Have you ever lied on an application to get a job? Would you donate an organ to save your mothers life? Would you cheat on your spouse if you know you wouldn’t get caught? These are the kinds of questions participants are asked on the new FOX TV show Moment of Truth.
The rules are simple, answer 21 increasingly personal questions honestly, as determined by a polygraph, and win up to $500,000. Sounds easy enough, just tell the truth, but how hard would it be to tell the truth not only in front of all America, but in front of your closest loved ones including your spouse, relatives and friends?
Up for the challenge this week was Lauren Cleri, a 26 year old hair salon assistant and newlywed of two years. In front of her husband, mother, father, sister and brother, Lauren faced her first question: As an employee of a hair salon, have you ever told a customer that you like their hairstyle when in fact you didn’t? Right away Lauren answers no, the lie detector determines that her answer is true (the audience applauds). However, as the questions got more personal, it quickly became apparent that a moment of truth can produce a lifetime of pain.
- Do you know things about your father that you keep secret from your mother?
- Have you ever took off your wedding ring to appear as if you were single?
- Do you believe you were in love with a former boyfriend on your wedding day?
Yes, Yes and Yes, congratulation you have won $100,000! You are now 3 questions away from winning $200,000 on your way to the $500,000 grand prize! However if you chose to continue the next question will be asked by a special guest. Out comes Frank, Lauren’s former boyfriend. Question number 1 on your way to winning the grand prize (mind you her husband is sitting right there):
- If I wanted to get back together with you, would you leave your husband?
This question gets voted out by her sister and replaced by the following question: - Do you believe I’m the man you should be married to? Yes
Ok two more questions. Question number 2: - Since you been married, have you had sex with someone other than your husband? (What? Do you think they are trying to give money away? It’s all about the ratings baby) answer: Yes
Ladies and Gentleman, here it is, the moment of truth, the reason for this blog and Lauren’s greatest challenge. After destroying her husband, ruining her family, admitting to being a liar, cheater and adulteress who would feed a stray dog before giving it to a homeless person (folks, I’m not making this up) now faces her greatest question. Here it go (ebonics):
- Do you think you’re a good person?
Lauren answers, “Honesty I think I am” (as her father nods away in approval). In the words of Maury “the lie detector determined . . . BUZZZZ! That was a lie. Lauren loses everything! No consolation prize, nothing; just a hand shake and a thank you, now get off the stage and go deal with real life.
Wow is this an episode of Jay Budziszewski’s “Revenge of Conscience” or what? How is it that we can admit to lying, stealing, cheating and ruining the lives of others yet cannot find it in ourselves to admit to being a sinner? How is it that Lauren could proclaim with her lips what she could not deny with her heart? The Book of Hebrews gives us the answer.
The little traitor that cost Lauren the ½ million bucks is what is described in Scripture as the Moral Law written on the heart. The Bible records God saying, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts" (Heb. 8:10; 10:16). It is by the Moral Law that we discern what is right and wrong. In his letter to the Roman church, Paul writes, "When Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Rom. 2:14-15).
If we know right from wrong, why do we still behave immorally? Well the Bible teaches us that we suppress the truth in our unrighteousness because we love darkness rather than light. Some might try to defend her by saying that doing bad things doesn’t make you a bad person! Yeah? And committing murder doesn’t make me a murderer! Listen, we can’t fully divorce what we do from who we are. We don’t say “She is an honest girl who happens to lie a lot” no we say you’re a liar! In Lauren’s defense, had she been able to admit to all of those things, and with a straight face answer that she sincerely believed that she was a good person, we might find her to be a bit weird or at least odd (there’s hope for you Lauren).
I guess the thing that trips me out the most isn’t all the stuff she admitted to doing wrong, but the fact that she was willing to tell the truth at the expense of hurting others to win some cash and yet lose it all when she couldn’t be honest to herself. I guess it is true that a moment of truth can bring a lifetime of pain, and in some cases an eternity of torment. The first thing we all have to admit to ourselves is that we are not all that good; in fact we are sinners in need of a Savior.
My Mind, My Thoughts, My Heart, My Words
11 comments:
Thanks for your well written post. I'd like to say, this must be the dumest show on TV, but I'm not sure since I don't have a TV. I think I don't mind.
