39. The Nature of Right and Wrong

The Nature of Right and Wrong This gives us the definition of right and wrong. There is nothing flexible in these moral terms, for right, or perfect conformity with that which ought to be, is active harmony with the will of God, which is the law of His government, and is thus perfect co-operation with Him in maintaining the eternal welfare of His moral universe.

Wrong, therefore, which is perfect conformity with that which ought not to be, is thus active inharmony with the will of God, and so is perfect antagonism against God Himself, and against all who are in harmony with Him, and it is therefore anarchy in its attitude toward His government.

God, then, did not establish right and wrong by arbitrary fiat, as a thing separate or separable from His nature, and so He cannot unmake them or change their nature without destroying His character. The principles determining right and wrong lie back in the essential Being of God, and if He should change them, He would have to change His own nature to do so. And how can that which is perfect be changed, except in the direction of imperfection? And what would become of God if His very nature should thus be changed?

Dr. Henry P. Liddon once said: “What is God’s moral law? Is it a law which might conceivably have been other than it is? Certainly not… The moral law is not a code which He might have made other than it is; it is His own moral nature thrown into a shape which makes it intelligible and applicable to His creatures; and therefore in violating it we are opposing, not something which He has made but might have made otherwise, but Himself. Sin, if it could, would destroy God.”

There is therefore no mystery as to why God will enforce His moral law, which is His will, to its utmost requirements, no matter what the cost. For if He should fail to do so, it would have to be either because He could not enforce it, or would not.

If He could not enforce it, He would be less than God, and no one could trust Him with their welfare. For no matter how much His love might move Him to maintain the welfare He wills for them, His lack of power would make it impossible. And if He would not enforce His law, He would thereby take the side of that which ought not to be, which would destroy His character and turn the universe into a moral pandemonium, and how then could He meet the problem of sin?

These principles are paralleled in human government. The true purpose of government is the universal well-being of the law-abiding. All proper government has that end in view. But even though every proper law that could be required is in existence, such laws are wholly useless unless they are enforced. Failure to enforce them is failure to stand for the well-being of the law-abiding. So the standard by which we measure an executive is not his personal popularity, but is, and always must be, his attitude and action toward law enforcement. As he enforces or fails to enforce the laws, he is measured up as a good or bad executive. And if he purposely fails to enforce the law, he is proving to a demonstration that he does not have the interests of the law-abiding as his first concern, and his character as a proper executive is thus destroyed in the eyes of the people. The conclusion is inevitable. Whether looked at in the light of the principles of human or divine government, God’s law must be enforced.