But the problem of free-for-all judicial independence versus biblical judicial independence is worse than the typical judge catering to his favored political masters and rendering "judicial independence" opposite to its original meaning. Today's judicial independence is an out-of-control religious, philosophical, political, jurisprudential anarchy that, if continued, will result in the spiraling out of control of the American experiment in representative democracy. Why?
1. If every appointed or elected judge can interpret the law as he sees fit, then the law is as malleable as clay. Any objective can be reached, given enough time (as the secular evolutionists say of astrophysical, geological, and biological evolution), by the determined progressive jurists, so-called.
2. It means law is not law. And why should law be law? The secular evolutionists as to the source of the modern earth and its inhabitants would ask the same question: Why should law be law? On their terms, law is not law, just temporary policy until it evolves into whatever is needed/expedient/helpful at the time. In the biblical sense, law is, and it cannot change, just as the very God who gave it does not change. It may change in its application in a certain time, but the law, God's law, cannot change.
3. It means there can be no constitutions upon which republics can be built. If we do not submit to the existence of a law issued and irrevocable by God, then why would we submit to a document written over two hundred years ago by men long dead and unfamiliar with our present circumstances?
4. It means all judicial opinions are equal. The biblically-guided judge in rural Alabama is no better than the radical, atheist, evolutionary judge in Washington. All opinions are equal, and if one part of the country believes homosexual perversion is a valid basis for marriage or that cannibalism is a valid form of nutrition while another part believes the opposite, then so be it. We'll see which view evolves into the best for the rest of the country or not. Actually, the presumption would be against the biblical view because the bible is old. Old is bad; we evolve from the old to the improved, although, strangely, it seems that no one of the progressive camp considers that evolution can lead to extinction as well as improvement.
5. It means the liberal judge is a "true" judge. The classic definition of a legislator is a writer of law. The classic definition of a judge is a person who interprets the law in accord with its original meaning, not a re-writer of the law. Therefore, in the classic and the biblical view, the liberal, progressive judge is not a judge but a legislator, a violator of his oath as a judge, a perverter of the law. That person is not fit to be a judge at all. But in the modern, progressive view, where truth cannot exist as a fixed compass point and plumb line for law or governing, the judge who sticks with the original intent of a law is thwarting progress, is hopelessly wedded to an out-dated and perhaps deleterious interpretation of a law that we no longer need. The classic judge is holding back the movement of progress, is intellectually inferior because he refuses to use his imagination to come up with a modern view of the law that meets the modern need. Take marriage as an example. To the progressive, expanding marriage to include the homosexual is required by the modern need for such. For the judge who believes law, and therefore, the definition of marriage, is fixed, it's a twisting of the law.
6. It means permanent deadlock, at best. The progressives will always seek to put legislating perverters of the law into judgeships, while conservatives will always be horrified by the damage such judges will do to the law. The conservatives will always try to have originalist interpreters of what the law is, while progressives will consider such judges backward, stupid, stubborn hindrances to necessary progress in society. There can be no middle ground between the two views.
7. It means toleration of this stalemate will result in one of three endings: One, the victory of the progressives, resulting in the ever more rapid devolution of law into personal opinion, and ultimate chaos. Two, a permanent stalemate, as political opponents fight over who will be judges, and a resulting patchwork of fixed laws along with changing laws across the political and geographical landscape of the country. Either way, the society breaks down, more rapidly in the first scenario. Three, the disgust by the people in a legal system falling apart, meaning the people turn to some philosophical/political/judicial system that has enough will to enforce a consistent and more traditional view of law on the society. That means our present system is merely a transition period from one jurisprudential view - biblical - to another - what, we don't know yet. It could mean a transition period that results in the people demanding a return to biblical law, but in my opinion, we don't see that as probable yet.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence
In principle, the concept of judicial independence is a Christian concept. Without a God to whom the judge is answerable and in whose place the judge rules, there is nothing to stop the judge from simply following the ruling elite's direction. You could argue that in a secular system popular election would provide the potential for some independence. However, notice how the ruling elite complains about all the "problems" surrounding popular election - the people are ignorant, campaign contributions corrupt the judges, it's "unseemly." These are the ostensible reasons for prohibiting the people from choosing their own judges, but the real reason is that the legal unions (bar associations) and the ruling judges and politicians have little or no control over who becomes a judge, and this they cannot tolerate.
