Nature and Role of Law: 1–6

Walt Henrichsen June 26, 2015

Part One

In the series on eschatology I endeavored to show the strategic role it plays in the Christian life. Most see eschatology as the “caboose” of theology, when in reality it is the “engine.” All of us are motivated by hope. We have short, intermediate, and long-range hopes. Our long-range hope is an eternity with God in heaven. Eschatology is the biblical study of what God says we can legitimately hope for on the other side of the grave.

One of the many implications/applications of eschatology is the nature and role of Law in the life of the believer. For this reason, this study naturally follows the preceding one. What role, if any, does law play in the life of the New Testament follower of Christ? Why does God establish laws? If it is true that “by law is the knowledge of sin,”[1] why do some Christians argue that the New Testament believer is not under law? Does not law establish right from wrong?

Adam and Eve, placed in utopia, still craved autonomy. They broke the only law God gave them. We who inherit the nature of Adam are law-breakers. We need to understand the purpose of law. The progeny of Adam view law as restrictive; it destroys the ability to have fun. Conversely, a biblical world-view understands that law is an asset in obtaining the abundant life.

Much of what people do in their lives they do without understanding the reason behind it. For example, the child is fed nutritious food without understanding its importance. The soldier in war executes an order without understanding the strategy behind it. People are expected to drive at slower speeds than they deem necessary.

When people perform without understanding the purpose, they are easily swayed to change. If they are forced to perform, they easily rebel. Understanding the purpose of law is essential in curbing rebellion and properly relating to others. It is far easier to be compliant when we understand the reason behind the law. Although it is true that God does not promise us total understanding, especially in the specifics of why He asks us to do certain things, we can and should understand the overall reason why living under law is essential.

KINDS OF LAW

There are various kinds of laws and various ways to express them. In this presentation I will divide them as follows:

Scientific Law: These are the unalterable laws that govern the universe. They include the laws governing light, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc.

Moral Law: These are the laws of revealed religion that govern the behavior of man. They fit into two categories: Timeless moral laws that are part of the nature and character of God, (e.g., God’s commands not to kill, commit idolatry, and steal); and moral laws that are instituted by God, enforced for a period of time, but not part of His unchanging nature, (e.g., dietary and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament, and those laws proscribing the role of women in the New Testament).

Civil Law: These are laws enacted by the legislature that are not moral in nature. They include the regulation of commerce, taxation, and traffic.

In our study we will look at natural and moral law and by and large omit civil law. Scripture affirms civil law when it does not violate Scripture. The State is free to make any law that does not require the believer to break the commandments of God. Such law is relative and subject to change by the legislature. Thus we will discuss civil law only when it touches on moral law.

APPROACH

I will base my approach to this subject on logic and reason. I am not a historian or expert on other religions, but I do understand, in part, the implications of religious systems. Because a person’s religion shapes his world-view, which influences everything in life that he thinks or sees, theology is the pyramid of learning.

By way of illustration, you cannot have law without a lawgiver who requires accountability. You cannot have revelation without a Transcendent God who speaks. You cannot have sin without a personal God. You cannot have moral law without a personal God who has the power to exercise authority over all pretenders.

In order for law to be absolute and for sin to be absolutely wrong, there can be no multiplicity of gods. If there is more than one god, to which is a person accountable? This is the reason people like the idea of “many roads to heaven.” If there is a multiplicity of ways to relate to God, or gods, then my way is as valid as any other. Then I relate to “God” on my terms and in the process maintain my autonomy. Truth is relative and I create the law that governs my behavior from my reason.

All of this describes our culture. Personal autonomy is the highest good and tolerance the queen of virtue. We are led to believe that each person shapes his or her own morality. It may be possible to judge another’s motives, as the politician often says, “He has no heart for the poor.” But woe to the individual who dares to judge another’s behavior. That is tantamount to imposing my morality on others. The Bible says we dare not judge another’s motives,[2] but are commanded to judge a fellow-believer’s behavior;[3] the opposite of what is normative today. Such is the age in which we live.

No other religion in the history of man claims to worship a Transcendent God who speaks; only the God of Scripture and those sects spawned by the Judeo-Christian religion.

Mt. Sinai is unique in history. God gathered a nation at the foot of a mountain and spoke to them in a way that all heard Him. All agreed that God did speak, and all agreed what it was that He said. After hearing the Ten Commandments, the people said to Moses, “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”[4] The rest of the law was given by God to Moses on Sinai and communicated by Moses to the people.

DIVISIONS OF THE STUDY

I have divided this series into the following divisions:

Nature of Law

Law and Justice

Law and Man’s Inability to Govern Himself

Law and Love

Law and Self-denial

Mosaic Covenant

CONCLUSION

It seems to me that there are at least two reasons why people resist law:

1 – Pride: People do not want anyone telling them what to do. Such people don’t argue that the law is wrong; it is not an issue of right and wrong. Rather, they resent being told what to do. I am sure you are like I am in that you know people who rebel without a cause and destroy themselves in the process.

2 – They do not believe the law is in their interest. For such people it is a problem of perception. Reason determines the validity of law. For example, God has certain restrictions on how people are to satisfy their sexual appetites. God says, “You may have more than one wife, but have sex only with your wife.” The world says, “You may have sex with as many people as you would like, but you may only have one wife.” Even among the followers of Christ, people struggle with this. I am not advocating polygamy, and they are not advocating promiscuity. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, it seems reasonable to modify God’s commands. If a person is in a truly unhappy marriage, will not God understand that the person made a mistake and allow for divorce and remarriage? Granted that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but the couple will eventually marry. If genuine commitment is present, is pre-marital sex really that bad?

I will discuss this in more detail as I develop the series, but note that evangelical Christianity tolerates the breaking of all God’s commands. Although there are wonderful exceptions, generally speaking, evangelicals allow, without discipline,[5] the violation of all biblical commands. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single command that is an exception. Culture rather than Scripture determines what is normative in the life of the church.

No society can exist without the presence of Law. A person may refute the existence of absolute moral law, but society cannot exist without assuming the existence of morality. For example, I may reason philosophically that law is cultural and that our law does not apply in, say, Irian Jaya. Law is relative and must be changed to adapt to the existing culture. But the people of Irian Jaya cannot live in community with the people of the United States without a common law. Furthermore, we cannot create a common law without agreeing on what is morally right.

In practice, the existence of society assumes that morality is absolute. We hear a great deal of discussion on the relativity of truth. In reality, no one believes that truth is relative. One of the most dogmatic and legalistic environments is the university campus. If a person is not politically correct, fighting agreed upon causes and refraining from all language deemed inappropriate, then censorship and ostracization results. If a person practices homosexuality, divorces, lives in violation of biblical law, this is tolerated. All agree that truth is absolute. The question is who gets to define the absolutes? Today society debates the answer to this question.

I will close this first issue and begin discussing the nature of law in the next letter. The study on eschatology, although practical, tended to be esoteric. I hope that this series will be easier to follow and will generate questions and opposition. I encourage you to inter-act with me. Paul says in Acts 17:11: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” I hope that you will challenge what I write and return to Scripture to prove me wrong. This is an important component in the strategy God uses to change our lives.

His obedient servant,

Walt

References

[1] Cf. Romans 3:20

[2] Cf. I Corinthians 4:1-5

[3] Cf. I Corinthians 5

[4] Cf. Exodus 20:19

[5] Cf. Matthew 18:15-18; I Corinthians 5

Part Two

DEFINITION OF LAW

Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action, applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus the law must be prescribed by some superior, which the inferior is bound to obey. As Plutarch said, “Law is the king of mortal and immortal beings.”

For this reason, laws are fixed and invariable. If there is deviation, then it isn’t law. For example, we use to say that it was a law that what went up must come down. Now we know that this isn’t a law. Although we cannot break the law of gravity, precisely because it is a law, we can overcome the earth’s gravitational pull and send objects into space so that they will never return to earth.

RELIGION AND LAW

Cultures spawned by the Judeo-Christian religion teaches that there is a personal God who stands above and over His creation. Psalm 33:6-9: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” God created the universe and it obeys His unchanging will.

As we saw in the eschatology series, the Bible views history as linear rather than cyclical. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created….” In the beginning of what? Most agree that this is the beginning of time. God created and transcends time. In time He created the universe. History describes the events of this time/space creation of God. Just as history had a beginning, it will also have an end. II Peter 3:10: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” The world as we know it will cease to exist.

This biblical world-view teaches that there was a time when a person was not, but there will never be a time when he will not be. God created him an eternal being. In this, people differ from Jesus Christ, for God did not create Christ. There never was a time when He was not. This eternal dimension to man means that upon death he must give account to God for the way he lived his life. Just as immutable law governs the world God created, so also these same laws govern His people.

In this, the Judeo-Christian world-view (and those sects spawned by it) is unique. All other religions teach that there is no personal, transcendent God who relates to His creatures. He may be a force, but he has no law governing how man treats his fellow man. In the Hindu world-view, a person may disturb his karma or fate, and suffer the consequences in his next life on earth in what they call the transmigration of the soul. But neither he nor the created order live under the authority of immutable law and answer to a personal Creator for the way they respond to that law.

In such a world-view, history is cyclical rather than linear. Escape from the cycle of reincarnation, if such an escape exists, comes about by ceasing to exist. The world is god and god is the world. Trees, animals, humans, all have a bit of the divine. Nirvana, the closest thing to heaven in the Hindu system, consists in ceasing to exist as the person blends into the Oneness of the unified whole.

PRE-DETERMINISM

Thinking peoples everywhere and in every age believe in pre-determinism. As much as we would like to think we are in control, in reality we are not; being in control is a myth. As you know, you did not determine your parents, sex, color, gifts and abilities, country of birth, etc. Nor do you determine the flow the circumstances imposing themselves on your life, circumstances such as cancer, accidents, and the reaction of people towards you.

Solomon says in Ecclessiastes 3:1-2: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die.” Man is locked between the two limits of birth and death. He does not determine the day of his birth, and in all likelihood will not determine the day of his death.

If history is cyclical, then man is passive. Law does not govern him and there is no personal God shaping his destiny. He is the victim of “the fickled finger of fate.” If history is linear, then man is active. He must obey the laws of revealed religion, for after death he must give an account to his Creator for how he responded to that law. Furthermore, there is no second chance, no recycling into another temporal existence for another try.

The Bible teaches that you will live in eternity with the consequences of how you lived on earth. You may not be able to control much in your life, but you won’t be held accountable for what is beyond your control, only that for which you do exercise control. It is not how much you have or your circumstances that determine the quality of your eternity, but rather what you do with what you have and how you respond to your circumstances.

MODERN SCIENCE

From the Judeo-Christian world-view came the birth of modern science built on the assumption that the laws of nature are fixed and invariable. Natural laws such as the speed of light and sound, thermo-dynamics, etc. are predictable and reliable because they flow from the creation of an immutable God.

For example, we built a rocket ship and launched it to the moon convinced that the laws governing its flight would not vary. The risk inherent in the project was not in the laws themselves, but in our ability to understand and obey them. Thus when the space shuttle “Challenger” blew apart on take-off, killing all on board, no one said the fault lay in whimsical laws that changed. All agreed that the fault was in the planning and execution of the mission.

We may modify our understanding of a law such as that governing the speed of sound. Ostensibly sound travels at 740 mph in air at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The density of the medium through which it travels and the elasticity of the medium influence that speed, but all of this is governed by exact, unchanging law. No one argues that the speed of sound changes.

A scientist in the field of medicine or quantum mechanics may argue that in his specialty nothing is certain; there exists only degrees of probability. But that same scientist operates on the foundation of a set of laws assumed to be absolute, predictable, and unchanging.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) was an English mathematician and philosopher. No friend of Christianity, his writings did much to narrow the gap between philosophy and science. He said that because of a belief in the rationality of God, the early scientists had an “inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope.”

The Chinese discovered gunpowder, but did not develop it, simply because they did not see the world as defined by Whitehead. In their world-view the gods are arbitrary, and when the powder didn’t explode because it was wet, they assumed the fickle gods intervened. Western scientists had the world-view to apply it with devastating consequences.

CONCLUSION

Someone once said, “The God of the Bible commanded us to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of our behavior, in keeping with both reason and freewill, with which we are endowed.” That man is subject to the law of his Creator was assumed not only in the realm of science, but also in the moral realm governing the affairs of man. This was certainly the understanding of the Founders of our great republic. Thomas Jefferson penned in The Declaration of Independence, “We hold thee truths to be self-evident…”

This world-view freed man to pursue the wonders of nature, but bound him to the laws of God. God’s law is unchangeable and therefore predictable. The pagan gods are unpredictable, whimsical, and easily offended. Thus storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc., are the activities of angry gods. A biblical world-view gave us the security that when God’s law is applied to science the consequences are predictable. Natural disasters are evaluated from the perspective of law. For example, atmospheric conditions, water temperature and currents, winds, etc., create hurricanes. All are predictable to the degree that we understand them.

God’s law in the moral realm, however, carries with it the same force as natural law, along with the certainty of judgment when violated. This produced a bifurcation in man’s world-view: God’s natural law is absolute and unchanging, but His moral law is relative and changeable.

This bifurcation is between reason and faith. We arrive at natural law via reason, moral law via faith. Moral and natural law are equally normative, but moral law cannot be seen via reason. Conscience affirms moral law, but it does not make it law.

The certainty of His unchanging ways ensures success in the natural realm when His law is obeyed. But this personal, transcendent God, who speaks, has devoted His revelation to the moral realm, spelling out clearly His expectations in an inviolable set of laws. Observation and experimentation discover natural law, which exists because of an immutable God. Moral law, on the other hand, comes from this same immutable God via revelation.

If moral law revealed in Scripture is not normative, why conclude that natural law is normative? This bifurcation is irrational, but eagerly embraced for obvious reasons. The certainty of natural law combined with the refutation of moral law seems to offer man the autonomy he so passionately seeks.

Grateful for His Sovereignty.

Part Three

The intelligencia, who pride themselves on their objectivity, in reality, are inconsistent in at least two ways: First, they argue that truth is relative while adhering to a strict system of truth. They don’t really believe that truth is relative, no one does. Under the guise of arguing that truth is relative they insist on redefining truth. For example, they suggest that biblical commands dealing with such things as sexual purity are obsolete cultural mores no longer applicable to an enlightened society – while at the same time insisting that their standards dealing with such things as politically correct speech are absolute. They insist on tolerance dealing with issues such as homosexual preferences, divorce, and pre-marital sex, while practicing intolerance dealing with issues such as care of the environment, abortion, and women’s rights.

Second, they build their scientific method on the assumption that scientific law is inviolate, even though such a position can only be true if there exists a sovereign, personal, transcendent God who had revealed Himself in the Judeo-Christian Faith – while at the same time insisting that the revelation of God in moral matters cannot be verified using the scientific method, and are therefore non-binding.

Just as science cannot exist without the assumption that scientific laws are absolute, so too society cannot exist without assuming that there are absolute moral laws. The Judeo-Christian culture gave birth to the scientific method because it understood that the laws of God are inviolable. You do not need the gift of prophecy to predict that the culture that repudiates the assumptions of Scripture will eventually repudiate the scientific method. Skepticism breeds skepticism. Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity was applied to the moral realm, and Darwin’s theory of evolution contributed to the conclusion that man bears the image of an animal rather than the image of God, so too moral relativism begins to erode confidence in science.

Alan Bloom makes this point in his book Closing of the American Mind. He notes that the scientific method assumes the existence of absolutes. A relativistic society will destroy confidence in science, a reality that he suggests is already making its way through the universities in the United States. This results in the closing of the American mind. I could find nothing in the book suggesting that Dr. Bloom believed in absolutes; he simply concluded that they have to be assumed in order to continue growing and developing.

SOME LAWS ARE COUNTER-INTUITIVE

In both the scientific and moral realm some laws are counter-intuitive. By this I mean that they do not appear reasonable to the human mind. For example, we are taught that space bends. The speed of light is constant in reference to an individual even when that individual is traveling at half the speed of light. So let’s say one person travels in a space ship at half the speed of light while his twin sibling remains on earth. Their relative ages would differ once the spacecraft returned to earth.

The student of Scripture discovers that the same is true in the moral realm. For example, Paul says in Romans 7:7: “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” The conscience does not affirm that coveting is sin. For this reason, the church discusses the issue only infrequently, if at all. We call coveting, “getting ahead,” “having drive and ambition,” “pursuing the American dream.”