I enjoyed your take on this episode, it was right on target.
There was one thing in your post though that sort of jumped off the page for me. You said:
"The little traitor that cost Lauren the ½ million bucks is what is described in Scripture as the Moral Law written on the heart. The Bible records God saying, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts" (Heb. 8:10; 10:16). It is by the Moral Law that we discern what is right and wrong."
I was wondering why you incerted the word "moral" into the text when it wasn't there? Hebrews never made mention of a 'moral' law seperate from the whole of the law. Neither did Paul in any letter, particularly not the one quoted in your post.
It's funny how no matter how much you like a person's post, if there is one minute thing that you find odd, that's what you mention.
Hope I didn't annoy you, but it did jump off the screen.
Sean Daily
Hey Sean (by the way, cool name), thanks for the comment. I was actually careful not to insert anything into the text when I quoted it. I merely suggested that this is what is "described" in Scripture. A law is generally defined as a rule of action or conduct and the word "moral" deals with judging actions as either right or wrong. It makes the distinction between good and bad conduct. Therefore, putting the two together, the moral law is a rule given to man in order to determine which actions are good and which are bad.
Scripture states that God is the author of the moral law. In the Old Testament, the psalmist says, "Offer a sacrifice of righteousness" (Ps. 4:6). Then, as if someone were asking him what the works of righteousness are, he adds, "Many are saying, 'Who will show us any good?'" He answers, "Lift up the light of your countenance upon us, Lord," thus implying that the light of the moral law by which we discern what is good and bad is impressed upon us by God's divine countenance (Ps. 4:5-7). I believe it is what is being described by Paul in his letter to the Roman church when he writes, "When Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Rom. 2:14-15).
Shawn,
So your mention of the "moral" law meant all of the law? I only bring this up because this is a major area of study for me at this time. Some traditions separate the Mosaic Law into the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. So when you mentioned that Hebrews and Romans were speaking of the moral law, I assumed you were excluding the civil and ceremonial "parts" of the Law.
I personally don't believe one can separate the Law into parts and then claim one part still applies and the others don't since they are all apart of the one covenant. Also, Deut. 12:32 says, "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it."
To clarify: Your contention is that in Rom. 2:14-15, Paul was talking about the whole Mosaic Law and that for you any part of that Law is considered moral?
Sean Daily
PS - I know this is way off the original intent of your post, which I still think was well done.
Sean D.,
I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Are you saying that the Law which is written on the heart, to which Paul is making reference, is the entire Mosaic Law? If so, this view seems unreasonable. If the entire Mosaic Law is written on the hearts of the Gentiles, then each culture should produce a Law that is very similar to the Mosaic Law on all points. Even the finer points of the Law should be just as obvious as murder is. But is there a majority consensus among the cultures that one should not sheer the first-born sheep (Deut. 15:19)or that one should not mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11)? I cannot see how these laws, along with laws pertaining to festivals, are inherently known apart from special revelation.
Leroy,
Very insightful question. I’ll try to answer as succinctly as I can, but I am without my books so this is all from my little noggin.
To begin with, the “Law” written on the heart in the New Covenant is from Jeremiah 31:33 “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.” There is no indication that it was only part of the Law. To buttress this understanding of Jeremiah’s Text, we see that he is referencing the first “new covenant” made with Israel when they broke the first by erecting the “golden calf” in Exodus 32. We see that at that time God made a “new” covenant with Israel, but the law and stipulations of the covenant were the same. Therefore, the whole law is spoken of in Romans 2.
You said, “If so, this view seems unreasonable.” I’ll grant you that it does given the translation we have of Romans 2:14. It reads this way by most translations: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves…” But this translation, I assert, is misguided because it contradicts Romans 3:10-12 "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."[Not to mention many other similar passages]
However, within the context of Romans and Paul’s argument, it would make more sense to understand Romans 2:14 to read: “For when [saved] Gentiles, who do not have by nature the law, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves…” I inserted [saved] because I believe this text can only be speaking of Gentiles who are already in a reconciled relationship with God. Also, it is permissible to translate the Greek this way. Translators have to choose where to connect the Greek word “phusis” (nature) and they usually do not do it the way I have.