The concept of judicial independence is critical to a biblical system. However, from what are the judges independent? Moses instructed: "And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." Deuteronomy 1:16-7. The judges would have to be dependent upon God and His law, not independent, in order to properly judge. There's only one other alternative - dependence upon man. It might be the ruling elite, who can pay them with money or with advancement in the political system. Or it might be the judge himself. If the judge has no god to whom he's loyal, and the judge doesn't care about the ruling elite, by what standard does the judge issue rulings? What if the judge is loyal to another religion, another god? How can such a judge rule over a Christian people, who worship the Christian God?
You might argue that the judge should rule according to the law, no matter what the judge's personal beliefs, but this is a naive view. Interpretation is the constant focus of study in all law schools. Interpretation is the lever used by judges to change the law. A judge's personal beliefs, religious beliefs even, will inform them as to how to interpret laws.
In his 17th century magnum opus about the biblical concept of king and civil government and the people, Lex Rex, Samuel Rutherford wrote: “Inferior judges appointed by king Jehoshaphat have this place, 2 Chron. xix. 6, “The king said to the judges, Take heed what ye do, כילא†לאדם†תשפטו†כי†ליחוה†, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord.” Then, they were deputies in the place of the Lord, and not the king’s deputies in the formal and official acts of judging. Ver. 7, “Wherefore, now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you, take heed and do it; for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, or taking of gifts.
“Hence I argue, 1. If the Holy Ghost, in this good king, forbid inferior judges, wresting of judgment, respecting of persons, and taking of gifts, because the judgment is the Lord’s, and if the Lord himself were on the bench, he would not respect persons, nor take gifts, then he presumeth, that inferior judges are in the stead and place of Jehovah, and that when these inferior judges should take gifts, they make, as it were, the Lord, whose place they represent, to take gifts, and to do iniquity, and to respect persons; but that the Holy Lord cannot do. 2. If the inferior judges, in the act of judging, were the vicars and deputies of king Jehoshaphat, he would have said, judge righteous judgment. Why? For the judgment is mine, and if I, the king, were on the bench, I would not respect persons, nor take gifts; and you judge for me, the Supreme Judge, as my deputies. But the king saith, They judge not for man, but for the Lord. 3. If, by this, they were not God’s immediate vicars, but the vicars and deputies of the king, then, being mere servants, the king might command them to pronounce such a sentence, and not such a sentence as I may command my servant and deputy, in so far as he is a servant and deputy, to say this, and say not that; but the king cannot limit the conscience of the inferior judge, because the judgment is not the king’s, but the Lord’s. 4. The king cannot command any other to do that as king, for the doing whereof he hath no power from God himself; but the king hath no power from God to pronounce what sentence he pleaseth, because the judgment is not his own but God’s. And though inferior judges be sent of the king, and appointed by him to be judges, and so have their external call from God’s deputy the king, yet, because judging is an act of conscience, as one man’s conscience cannot properly be a deputy for another man’s conscience, so neither can an inferior judge, as a judge, be a deputy for a king. Therefore, the inferior judges have designation to their office from the king; but if they have from the king that they are judges, and be not God’s deputies, but the king’s, they could not be commanded to execute judgment for God, but for the king: (Deut. i. 17,) Moses appointed judges, but not as his deputies to judge and give sentence, as subordinate to him; for the judgment (saith he) is the Lord’s, not mine. 5. If all the inferior judges in Israel were but the deputies of the king, and not immediately subordinate to God as his deputies, then could neither inferior judges be admonished nor condemned in God’s word for unjust judgment, because their sentence should be neither righteous nor unrighteous judgment, but in so far as the king should approve it or disapprove it; . . . .”
Rutherford wrote to oppose the statist position of many that the judge is the mere arm of the king who appoints the judge. Such a position denies the judge's duty to fear God not man. Thereby, the judge acts independently of man and king, but not of God. Notice that many of the most vociferous advocates of judicial independence today are secular humanist lawyers, judges, and politicians. The politicians love it when a judge defies God and the people and rules in favor of some progressive cause. The people criticize the judge, and the politicians, pretending neutrality, call for the critics' heads for opposing "judicial independence." The judge's ruling may defy God's law, common sense, and be perfectly in line with the appointing public official's viewpoint of what the law should be, yet instead of calling it what it is - sycophancy by the judge toward the political masters appointed the judge - and they call it judicial independence. This is a perversion of the doctrine. In defying God's law and agreeing with the partisan political masters, the judge has advanced his political prospects with the system. He has acted loyally for his appointing masters and defied God and the people; thus in the name of judicial independence, the judge has denied judicial independence.