Again, you would think that you would be able to predict the consequences of sin. A cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals that this is an impossibility. In Numbers 15:32ff. a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. In II Samuel 11 David commits murder and adultery. David’s son dies for the crime, but David is allowed to live, even though both acts were capital offences.

Again, Paul says in I Cor 6:18: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” Reason would suggest that the misuse of drugs and alcohol are more harmful to the body than sexual sins. Paul doesn’t qualify his assertion with the caveat, “You may acquire some form of venereal disease when you are promiscuous.” Most would argue that there are many sins more detrimental to the body than fornication.

The more deeply we delve into science, the more counter-intuitive things we discover. The same is true as we study Scripture.

THE IMMUTABILITY OF LAW

The immutability of scientific law teaches the immutability of moral law. If, by definition, law is immutable, and there is such a thing as scientific law, then why wouldn’t there also be such a thing as moral law?

This bifurcation between moral and scientific law is illogical and inconsistent. It satisfies man’s pragmatic urge to be secure and autonomous; secure in the laws of science and autonomous in his own personal behavior.

The universe is accountable to God; His laws are unchangeable. We willed to believe this in science and willed to believe the opposite in regard to morals. As noted, the rationale for this was: Man can, through experimentation, discover the laws of science. He cannot discover such laws in the moral realm.

A problem presents itself with such an approach. Experimentation can only yield probability, not certainty. Doubt will fill the astronaut who is told, “The laws governing space travel, in reality are not laws; they are calculated guesses. We have never before traveled into space and we have no idea what to expect. Once you are launched there is an excellent chance we will never see you again.” Everything a person does involves risk, but scientific law is the difference between acceptable risk and stupidity.

If there is no God, then the forces of nature are not predictable. Everything is left to chance. For example, I cannot know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. All I can offer is the degree of probability. It has risen in the east and set in the west every day I have observed it, but this does not mean that it will rise in the east tomorrow.

If scientific law does not exist and degrees of probability are all we have, then we should assume that the disruptions of “scientific law” are common. Those who believe in scientific law call such disruptions “miracles.” If all is relative, then what we call miracles should be commonplace. People should be able to readily walk on water; the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus a frequent occurrence, and people regularly raising themselves from the dead.

Actually, we should be skeptical and amazed when events become consistent. Anything that so much as resembles “law” would be held in suspect. All know that the opposite is true. The Bible is belittled precisely because it claims the existence of events not conforming to scientific law. Belief in the laws of science is to acknowledge Nature’s God. We are rendered without excuse.

CONCLUSION

People judge. People are incapable of not judging. No one can live in a community without saying to himself or others, “That is wrong, he should not have done it.” “That was mean and unnecessary.” Etc. Few people in life are as judgmental as the liberal, broadminded people that comprise academia. They forget that judging assumes the existence of moral absolutes.

When I judge your behavior I assume that there exists a standard of right and wrong. Not only do I believe that my standard is right for me, I insist that it is right for you as well. A set of moral absolutes stands over both of us, to which we are both amenable. There may or may not be a law covering the behavior legislated by society. It makes no difference. For the most part, people judge one another without reference to the law of the land, that is, they don’t say, “He was wrong because he broke the law.” Rather, “He was wrong because he violated my sense of right and wrong.”

Law deals with what a society deems right and wrong, good and evil. For example, we do not impose capital punishment because of irrelevancies. People are not executed because when hungry they steal a loaf of bread. There must be a sense of proportion; the penalty must match the crime. We deem crimes to be capital offenses when there exists a violation of what society believes true, necessary, and inviolable.

To state it another way, law is the expression and imposition of how society defines absolute moral truths. For this reason, idolatry is better than skepticism when it comes to governing a nation. Religion, by its nature, is a restraining force in society. The gods watch the affairs of man and impose punishment for recalcitrant behavior.

Most people believe that they can beat the temporal system. For this reason people drive faster than the speed limit. Some are less than forthright when paying taxes. People lie, cheat, and steal, all within the parameters of what they deem to be acceptable risk. I am convinced that all that read this believe they can “beat the system.” If they did not, they would not sin.

So too, all agree that the eternal system, if it exists, cannot be beaten. Therefore, he who hates or ignores religion has no restraint other than his fellow man. He believes truth to be relative. Why shouldn’t he seek his own good at the expense of others? Montesquieu once said, “He who has no religion at all is like a terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears in pieces and when he devours.”

Yours for the cause of Truth,

Walt

Part Four

If you approach life philosophically, certainty is either in the subject or object. For example, I think you are wonderful; therefore you are wonderful. Or I think you are evil; therefore you are evil. If I am the object and you are the subject, you think I am evil, and therefore I am evil. So too, you think I am nice and therefore I am nice. This is the only way people can know. In this we see that certainty is subjective.

We seek to obtain objectivity by polling the opinions of others. For example, in a beauty contest, the winner is chosen by a panel of judges that determines that one girl is more beautiful than another is. In matters of morals, as noted in earlier issues of this series, right and wrong are determined by public opinion. Thirty years ago there was a consensus that homosexuality was evil. Today that consensus has disappeared as more and more people view it as acceptable behavior.

The United States accused Japan of war crimes during World War II. Japan accused the United States of a terrible crime in dropping the atomic bomb. Who decides whether one, neither, or both are wrong? How can one know? How can one be certain? In the final analysis, your answer is subjective.