To summarize this point: non regenerate Gentiles can not have the law on their heart and this text can only be speaking of regenerate Gentiles who are living the law.
Second, by saying, “Gentiles, who do not have by nature the law …” We understand this to mean that the Law of God was given to Israel through Moses and was not given to the Gentiles. Of course this is true, so the altered translation fits the context, fits the rest of the letter and scripture, and fits the historical fact of who had the law by nature.
I’m sorry I don’t have my resources here to provide better support, but I was quite excited with your comment and question and hope I hear your thoughts on what I proposed since I am far from dogmatic at this point in my life on this topic.
Sean Daily
Yes that has got to be one of the worst shows on tv, but it goes to show you what people will do for money. She actually told the truth of about all her indiscretions to her family and the world, but was not able to admit the truth about herself to herself! DEEP! Her heart gave her away. Her mind was so messed up that she really believed the lie, but heart knew the truth. WOW....an example for us all.....let's not fool ourselves.
DWINN
Sean D.,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to your post. Thank God it's finally the weekend!
Anyway, I still don't think you answered my question. If the entire Mosaic Law is subsumed under the New Covenant, then how do the details of this covenant not apply to the Gentiles? It would seem to be that the details of the Mosaic Law would still be known by all men.
Second, I'd like to hear more on how you justify saying that the New Covenant as stated in Jer. 31 applies to the Gentiles. One cannot assume since the same language is used in both passages that it refers to the same thing.
Third, I see nothing in the Greek that allows you to interject the word "saved" into the passage. This is a theological assertion, not a linguistic one.
Leroy,
I answered your questions, but the comment is 1200+ words long, so I'm going to take time to re-read and try to shorten it up. Post it soon.
Sean Daily
Leroy,
At this time I am working on a whole new post concerning your questions. The more I have studied from Romans 1:18 - Romans 4:25, the more I see that in order to explain my view point I am going to have to spend time explaining things which, for a comment, are simply too much.
Once this post is complete I will post a link.
That being said, your questions deserve at least a quick response.
In reverse order, your last question is: "I see nothing in the Greek that allows you to interject the word "saved" into the passage. This is a theological assertion, not a linguistic one." You are correct; the Greek text does not infer anything about the regenerate state of the Gentile. My pervious comment addresses why this person must be a "save" or regenerate Gentile. My future post will flush this out more.
Your second question: "I'd like to hear more on how you justify saying that the New Covenant as stated in Jer. 31 applies to the Gentiles. One cannot assume since the same language is used in both passages that it refers to the same thing."
The "new covenant" is alluded to in the books of Moses, but most explicitly stated in Jeremiah 31. The "Law being written on the heart" is a common phrase that always pointed to the New Covenant. In fact the New Covenant is just that: "I will write my Torah upon your heart." While the Old Covenant was, "Every thing the LORD has said, we will do." The commandments are the stipulations and they remain the same in both covenants. It is not the stipulations of the covenant that change, but rather the person's relationship toward them. One being, "We will do it." and the other being, "the LORD will write them on your heart."
If, however, by your question you are asking how the Gentiles are in this New Covenant spoken of in Jer. 31 over against the Jews (Judah and Israel), then you’ll need to ask that again. In short, chapters 9-11 help in this a lot.
And last, your first question was: "If the entire Mosaic Law is subsumed under the New Covenant, then how do the details of this covenant not apply to the Gentiles? It would seem to be that the details of the Mosaic Law would still be known by all men."
The details would apply to the Gentiles (by that meaning all of the laws contained within the Mosaic Law). Also, this would only apply to Gentiles who had this Law written upon their hearts and were "saved", not the pagan Gentiles.
My assumption is that Romans 1:18-32 is actually speaking about the Jewish nation that lived during the times of the prophets and not pagan Gentiles. Since, however, this is so new to me (it was this post and comments that led me to study this section in depth), I am still in the process of formulating a good commentary and checking it with those who are likely to agree with me, and those who are unlikely to agree. This process of checking my thoughts against others takes a lot of time, so I will not be able to post more exactly until later.
Once I do have something, I will return to let you know.