The concept of judicial independence is critical to a biblical system. However, from what are the judges independent? Moses instructed: "And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." Deuteronomy 1:16-7. The judges would have to be dependent upon God and His law, not independent, in order to properly judge. There's only one other alternative - dependence upon man. It might be the ruling elite, who can pay them with money or with advancement in the political system. Or it might be the judge himself. If the judge has no god to whom he's loyal, and the judge doesn't care about the ruling elite, by what standard does the judge issue rulings? What if the judge is loyal to another religion, another god? How can such a judge rule over a Christian people, who worship the Christian God?
You might argue that the judge should rule according to the law, no matter what the judge's personal beliefs, but this is a naive view. Interpretation is the constant focus of study in all law schools. Interpretation is the lever used by judges to change the law. A judge's personal beliefs, religious beliefs even, will inform them as to how to interpret laws.
In his 17th century magnum opus about the biblical concept of king and civil government and the people, Lex Rex, Samuel Rutherford wrote: “Inferior judges appointed by king Jehoshaphat have this place, 2 Chron. xix. 6, “The king said to the judges, Take heed what ye do, כילא†לאדם†תשפטו†כי†ליחוה†, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord.” Then, they were deputies in the place of the Lord, and not the king’s deputies in the formal and official acts of judging. Ver. 7, “Wherefore, now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you, take heed and do it; for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, or taking of gifts.
“Hence I argue, 1. If the Holy Ghost, in this good king, forbid inferior judges, wresting of judgment, respecting of persons, and taking of gifts, because the judgment is the Lord’s, and if the Lord himself were on the bench, he would not respect persons, nor take gifts, then he presumeth, that inferior judges are in the stead and place of Jehovah, and that when these inferior judges should take gifts, they make, as it were, the Lord, whose place they represent, to take gifts, and to do iniquity, and to respect persons; but that the Holy Lord cannot do. 2. If the inferior judges, in the act of judging, were the vicars and deputies of king Jehoshaphat, he would have said, judge righteous judgment. Why? For the judgment is mine, and if I, the king, were on the bench, I would not respect persons, nor take gifts; and you judge for me, the Supreme Judge, as my deputies. But the king saith, They judge not for man, but for the Lord. 3. If, by this, they were not God’s immediate vicars, but the vicars and deputies of the king, then, being mere servants, the king might command them to pronounce such a sentence, and not such a sentence as I may command my servant and deputy, in so far as he is a servant and deputy, to say this, and say not that; but the king cannot limit the conscience of the inferior judge, because the judgment is not the king’s, but the Lord’s. 4. The king cannot command any other to do that as king, for the doing whereof he hath no power from God himself; but the king hath no power from God to pronounce what sentence he pleaseth, because the judgment is not his own but God’s. And though inferior judges be sent of the king, and appointed by him to be judges, and so have their external call from God’s deputy the king, yet, because judging is an act of conscience, as one man’s conscience cannot properly be a deputy for another man’s conscience, so neither can an inferior judge, as a judge, be a deputy for a king. Therefore, the inferior judges have designation to their office from the king; but if they have from the king that they are judges, and be not God’s deputies, but the king’s, they could not be commanded to execute judgment for God, but for the king: (Deut. i. 17,) Moses appointed judges, but not as his deputies to judge and give sentence, as subordinate to him; for the judgment (saith he) is the Lord’s, not mine. 5. If all the inferior judges in Israel were but the deputies of the king, and not immediately subordinate to God as his deputies, then could neither inferior judges be admonished nor condemned in God’s word for unjust judgment, because their sentence should be neither righteous nor unrighteous judgment, but in so far as the king should approve it or disapprove it; . . . .”