One dictator believes that man has intrinsic worth. As a result he builds hospitals, libraries, and institutions of education. He dies and another dictator replaces him who believes that man has no intrinsic worth. He exploits the people through a life of self-aggrandizement, building monuments to his own greatness. If the people voted, they would say the first dictator is a better ruler than the second. But apart from the opinion of the majority, much like the panel of judges in the beauty contest, who determines which opinion is correct? Your answer will be subjective.

The Judeo-Christian religion is a religion of revelation; the sovereign creator of the universe speaks. To Him all must give an account. He declares that people are eternal and therefore have intrinsic worth. Certainty is no longer in the subject or object, but in the God who speaks and subjectivism is replaced by objective Truth. This is the premise of the whole of the Bible in general and the Law on Mount Sinai in particular.

Cultures influenced by Christianity are prone to see law as absolute, much like our nation at its founding. They are more disposed to be directed by law due to their belief that God gave moral absolutes regulating how people are to treat each other.

For this reason, the Judeo-Christian religion tends to foster moderate government, while pagan religions tend to foster despotic government. Christian cultures may, on occasion, produce leaders who exploit the populace. Men such as Hitler arrive on the scene now and then, but such men are an aberration, and when gone the country reverts to a more moderated government – as long as the culture remains Christian.

In Asia during the Second World War and the Vietnam War our enemy understood this difference. They ignored terrible atrocities they committed while calling attention to atrocities that we committed. They knew that the people of the US would never tolerate what their own people accepted, namely that people do not have intrinsic worth.

Pagan cultures may produce benign governments, but it is contrary to their world-view, for nothing in their religious system ascribes to man intrinsic value. Laos and China merely serve as examples. It is interesting to watch countries like India, Japan, and China, which in varying degrees have all embraced socialistic systems. Socialism and communism were both spawned out of a Judeo-Christian culture; it is not accidental that both Marx and Engels were Jews. Both men (as well as Hitler) sought to establish the millennium with man rather than God on the throne. Whether these pagan countries that have embraced socio-economic systems that are the product of either socialism or communism can maintain them over a protracted period of time, remains to be seen. Also, it is too early to prove what will happen in countries where democracy has taken root, but where there is no world-view that accepts the intrinsic worth of the individual.

LAW AND JUSTICE

Let’s now move to the second section in our study on law: Defining and ensuring justice is a principle purpose of law. This surfaces a problem, namely, the difference between morality and legality.

I remember watching a film, “Criminal Law,” in which a young attorney successfully defends a man convicted of murder. After winning the case, the attorney discovers that the man, in point of fact, is guilty. As the plot develops, the murderer begins to play with his attorney in ways we need not relate here. The young attorney goes for counsel to his law professor.

The professor responds by calling attention to the statue of justice standing outside the US Supreme Court. On a bright sunny day the statue casts a shadow across the steps of the building. The shadow is an image of the statue, but is not the statue. The statue represents justice and the shadow represents law. The objective of the shadow/law is to reflect the image of the statue/justice. Law seeks to reflect justice, but it can never do so perfectly; this is why the legislature sits in session.

God’s Law is the exception. It defines justice perfectly. God made the world and the rules by which the world must live. Justice, by definition, is what the creator declares to be just. The world does not live ignorant of the expectations of God. He has revealed Himself and spoken. Christianity is a religion of revelation with an absolute moral code.

JUSTICE AND SACRIFICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Leviticus 16 records the most holy day in the Jewish year[6] – Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement.[7] We don’t have space to exegete this passage; I recommend that you read it. Briefly, on this one day each year the High Priest, properly dressed and cleansed, entered the most holy place twice. First he entered with the blood of a bull, which he sprinkled on the Mercy Seat to cover his own sins. He then made an exit, and returned with the blood of a goat, which he sprinkled on the Mercy Seat to cover the sins of the people.

God gives His people a sobering picture of how He deals with sin: The Mercy Seat sits on top of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark, among other things, contains the tablets of Law given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Over the tabernacle rests the Presence of God, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Between the Law and the Presence of God rests the Mercy Seat, covered with blood to expiate the sins of the people.

Note what God says in the chapters following Leviticus 16:

Leviticus 20:10-16: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

After reading this portion I asked myself, “What happened to the Day of Atonement?” God forgives the sinner, but the state cannot forgive lest injustice reign. God treats people differently from how He expects the state to treat them. Joshua 7 affords an illustration of how this was applied.

After the conquest of Jericho, Joshua sends his army against the insignificant city of Ai. The army of Ai thoroughly defeats Israel. Joshua discovers that Achan took of the spoils of Jericho, against the express command of God. “And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.” [8] In other words, Joshua said to him, “Ask God to forgive you, for we will not.” With that the people stoned Achan along with his family.

THE ROLE OF FORGIVENESS

In the NT God charges the individual with the responsibility to forgive. Christ feels so strongly about this He gives a parable about a man who was forgiven debt so great that he could never pay it. The master, who was also the lender, forgave the man the whole debt. Later, a man comes to the one forgiven asking that an insignificant sum be forgiven him. Unwilling to forgive, he had the man cast into debtor’s prison. The master, upon hearing of it, casts the unforgiving servant into prison until the whole of his huge debt is paid. Jesus closes the parable with these words: “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”[9]

If God charges the individual with the responsibility to forgive, He charges the state with the task of ensuring justice. Paul clearly spells this out in his great epistle to the Romans:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”[10]

Words like “mercy,” “pity,” and “forgiveness” are used interchangeably in Jesus’ parable in Matthew 18. Forgiveness is the setting aside of justice. Thus forgiveness and justice are mutually exclusive. Care must be taken in applying these two words in our interpersonal relationships.

