How does Psalm 106:39 challenge modern views on moral relativism? Historical Backdrop Israel had been commanded to drive out Canaanite peoples whose rites included ritual prostitution and child sacrifice (Leviticus 18 : 21–30; Deuteronomy 12 : 31). Archaeological work at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) and at Carthaginian tophet sites has uncovered cultic texts and ash‐filled urns with infant remains, confirming that such practices were both real and widespread. The psalmist’s charge therefore addresses historically attested actions, rooting the moral verdict in actual events, not myth. Theological Frame a. Yahweh’s holiness defines morality (Leviticus 19 : 2). b. Covenant stipulations are absolute (Deuteronomy 29 : 29). c. Violation provokes divine wrath (Psalm 106 : 40), demonstrating moral realism rather than relativism. Modern Moral Relativism Defined Contemporary relativism claims moral values are contingent upon culture, consensus, or individual preference. By that metric, Israel could have declared Canaanite rites acceptable through majority vote. Scripture refuses that option: divine revelation, not social contract, is ultimate. How Psalm 106 : 39 Directly Challenges Relativism 1. Objective Vocabulary The verse labels specific deeds “defilement,” inherently wrong regardless of era or context. No allowance is made for “situational ethics.” 2. Transcendent Referent The moral judgment is grounded in Yahweh’s character, not Israel’s sentiment. Because God is immutable (Malachi 3 : 6), the standard remains stable. 3. Historical Continuity The psalmist, writing centuries after the conquest, condemns the same acts Moses condemned. Consistency across time undermines the relativist claim that morals inevitably evolve. 4. Communal Consequences Verse 40 records national judgment: “So the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people.” Collective punishment shows that moral law operates externally to personal preference. Cross-References Refuting Relativism • Exodus 20 : 1–17 — Decalogue as universal moral code. • Romans 1 : 24–32 — Gentile societies accountable to the same standards. • Acts 17 : 30–31 — God “commands all people everywhere to repent.” The resurrection (v. 31) is cited as proof that judgment is fixed. Archaeology And Ethics The Ugaritic “KRT” epic and the stele of Baal with lightning illustrate deities demanding sexual rites. Yet Israelite inscriptions (Kh. Qeiyafa ostracon, ca. 1000 B.C.) echo Deuteronomy’s prohibitions, proving a counter-cultural ethic existed contemporaneously, not retroactively imposed. Philosophical And Behavioral Considerations • Moral obligation implies a moral lawgiver. Objective duties are unintelligible under naturalistic frameworks that reduce ethics to biochemical states. • Cross-cultural anthropology (Donald Brown’s “Human Universals”) catalogues prohibitions on indiscriminate killing and theft, supporting the biblical claim of a law written on the heart. Christological Fulfillment Jesus affirms moral objectivity by internalizing the law (Matthew 5 : 27–28) and ratifying its penalties through His substitutionary death (2 Corinthians 5 : 21). His resurrection validates the inviolability of the moral order and offers the only remedy for defilement (Romans 4 : 25). Practical Application 1. Evangelism The verse provides a diagnostic tool: expose sin as defilement, then present Christ as cleansing (1 John 1 : 7). 2. Ethics in Public Square Believers can appeal to Psalm 106 : 39 to argue that certain acts—e.g., abortion, sexual exploitation—are objectively wrong, regardless of legal status. 3. Discipleship The passage warns against syncretism; modern believers must resist cultural pressures that blur biblical absolutes. Conclusion Psalm 106 : 39 stands as a clear biblical repudiation of moral relativism. By grounding morality in the immutable holiness of God, by corroborating its claims through history, archaeology, conscience, and the resurrection, the verse affirms a timeless ethical standard and calls every generation to repentance and faith. |
    |