Rutherford wrote to oppose the statist position of many that the judge is the mere arm of the king who appoints the judge. Such a position denies the judge's duty to fear God not man. Thereby, the judge acts independently of man and king, but not of God. Notice that many of the most vociferous advocates of judicial independence today are secular humanist lawyers, judges, and politicians. The politicians love it when a judge defies God and the people and rules in favor of some progressive cause. The people criticize the judge, and the politicians, pretending neutrality, call for the critics' heads for opposing "judicial independence." The judge's ruling may defy God's law, common sense, and be perfectly in line with the appointing public official's viewpoint of what the law should be, yet instead of calling it what it is - sycophancy by the judge toward the political masters appointed the judge - and they call it judicial independence. This is a perversion of the doctrine. In defying God's law and agreeing with the partisan political masters, the judge has advanced his political prospects with the system. He has acted loyally for his appointing masters and defied God and the people; thus in the name of judicial independence, the judge has denied judicial independence.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Ministers of God
Romans 13 calls those in political office "ordained of God" and "ministers of God." Romans 13:1,4. What kind of minister? How are they different from pastors and preachers in the Church? Is there a difference between church ministers and political ministers?
First, there must be a difference biblically. In Israel, the priesthood was separate from the political, at least, in governmental function. The king who tried to offer incense as if he was a priest suffered immediate judgment from God, in the form of leprosy. "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar." 2Ch 26:18-9 God placed carefully delineated duties and limitations on the priests and levites, in the form of minimum and maximum age for service, limitations on property ownership, etc.
Second, there must be a difference to limit power. When church and state are combined in one entity, the tendency to tyranny is practically automatic. Notice in Romans 13 the distinction. The political office has the "power of the sword." This is the power to fine, imprison, to even execute, if necessary. Therefore, the sword, the symbol of physical power and threat and death, represents political power. Whereas, the keys represent the power of the church. The church's power is greater because it carries into eternity. Jesus gave to the Church, not to Peter, the power to lock and unlock forgiveness, entrance into the kingdom, membership within the church, etc.
Third, there must be a difference to distinguish functions. Christ, the head of the Church, exercises healing power and preaches the word of truth, opening the way for people to understand the way to live and the way into the kingdom. Notice that as High Priest, he refuses political power when someone in the crowd demanded he exercise the coercive power of state political power to divide property forcibly. "And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 12:13-4.
The state, carrying the power of the sword, is not a healing agency; it would mix functions improperly for the state to exercise a healing function. Therefore, when people demand welfare, healthcare, and all matter of other services from the state, they are demanding what it cannot give. It's like giving a sword to a soldier and demanding he use it to heal your cancer. The only way to end the cancer with a sword is to end you.
The state's function is to execute justice. Even if it doesn't do a very good job of that, at least it is acting within its boundaries and can do little harm in other parts of the society. But when it is given too much power and duties beyond its intended function, it not only expands power improperly, but it does harm by pretending to be the Church. Christ, the head of the Church and the source of all good things, does not use the state as a healing agency.
Fifth, there must be a difference to give glory to God. God can and has granted military victories to His people. See the stories of kings and such in the Old Covenant books of Exodus, Numbers, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles. However, His Son is the key representation as to how He wants to work in the earth. Jesus had nothing to do with the state and its execution authority, except as a victim of its misuse of the sword for a purpose other than justice, and he had nothing to do with pursuing military power to advance his kingdom (John 18:36).
Look at the terrorists of our day, using every means available, sometimes very inventive, to kill. And they claim to be doing God's will. But anyone can kill a person; only the power of God can heal and raise from the dead. Therein lies God's greatest glory - resurrection power not killing power. The state does not exercise that power, and never should attempt to.
So the holders of political power exercise the sword as the ministers of justice, not handling the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And that justice should be a biblically limited one, not the expanded version of Marxists, Fascists, or any other -ist. As long as the state seeks to exercise healing power and attempts to create heaven on earth, it will fail and appear more to bring hell than heaven to earth, as it marches forth misusing the sword of justice.
First, there must be a difference biblically. In Israel, the priesthood was separate from the political, at least, in governmental function. The king who tried to offer incense as if he was a priest suffered immediate judgment from God, in the form of leprosy. "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar." 2Ch 26:18-9 God placed carefully delineated duties and limitations on the priests and levites, in the form of minimum and maximum age for service, limitations on property ownership, etc.
Second, there must be a difference to limit power. When church and state are combined in one entity, the tendency to tyranny is practically automatic. Notice in Romans 13 the distinction. The political office has the "power of the sword." This is the power to fine, imprison, to even execute, if necessary. Therefore, the sword, the symbol of physical power and threat and death, represents political power. Whereas, the keys represent the power of the church. The church's power is greater because it carries into eternity. Jesus gave to the Church, not to Peter, the power to lock and unlock forgiveness, entrance into the kingdom, membership within the church, etc.