For example, in raising our children, justice is never the goal; Christ paid the penalty for sin, satisfying God’s justice in the process. Discipline should never be judicial, but rather corrective. For this reason, if your spouse says to you as you begin to discipline your child, “Have mercy,” you know that someone is not thinking correctly. If correction rather than justice is the goal, then mercy is not an issue.

Our criminal system in the US affords another example. We cannot decide as a society if we wish to correct and thus rehabilitate criminals, or whether we seek justice in punishing them. Theoretically, we must punish criminals in order to maintain a just society. However, the US judicial system attempts to negotiate between mercy and justice exemplified by their titling institutions of justice as “penitentiaries,” and sometimes “institutions of correction.”

Biblically, the magistrate representing the State executes justice, penalizing the offender to ensure that citizens honor the law. The same magistrate, however, must forgive individuals that offend him in the normal intercourse of life.

His….Yours,

Walt

References

[6] Cf. also Hebrew 9:1-5.

[7] Yom is Hebrew of “day;” Kippur for “covering.” The Day of Atonement is the Day of Covering.

[8] Joshua 7:19

[9] Matthew 18:21-35.

[10] Romans 13:1-5.

Part Five

In the last issue we saw that forgiveness means setting aside justice. You do not need to forgive a person unless he has violated the laws of justice. When the law is broken, God requires the state to execute justice. God instructs His people to forgive. In passages such as Matthew 18:21-35 (dealing with the individual forgiving another) and Romans 13:1-5 (dealing with the state executing justice), the difference between justice and forgiveness is quite clear.

The OT doesn’t give us quite the clarity between justice and forgiveness that we find in the NT. Throughout the OT God’s people clearly saw the need for God’s forgiveness,[11] but the distinction between forgiveness and justice is blurred. For example, God allocated six cities of refuge to which certain people could flee in order to avoid justice:

“Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. 26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; 27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:”[12]

God distinguished between murder and manslaughter in the law. Those committing murder were executed, but those committing manslaughter could flee to one of the six cities of refuge spread throughout Israel. To avoid the vengeance of the offended family, the manslaughter had to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. If the offender was found outside the city before the High Priest’s death, the avenging family could kill him without guilt.

From this we see that the people in OT Israel practiced vigilantism. The system was beautiful in its simplicity. Justice was a corporate responsibility. Possibly it is analogous to the US Military Academies where those attending solemnly vow, “We will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate any who do.”

The individual was responsible for executing justice. There were no magistrates or policemen designated by God in the law. People knew when the law was broken and what punishment God expected. Moses said, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”[13] Justice was swift; the people stoned the offender upon finding him guilty.

In such a system, all are instructed. Solomon warns, “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”[14] This doesn’t mean that there is no hint of the need to forgive in the OT. However, God’s call for the people to express mercy is primarily found in the later prophets. For example, the prophet Micah said, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”[15]

In the OT law, God warns that a person cannot hold a grudge,[16] but as far as I can find, there is no reference to one person forgiving another person in the first five books of the Bible. This may explain why, in so many of the Psalms, King David prays that God will exact revenge on his enemies.

THE LAW OF THE HARVEST

In Galatians 6:7-8 we find Paul’s famous words, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” They are commonly summarized as “The Law of the Harvest;” a man reaps what he sows. This “law” is one of the foundation stones of Scripture. You find it in various forms throughout the Bible.

The heart of man affirms “the law of the harvest” through his innate sense of fairness; a person ought to reap what he sows. It does not seem right that an innocent child should suffer or that a serial killer be set free. Thus we feel frustrated when our sense of justice is offended. You would think that this basic principle would be void of ambiguity, but such is not the case. Let’s briefly trace it through the Bible:

When Moses comes to the close of his life, he lays before the people “the law of the harvest.” Deuteronomy 27:9-26 gives specific instructions to Israel when they enter the Promised Land. Half the tribes must stand on Mount Gerizim to pronounce blessing as the reward for obedience, and half must stand on Mount Ebal to pronounce curses on Israel if they disobey. Deuteronomy 28 spells out all the blessings the nation can expect if they obey God with all their hearts, and conversely the calamity that will befall them if they wander from God. This is “the law of the harvest” promised in earthly, temporal terms.

Psalm 73, however, calls attention to the opposite. The Psalmist notes that the ungodly prosper and the righteous suffers. The observation was confusing and painful for the writer, “until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.”[17] This injustice will be rectified after they die, when they meet God in judgment. Thus the Psalmist reasons that “the law of the harvest” applies in the eternal, after death, but not in the temporal before death.

You will remember that “the law of the harvest” got the three friends of Job into trouble with God. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar applied “the law of the harvest” to Job’s plight. They reasoned, “A man reaps what he sows. It is obvious, Job, that you are reaping a bad harvest. Therefore we must conclude that it is because you sowed iniquity at an earlier time.” The debate between Job and his friends remained heated until the end of the book when God rebukes the friends and commends Job.[18] “The law of the harvest” cannot be applied in the temporal.

The only corporate entity to which God commits Himself is the nation of Israel. With her God made a covenant. God has made no covenant with any other institution, including the church. Having committed Himself to Israel, He invited the nations of the world to observe what it is like to have God as King. In this context, God promised the nation that if they were obedient they would prosper, and if not, they would experience the rod of His wrath. In either case, the nations would learn important lessons about God. For this reason, God promised that, for the nation of Israel, “the law of the harvest” applied in the temporal.

