To return to the example at hand, is rape wrong — caused to be wrong — because God condemned it, or did God condemn rape because rape's wrongness caused Him to condemn it? In part, it is a matter of perspective. First, we know that rape is wrong because God condemned it. If we had no other reason for thinking it wrong, that would be enough, for in the nature of the case, the command of an absolute God is the highest court of appeal. At the same time, it is legitimate for us to ask why God condemns rape.
We cannot suspend our obedience to the commandments of God upon our attaining what we consider to be a satisfactory answer, but it is never wrong to ask why and to seek understanding. The simple answer is that rape is violating another person. It contradicts both the basic love commands. It is a sin against God since the other person is created in Gods image. It is also a sin against that person. Not loving a person is failing to treat that person with the honor and respect that God's law commands.
What about the question, Did God's command "cause" rape to be wrong? I think not. Did God condemn rape because it violated some standard of right? Yes. But that standard of right is God Himself. Rape is a contradiction of the kind of love that characterizes the Persons of the Trinity and is therefore also a contradiction of the kind of love that men are commanded to show toward one another.
The Christian answer is that what is right is what is pleasing to God, but what is pleasing to God is not arbitrary, for God is a God of love who cannot be other than what He is. He Himself is the love which He commands us to reflect in our personal relationships. Ethical conformity to God Himself is the essence of Christian ethics. Christ has an answer to Socrates's question about the essence of piety, the true definition of what is right: first, to love God with all our being, and second, to love others as we love ourselves. This is the essence of what is good and right, for to do so is to be like God.
Finally, the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in this regard may be illustrated by considering the problem for those religions and philosophies which conceive of God as a monad, like Judaism, Islam, and many of the modern cults. In this conception, God is one being and one person. No personal plurality in God Himself means that from eternity there is no love, goodness, kindness, or any other essentially ethical quality, for all of these words define how persons relate to one another. For in a monad, there are no personal relationships. If we conceive of God as a monad, there are fundamental problems in understanding how God can be the source of ethics.
The notion of a monad existing eternally alone, neither needing or seeking fellowship or love, hardly suffices as an ultimate source for an ethic of love. Indeed, such a conception of God is closer to the notion of an impersonal absolute than it is to the Biblical and Christian belief in God as totally and radically personal.
For the Christian, then, saying that God is Himself the source of ethics is not simply philosophical speculation about where one can find absolute standards. It is confession of faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit who love one another from eternity. No doubt this is a position that we hold by faith based upon revelation in Holy Scripture.
Though Christians believe that no other faith offers the kind of transcendent ground and eternal meaning for ethics that Christianity does, we did not come to believe in the Triune God because He answers our philosophical needs. We were drawn by the Holy Spirit to the Father because He loved the world and sent His Son to die for our sins and rise again to give life to those who believe.
by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith
by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith
