Hold it right there folks! Before you assume we’ve reposted a review from just 5 days ago, check yo’ self! This, my friends, is the Moral Dilemma Dialogue! (You are to be relieved and impressed by that.)
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, Les Miserables is a story which brings up a host of moral dilemmas which all sort of pile on top of each other. A choice made in one dilemma leads to another dilemma. The choice in that dilemma leads to another dilemma… on and on and on with lots of singing. Elliott highlights that well in his review of this film a few days ago, and today Elliott and Tres will be examining one of those dilemmas specifically.
Jean Valjean is a released prisoner who skipped parole and established a new life for himself as a factory owner and mayor of Paris. He employs women to make clothing and gives them a means to provide a living for themselves. Trouble is, the officer who set him free is still on the search for prisoner 46201 (Valjean) ever since he skipped his parole. When Valjean gets word that another man is believed to be prisoner 46201 and receive the punishment due to him, he must decide what to do; fess up that he is truly the one they’ve been searching for and turn himself in, or let another man suffer the consequences of his actions. That is the dilemma that Elliott and Tres will be examining. They’ll put themselves in Jean’s shoes and take a serious look at what should be done. Tres will present the Christian perspective complete with scriptural proofs for his arguments, and Elliott will rely solely on his own reasoning and give a worldly perspective.
***********************************************************************
Elliott – Worldly perspective
My short answer is no, he shouldn’t turn himself into the authorities. He’s already done time for his crime. However, I think regardless of religion, most people would agree that it would be wrong for him to allow another man to take his punishment. In the movie he decides to go in front of the judge and tell him that the man is innocent. Jean then leaves without being arrested and ultimately goes into hiding from the law once again. I think this was the best decision he could have made. Not only was he able to stay out of jail, but he was able to show that the other man was innocent. So everyone, but Javert wins.
If you look at this from a logical point of view: He broke the law, so he needs to be put in jail. But sometimes logic just doesn’t make sense. Often times a little common sense is needed. Let’s look at the magnitude of his crime. He stole some food for his starving family. He didn’t kill or attack someone. It wasn’t a violent crime. He was simply trying to keep his family from dying. Should thievery be encouraged? No, but 19 years in prison is more than enough of a punishment. As the saying goes, he’s paid his debt to society.
Let’s take a look at what he has accomplished. After being given the silver and gold from the priest, he completely turns his life around. He could have kept it for himself, but instead he uses the money to start a business, which allows him to provide an income for many families, who might have otherwise faced the same challenges he had faced years prior. Not only has he proven that he can be a responsible business man, but he has also earned the trust of the people as a civic leader.
So does it make any sense for him to throw away all his hard work, just because he broke parole? No, not all. All of those people would lose their jobs and no one would take care of Cosette. It would be one thing if he had continued to commit crimes, but he truly changed his life around. The priest challenged him to give his life to God and that’s just what he did. The only one who would have won by Jean turning himself in, would have been Javert. At this point Javert isn’t just trying to keep the law, he wants to arrest Jean Valjean for his own personal pride and ego. With Jean arrested no one comes out ahead and in fact many others will suffer. In the end, I believe that Jean made the best possible decision.
***********************************************************************
Tres – Christian perspective
Jean Valjean skipped parole and is going to let another man take his punishment. We call this a moral dilemma, but there’s no dilemma here. Jean is simply wrong. When a man does wrong, he has to answer for it. When a Christian does wrong, he should desire to answer for it. No one enjoys negative rewards. No one enjoys punishment. However, if our actions warrant such outcomes, we should stand to receive them.
Now people are going to argue that he repented and he did good things for others. They will argue that he changed his ways. I am a Robin Hood fan myself, but he stole and that’s the simple fact of the matter. Jean Valjean stole and lied when on parole. Then he ran and broke his parole, becoming a fugitive. That became a life of lies. He did good for people, he financially did good for himself, and he did indeed recuse a child. However, did he really change? He’s about to let a total stranger take his punishment because of mistaken identity. That doesn’t sound like a changed man to me.
In these write-ups we talk about morals. Morals are simple: what’s right or wrong? A young child will lie when they know they have done wrong or sneak to get by with something that they know is wrong. God’s Word simply calls that sin. James 4:17 “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
God’s Word doesn’t simply apply to our spiritual being and spiritual world. Romans 13 is very specific about the importance of following man’s law while we are here on the earth. Romans 13:1-2 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” 1 Peter restates the same thing about the importance of following man’s law with full intentions. 1 Peter 2:13-17 “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (Titus 3:1)
People have to question themselves with their connection between God and having these type of issues resting upon them. Can you really be a good man, doing good things for others, being a stand-up member of society, and yet having all of these secret issues plaguing you with warrants out for your arrest? I think Jesus teaches us specifically that we cannot commune with God as we should while having these type of negative issues in our heart.
Matt 5:23-24 “If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”
The other repulsive issue about this is the idea of letting someone take the fall for you. Can you be a good person and allow another person take your punishment? That’s what I was raised to see as a coward. Revelation 21:8 “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
I couldn’t live with myself knowing each day that I had this hanging over my head. God’s law tells me to obey the laws of today and the officials of today. If I had broken the law and a warrant was out for me, I would turn myself in. The glory being, after a worldly consequence and punishment I would have a heavenly reward. I have to repent and make things right here on the earth if I have a hope of making it to heaven.
The idea of someone taking a punishment for me? NEVER.
Knowing that Jesus already did that for me is hard enough.
***********************************************************************
There you have it folks. As usual, both Tres and Elliott may hold different views for themselves personally, but present these positions here to get a discussion going. Seems we have a slight disagreement; Elliott is perfectly fine with the way Jean handled this dilemma in the story, and Tres argues that he should have turned himself in rather than simply stating that the man taking his place was innocent. Where do you fall on this? What would you do if you were in Jean’s shoes? And please, vote below on which side of this dilemma you agree with.
Good job guys! Allow me to be the first to stir the pot. Tres, if Romans 13 is to be followed unquestioningly, then why didn’t the Apostles obey their Jewish authorities in Acts?
If Romans 13 is to be followed with no exceptions, then would you say the Founding Fathers were wrong to challenge King George’s taxes and later revolt?
Devil’s advocate, sir! Devil’s advocate. What say you?
Thanks for opening the dialogue Nate. I am use to the Devil’s advocate role. My dad has taken that role in every conversation we have had debated my entire life.
Let me address your question about the founding fathers first. Yes, they were wrong. Now, don’t jump in with a giant, “WHAT?!” until you have read all of my reply. At the time they were citizens of England and there were laws they were to follow. Did they follow them? No? Were they wrong? Yes. What does verse 2 say in Rom 13? they would incur judgment if they didn’t follow, they did. Warrants were issued. Arrests were made. Some were beaten. Some were killed. A revolution happened and a new country was formed. Was that wrong? Well, it broke the law and judgment was incurred because many people died for it. However, there were positive outcomes.
Keep in mind, my viewpoint was never that Jean Valjean should be sentenced to death or anything of that kind. He broke the law. That’s right, Jean is not an innocent man here. Breaking the law means consequences follow. He knew what the consequences were, and that is why he lied, ran, and hid for years.
Now, let’s look at the Apostle part of your question. Did breaking the law that the Jewish leaders pass down mean that the Apostles were wrong? Yes. It was a man law. They were told not to preach Jesus or else consequences would take place. Rom 13:2 says if you break man’s laws that judgment would incur. The Apostles were beaten, stoned, imprisoned, and even murdered. There were physical consequences to their choices to break the worldly laws passed upon them.
HOWEVER, they broke the worldly laws for Spiritual gains. Jesus told them to go forth and preach the Gospel to all the world. They took the incurring of worldly judgments and punishments to escape spiritual ones. They put God first in their decisions.
Going back to our character, Jean Valjean was not putting God first. He was putting his own neck first and sacrificing a stranger to save himself. He wasn’t innocent and he needed to face his consequences like a man.