Under no other circumstance can “the law of the harvest” be applied to the temporal. This does not mean that there are no temporal consequences for our behavior. Rather, we are not promised that righteousness will be rewarded with temporal blessings, and that sin will be rewarded with temporal loss. Galatians 6:7-8 may apply in the temporal, but there is no guarantee from God that it will. He does promise that it will apply in the eternal when we meet Him in judgment.

If “the law of the harvest” applied universally and consistently in the temporal affairs of life, then it would be possible to prove empirically that the moral laws of God are as absolute and irrevocable as natural law. This in turn would eliminate the need to walk by faith, and “without faith, you cannot please God.”[19] Faith is essential in turning a man from a life of independence to dependence upon God in Christ Jesus. God does not want you to be able to prove that He exists or that His moral law is absolute.

CONCLUSION

Although “the law of the harvest” cannot be consistently applied in the temporal, the setting aside of justice when you forgive others does not eliminate consequences. For example, your 14-year-old child steals the family car and destroys it. He expresses great sorrow and repentance and begs your forgiveness. Understanding your biblical responsibility to forgive, you grant him his request. He responds by saying, “Wonderful, then I do not need to pay for the car.”

You take exception with his conclusion and suggest that he, in fact, must pay for the destroyed auto. He retorts, “If I must pay, then what good does it do me to be forgiven by you? You taught me that Jesus forgives me and separates my sin from Him as far as east is from west, never again to be remembered. If Jesus does that for you and me, why won’t you forgive like He forgives?” How would you answer your child?

You would correctly point out that forgiveness does not eliminate consequences. The benefit derived from forgiveness is the restoration of the relationship. You love and accept your child unconditionally, but because you do love him, you hold him accountable for his behavior. Your motive in requiring payment for the destroyed auto is not punishment, but a desire to teach him “the law of the harvest.” The temporal application of this “law” seeks to teach the child that there are eternal consequences for temporal behavior.

We are God’s children. What was true in your relationship with your child is also true in God’s relationship with us. “The law of the harvest” does not necessarily apply in this life, but it will for sure in the life to come. When it does take place in this life, when God does make us live with the consequences of our decisions, He graciously teaches us that sin does not pay. Forgiveness restores the broken relationship, but does not eliminate eternal consequences. If it did, truth would be relative and the Ten Commandments would be the Ten Suggestions.

Many seek to manipulate God by reasoning that justification eliminates consequences. Such people argue that obedience following conversion indicates whether or not a person is converted, but that God’s forgiveness eliminates any significant eternal consequences. Although it is true that God designed the doctrine of assurance for the obedient, your assurance of salvation does not negate the fact that God will hold you eternally accountable for your behavior on earth.

The force of law is in accountability. If there were no eternal consequences for temporal behavior, then there would be no accountability for violating God’s law, and we could consider His law negotiable. For example, when the State Highway Patrol goes on strike, people drive as fast as they want, not because the speed laws are nullified, but rather because there is no accountability.

Therefore we see that God gives sufficient evidence to warn us that “the law of the harvest” is inviolable without enough evidence to prove that moral law is absolute. We must walk by faith, but He graciously demonstrates for those with eyes to see that grace does not eliminate accountability and forgiveness does not eliminate consequences. I cannot prove to you that His laws are absolute and that you will reap in eternity what you sow in this life, but I can declare to you that this is the clear teaching of Scripture.

His and your servant,

Walt

References

[11] Cf., e.g., Exodus 20:5-6, 34:6-7, Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 32:35,43, Psalm 94:1. These references deal with God holding man accountable for sin and thus in the need of forgiveness.

[12] Numbers 35:24-27.

[13] Deuteronomy 17:6.

[14] Ecclesiastes 8:11.

[15] Micah 6:8.

[16] Cf. Leviticus 19:18.

[17] Psalm 73:17.

[18] Cf. Job 42:7-10.

[19] Hebrews 11:6.

Part Six

In the past two issues we have looked at Law and Justice. We have seen that justice and legality are related but different. Law seeks to define justice, but always does it imperfectly. The legislature sits in session endeavoring to write just laws. God’s law is the exception; it defines justice perfectly. For this reason, God did not constitute Israel with a legislature.

When people forgive, they set aside justice. God charges the individual with the responsibility to forgive, the state with the task of executing justice. This difference is more clearly seen in the NT than in the OT, because under the Theocracy He did not constitute Israel with a judiciary. The system was beautiful in its simplicity; justice was a corporate responsibility.

Furthermore, by way of review, with “the law of the harvest” God promised the nation of Israel temporal accountability. Although there exists no specific teaching that “the law of the harvest” cannot be universally applied by the individual in the temporal, through lessons such as the Book of Job, we see that this is the case. God solemnly pledges, however, that this “law” does apply in the eternal.

God gives sufficient evidence to warn us that “the law of the harvest” is inviolable while at the same time withholding sufficient evidence to prove that moral law is absolute. We must walk by faith, but He graciously demonstrates for those with eyes to see that grace does not eliminate accountability and forgiveness does not eliminate consequences.

OLD TESTAMENT MIND-SET

In the OT God’s people saw clearly the need to obtain forgiveness from God for their transgressions, but did not practice this in their inter-personal relationships. Because the distinction between the responsibilities of the state and individual was blurred, His people saw clearly their need to execute justice. The conflict between justice and forgiveness caused the OT saints to practice the former at the expense of the latter.

In the United States we are experiencing a reversal of this OT mind-set. Our society tends to be short on justice and long on compassion. It destroys the sense of security and well being in our communities. When we take God and His law from our daily affairs we become confused regarding justice. First, we have a hard time defining justice. All intuitively know that there is such a thing as justice, but when God is removed from the equation justice is impossible to define. God, by definition is just. All He does is good, just, and righteous. Without this foundation, you have no ability to define justice.

Second, without God and the hope of heaven, this life is all we have, and the only hope possible is temporal. If I am cleaver enough to avoid the consequences of my behavior in this life, then I can afford to be unjust if I deem it to be in my interest. This results in an erosion of morality.

Third, for those altruistic individuals for whom God does not exist, if they wish to perfect society, the state must be redemptive,. When the state seeks to redeem society, it steps outside its God-given charge to execute justice, and the people take the law into their own hands. The state often reacts by being harder on the vigilante than the criminal.

Fourth, we lose our sense of proportion when we don’t take into account the eternal dimension. Our nation’s judicial system presupposed that if a criminal escaped justice in this life, he would face the justice of God in judgment. For this reason, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt; the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. Without this “safety net” of eternal justice, people become preoccupied with executing justice here and now, even if their perception of the facts is fallacious.

VINDICTIVENESS

It is easy to confuse being vindictive with being unjust. Vindictiveness is wrong only because God told us to forgive. There is such a thing as being justly vindictive. At the Judgment of The Great White Throne[20] God will be justly vindictive.

The Muslim world, in many ways, seeks to replicate the OT Theocratic system. If you wonder what OT Israel was supposed to look like, in significant respects the Muslim State is a mirror. We are often appalled by the vindictive nature of their society where people are vengeful and seek retribution towards those who have committed a crime against them. Until later in OT history when God began to place an emphasis on the need for the individual to forgive, being vindictive was how God intended them to be.

For example in Genesis 34, when one of the sons of Shechem defiled Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob, her bothers slaughtered the men of Shechem’s, taking their women and children as spoil. In verse 30 Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, but not because they sinned against God. Rather, because “ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land…” Nothing in Scripture suggests that their vindictiveness was a “stink” to God.

We find in II Corinthians 5 the sequel to vigilantism in the OT. You will remember that Paul rebukes the Corinthians for tolerating sin in the church. He gives two objectives in executing discipline on the offender. First, when people live in willful disobedience to God, their soul is placed in peril. Therefore, the Corinthians are required to excommunicate the sinner “that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”[21] All discipline must be redemptive, seeking the restoration of the unrepentant sinner.

We find the second objective in verses 6-8: to maintain the purity of the church. Unconfronted sin in the Body of Christ dulls and desensitizes the conscience, alienates us from God, lends support to other expressions of sin, and causes the moral climate of the believing community to deteriorate.

No sense of vindictiveness or vengeance appears in the NT teachings on discipline. Love, a redemptive spirit, and the quest for purity, characterize NT discipline. This emphasis was lacking, or at least oblique, in the OT.

OBEYING ROMANS 13

As noted earlier, Romans 13:1-5 command believers to obey the state:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”

Throughout the centuries, conscientious Christians have chaffed under these restrictions. The fact that Paul penned these words during one of the most abusive governments ever known by man, gives little comfort. When a man believes that the greatest pain the magistrate can inflict will end in a moment that begins his eternal happiness, then law can no longer restrain him.

Having used the Muslim religion as an earlier example, we all know that they engage themselves in acts of self-destruction for what they deem a holy cause. Their allegiance to a “higher” law gives them assurance that when they break the law of the state they gain eternal paradise. Such people, however, do not subscribe to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13.

The Reverend Paul Hill killed a physician that performed abortions. As a Christian, he ostensibly believes Romans 13. Yet, because the state allows the people to break God’s commandments, he believes he has a moral obligation to oppose the state. This is especially true in the case of such a heinous crime as murdering a fetus. It is easy to see how people feel that immoral laws must be opposed.

Most of Evangelical Christianity sought to distance itself from Rev. Hill when he committed this crime. Interestingly, however, these same evangelicals view Dietrich Bonhoffer, the well-known German Lutheran minister who involved himself in a plot to kill Hitler, as a model. I marvel at their use of logic as they endeavor to condemn the former and embrace the latter.

Scripture is quite clear on this subject. I disobey civil law only when such laws require my breaking God’s law. For example, the government does not command that my wife have an abortion. If it did, then I must respectfully disobey the state. God does not allow me to violate His commandments because I am under the authority of the state or some other individual or institution. Neither does He allow me to force the state into keeping His law. That in essence, is the purpose of Romans 13.

CONCLUSION

We all live spending the capital of earlier investments. Understanding this, our forefathers warned us to keep vigil over our freedoms. Financial planners urge us to properly prepare for the future. Every married person knows that he lives today off the investment made in his spouse years earlier.

This axiom holds true in the moral arena as well. Unfortunately, as a nation we have not lived as though we believe it. Like a farmer who eats his seed corn and has nothing to plant, we have lived off of the moral investment of happier times. As already noted, this principle is more easily demonstrated in tangible things such as economics than in morality.

Many argue that there is no relationship between violence on TV and violence on the street; that sex education does not promote promiscuity, it merely prepares youngsters for it. When we examine our conscience, however, we know that moral license will destroy the fabric of our republic. “The law of the harvest” is true: we reap what we sow.

Because of this, our emotions command that we confront society, demanding the implementation of God’s moral law as part of the law of the land. When such feelings emerge, we must filter then through Scripture. God does not call us to be confrontational, but redemptive in our relationships with non-Christians. We confront fellow believers when they sin, and evangelize those that do not know Christ. We cannot legislate morality, but God can. The moral climate of our country will only improve as people come to know Christ and follow His leadership.

Yours for the fulfilling of the Great Commission,

Walt

References

[20] Cf. Revelation 20:11-15.

[21] Cf. I Corinthians 5:5