God bless,
Sean Daily
Hey Sean, this is some great dialog. My original reference to the "Law written on the Heart" was to point out the problem Lauren faced when trying to suggest to America that she believed she was "good" when in fact, she didn't truly believe that. I merely used the Book of Romans while "describing" the moral law, not in "defense" of the moral law (something that many great philosophers before us have done). It seems to be the case that across cultures whether Jew or Gentile, Christian or Atheist, people have a sense of morality that is self evident. Would this seem clearer if I used the term "Natural Law" in place of "Moral Law" to describe this? Do you agree that human beings seem to share a sense of right and wrong, good and bad? Now remember I'm not saying (as C.S. Lewis points out) that we can't find people in the world who seem to ignore this or even deny it (as Lauren did), but we would find it odd that someone would believe that torturing babies for fun was a good thing. Even cultures that seem to have different values, beliefs, and practices, seem to hold to the same core principles of justice, truth, love . . ). So independent of any written codes, laws etc., there appears to be a "natural law, code of conduct, or sense of morality" common to all men. Would you agree? Now independent of this fact, the question of whether or not this is what is being alluded to by Paul in Romans is of secondary debate. However, I believe that it is, (don't lose track of my first point) in the first chapter of Romans, Paul mentions that even the unrighteous "know" "clearly see" and "understand" certain things of God (namely that He is and His divine attributes) for He has shown it to them. However, these persons surpress the truth. He goes on to state that claiming ignorance to the law won't help you escape judgment: for those who have the written law will be judged by it and those without it will be judged by the law (I believe natural law) written on the heart. I believe at this point he is refering to the natural law by which we know right and wrong, good and bad, because in chapter 1 the individuals that surpress the truth were described as behaving immorally (back biters, disobedient, liars, murderers. .) no mention of them not keeping the Sabbath and other ceremonial codes. As it relates to the Mosaic Law, it seems that you hold some folks guilty of separating it into "parts." I think this confusion is harmonized by realizing that they (whoever "they" are, lol)are taking the "whole" Mosaic Law and by way of observation, are categorizing it into codes that appear moral (such as how we treat each other, live together in community and so on) from those that seem to be ceremonial and otherwise. This the difference between the General Revelation of God (how we know that He is and His Atributes) and Special Revelation (the Word of God).
You said, “Do you agree that human beings seem to share a sense of right and wrong, good and bad?”
Shawn, yes, I would agree that all people in all times and in all cultures share a sense of right and wrong. We were created in the image of God and though that image has been marred with the onset of sin and separation from our creator, we still yet are created in his image.
Yet, I do not think that this is Paul’s point here as I once did. In fact, only a month ago I thought as you do. Only after posting my original comment and response to your comment did I re-read Romans 1:18-32 in a new light.
While it is very sketchy, and I have not yet vetted this out nearly enough, I will post a copy of my commentary on Romans 1:18-32 that I wrote a couple of nights ago. I couldn’t sleep and finally spent the wee hours of the night writing this up.
I agree that this is a great dialogue. It has forced me to study a lot more than I otherwise would have.
As far as dividing the Law into parts, I will agree at one level that you must divide the Law into parts, but not separate it into parts that continue and parts that do not. For example: we do not observe Tabernacle related laws because we do not have a Tabernacle; we do not observe Land (in the Land of Israel) laws because we are not in the Land; we do not observe Levitical laws because we (or at least I) are not Levites; etc…
We can also divide the Law into greater and lesser laws. One would have to do this. If your donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath, which law do you break? This was a big issue in Jesus day. Everyone in Jesus’ day put “Love the LORD your God…” as number one. The Sadducees put “be Holy as I am Holy” as number two. Since they were in control of the Temple, clean/unclean laws were serious issues. The Pharisees said the number two was “love your neighbor as yourself.” So Jesus agreed with the majority. But who is my neighbor? That’s where Jesus parted ways. They also typically said if you have to choose between two laws, if you can do both, that would be best, but if you can not, a positive law trumps a negative. So even in Jesus day the Law was divided into parts, but never did they violate Deut 12:32 “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.”
You can see my commentary on Romans 1:18-32 by clicking on my name above which takes you to my blog.
Thanks for the discussion.
Sean Daily
Post a Comment