objective that was rooted in hatred and bigotry. When Nazi “soldiers” were ordered to kill innocent and defenceless people because of their ethnicity, they were committing murder. The soldiers that were sent to defend the defenceless and stop the bloodshed were required to kill in defence of those who couldn’t defend themselves. They were upholding justice on behalf of those who were being unjustly murdered. That was a just cause for war. War does not necessarily give a soldier the right to kill aimlessly without restraint. He is under a strict mandate to fulfill a just mission. That is why there is always a strict code of conduct and rules of engagement in war. Each soldier has a duty to act in good conscience toward his fellow man. If a Christian goes to war and is commanded to carry out an order in violation of his conscience, that he considers to be murderous rather than just, he should disregard the order because he is accountable to God first and foremost.

When it comes to lying, are there not conditions under which it is better to lie than tell the truth? If your wife asks you if she looks fat or if a girl asks how you like her dress, shouldn’t you lie to protect their feelings?

One might use discretion in the way they answer but there’s really no need to lie. If I really don’t like the dress, I don’t have to answer, I might say, “you shouldn’t let what others think bother you.” That’s using discretion. When it comes to lying, there are no grey areas and it’s important that you stand your ground when insisting that all lying is sin.

What about Rahab in Joshua 2, she lied to protect the spies, then they blessed her in return by sparing her family?

Rahab was a sinful woman who chose to lie in order “to protect”. The men she hid in her home never requested that she lie, nor did God. They later rewarded her for showing kindness by taking them in. They did not reward her for lying. If people think God asked the woman to lie, they need to read the story again. If ever a person insinuates that God has in some way condoned lying, the bible is clear… “God cannot lie” Titus 1:2

Aren’t morals simply the result of cultural upbringing and conditioning? Do we believe something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong? There is no way to really know if something is absolutely right or wrong.

One philosopher answered that question like this: “That would mean torturing people may not really be wrong; that sexual abuse and rape is not really wrong; we just think it is. But if this basic intuition is wrong, that is, if it is merely the result of cultural conditioning, could it be possible that our other basic beliefs and intuitions, such as our belief in cultural conditioning, are also the result of this same conditioning process? If so, it seems this line of reasoning is self-refuting. It fails its own test. It is very easy to say there are no objective or absolute moral principles. It is much more difficult, however, to live as if there are none. We know that if objective principles of right and wrong exist, there must be a foundation for them. And the foundation that makes the most sense is the character of a perfect and holy God.”

If someone argues that their view of right and wrong is merely the result of cultural conditioning and upbringing, ask them if they wouldn’t mind being severely tortured and violated in every manner thinkable for a few hours. If what they say is true, “that it’s only wrong because we’re taught it’s wrong”, then the person torturing them wouldn’t really be doing anything wrong, that no one should attempt to stop him, and he shouldn’t be brought to justice.

People who argue that there can be no absolute truth are actually contradicting themselves by making such an absolute statement. Their theory is fatalistic. If they believe what they claim, there are no boundaries, there is no purpose, and they will inevitably end up with a seared conscience and destroy themselves as well as others. If a person tries to tell you that you cannot absolutely know for certain that there are absolute truths, turn their statement back upon them and show them how contradictory and ignorant that is. At best, they must concede that they simply don’t know for themselves and lack the knowledge required to determine truth. They are risking their eternal salvation by trusting in a wrong belief. God tells us that there is an objective, absolute truth that is not subject to man’s interpretations or whims, on which we can base our eternity. That truth is the Word of God (John 17:7).