I'm reading a book in which one character kills another character, who arguably deserved to die, but then learns that they were probably related to the person they just killed. With this new information, the character says that they probably wouldn't have killed the other character, had they known. However, I (and a third, mostly unrelated character) believe that blood relation should rarely be a factor in matters of morality. If a person deserves to die, then they deserve to die, regardless of whether they're related to another person.
Now, if a parent of one of more young children proves worthy of serious punishment, we may yet show song lenience, if only for the sake of their child(ren). However, in most other moral cases, blood relations probably shouldn't matter much, and people certainly shouldn't escape just punishments because they're related to the judge, jury, and/or executioner. Nepotism isn't just.
Yet, God sometimes spares us the punishments we deserve, and it could be argued that He spares us because we are His children and Jesus, our Savior, is our brother, but I think there's more at play here. After all, God has proven willing to punish some of His children, even severely, when they deserve it. His mercy is extended on the terms of our repentance, not our relationship with Him. Similarly, Jesus saves us because He is our Mediator. He bought our debt, and thus bought the right to forgive that debt on whatever conditions He sets (which condition is also usually repentance). The fact that we're spiritually related to Him might explain His motivation, but it doesn't alter the arrangement. The force of justice is not and should not be swayed by the existence or nonexistence of blood relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment