The Relative Right
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17 NASB
Right thing – What is the right thing to do? Ah, doesn’t that depend entirely on your particular view, your culture, your environment? Is there such a thing as universal “right,” an ethical demand that everyone would acknowledge as the right thing to do? Before you try to justify that usual Western response of a rational ethics, consider the enormous range of human behavior considered “right” within cultural boundaries. Is it right to have more than one wife (or husband)? Is it right to lie to another person? Is killing someone the right thing to do? And what about the “god” you worship? When Jews feel uncomfortable with observant Gentiles because the “Law” is for Jews, not those outside the family, who is right? When Wyschogrod points out that a universal ethical standard violates the authority of a “divine commander,” is he right? And if he is, then what does doing the “right thing” really mean?
James writes to a particular audience, an audience that he assumes will understand his use of the term kalos (which means a lot more than “right”[1]). In other words, his audience is part of a culture that embraced the idea of “good” from the Tanakh, and therefore, understood James in that context, that is, “good” was what the divine commander expected. But that’s quite different than the way we read the text today. Today we are caught up in the web of an absolute rule, a universal ethics that does not require a God behind it. So we fight the relativist battle—and lose.
As a result, we tend to move in the direction of an animal ethics. Animals have instinct. They behave according to the automatic inner voice hard-wired into them. They do not act on the basis of free choice. They are not capable of turning away from that inner voice and doing what is contrary to instinct. They live in direct response to the divine will within. If sin is knowing what is right and not doing it, then it seems impossible for an animal to sin. In the world of instinct, there is no right and wrong. There is only desire and fulfillment.
David Fohrman points out that it is possible for human beings to mimic this animal intelligence. Human being also have an inner voice. That inner voice connects us to animal behavior because it also operates on the basis of desire and fulfillment. We recognize this reality when we talk about the instinct to survive or the “herd” effect of conformity without conscience. Men can be animals. They can live exclusively on the basis of desire, but when they do, we are repulsed and ashamed. We recognize the difference between “human” behavior and animal instinct even when we see creatures like us acting like animals.
In order to be human, desire must be domesticated. When it is not domesticated, animal instinct reigns. While instinct is perfectly appropriate for animals, it is not adequate for human beings. In the sense that humanity is linked with the rest of the animal kingdom, human beings share this common inner voice of instinct. But we are not merely a higher form of animals (as Darwinians would have us believe). The Scriptures teach that we humans are also linked with the divine. We carry the breath of God in us. That breaks the chain of desire and fulfillment in a very special way. We could listen to the inner voice that connects us to the animal kingdom, but we are asked to listen to something else—the voice of God, in particular, the unique God of the Hebrew Tanakh. We are uniquely equipped to decide to act according to a voice that is outside of our being. To become human is not to cultivate and refine the inner voice of passion and procurement. To become human is to enter into an active, decision-making conversation with the other link in our existence; the link that depends on the breath of God. To become human is to listen to the external designer and be obedient to Him in spite of our connection to animal instinct.
What is right is not what is universally right. It is what the God of Israel expects of those who have chosen His way. The right thing to do might not actually look right to anyone else, but that’s because it is not universal ethics. It’s obedience.
Topical Index: right thing, good, kalos, ethics, Law, James 4:17
[1] kalós has the sense of a. “healthy,” “serviceable,” e.g., sterling metal, suitable place, or right time, b. “beautiful,” “attractive,” “lovely,” and c. “good.” All these senses may be brought together under the idea of “what is ordered or sound,” TDNT G. Bertram, Vol. III, pp. 550-556.