Third, there must be a difference to distinguish functions. Christ, the head of the Church, exercises healing power and preaches the word of truth, opening the way for people to understand the way to live and the way into the kingdom. Notice that as High Priest, he refuses political power when someone in the crowd demanded he exercise the coercive power of state political power to divide property forcibly. "And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 12:13-4.
The state, carrying the power of the sword, is not a healing agency; it would mix functions improperly for the state to exercise a healing function. Therefore, when people demand welfare, healthcare, and all matter of other services from the state, they are demanding what it cannot give. It's like giving a sword to a soldier and demanding he use it to heal your cancer. The only way to end the cancer with a sword is to end you.
The state's function is to execute justice. Even if it doesn't do a very good job of that, at least it is acting within its boundaries and can do little harm in other parts of the society. But when it is given too much power and duties beyond its intended function, it not only expands power improperly, but it does harm by pretending to be the Church. Christ, the head of the Church and the source of all good things, does not use the state as a healing agency.
Fifth, there must be a difference to give glory to God. God can and has granted military victories to His people. See the stories of kings and such in the Old Covenant books of Exodus, Numbers, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles. However, His Son is the key representation as to how He wants to work in the earth. Jesus had nothing to do with the state and its execution authority, except as a victim of its misuse of the sword for a purpose other than justice, and he had nothing to do with pursuing military power to advance his kingdom (John 18:36).
Look at the terrorists of our day, using every means available, sometimes very inventive, to kill. And they claim to be doing God's will. But anyone can kill a person; only the power of God can heal and raise from the dead. Therein lies God's greatest glory - resurrection power not killing power. The state does not exercise that power, and never should attempt to.
So the holders of political power exercise the sword as the ministers of justice, not handling the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And that justice should be a biblically limited one, not the expanded version of Marxists, Fascists, or any other -ist. As long as the state seeks to exercise healing power and attempts to create heaven on earth, it will fail and appear more to bring hell than heaven to earth, as it marches forth misusing the sword of justice.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
A Unique System of Laws
Israel's system of government, including its judiciary, was unique in the ancient world, purposely so. It was meant to cause God's chosen people to stand out. It was the ideal system, meant to demonstrate how wise God's people were, not in themselves, but in the law they had. "Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Deuteronomy 4:6. However, more importantly, it was also the society and system of government into which the Messiah was to be born and live. How much more should it have been the ideal and model for the world of what God wants?
This is contrary to much thinking and arguing today, which claims that because Israel's system was unique, then it doesn't apply to any nation now, including ours. This is strange thinking. We're given the system of law described as that of the Creator God and which was intended to show how wise and understanding God's special people were and which was the system of laws into which His own Son was to be born, yet we're to understand it was only for them and for their time, not ours. God authored a system of law that was preeminent and represented what He cared about for a society, yet he doesn't want us to use it?!
Prophets like Isaiah used God's law to rebuke other nations, as well as His own. "Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee." Isa. 47:12-13. God's law forbade sorcery, and God prophesied disaster to Babylon for all of its forsaking of God and cruelty toward His people, even though God had commanded Babylon to take His people captive. Jonah prophesied to the people of Nineveh that they faced destruction, yet they repented before the God of Israel and thereby avoided destruction. "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me." Jonah 1:2. See also chapter 3 for their repentance.
So God's law applied to all nations then, and because He's the unchanging God, it applies to all nations now.
This is contrary to much thinking and arguing today, which claims that because Israel's system was unique, then it doesn't apply to any nation now, including ours. This is strange thinking. We're given the system of law described as that of the Creator God and which was intended to show how wise and understanding God's special people were and which was the system of laws into which His own Son was to be born, yet we're to understand it was only for them and for their time, not ours. God authored a system of law that was preeminent and represented what He cared about for a society, yet he doesn't want us to use it?!
Prophets like Isaiah used God's law to rebuke other nations, as well as His own. "Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee." Isa. 47:12-13. God's law forbade sorcery, and God prophesied disaster to Babylon for all of its forsaking of God and cruelty toward His people, even though God had commanded Babylon to take His people captive. Jonah prophesied to the people of Nineveh that they faced destruction, yet they repented before the God of Israel and thereby avoided destruction. "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me." Jonah 1:2. See also chapter 3 for their repentance.
So God's law applied to all nations then, and because He's the unchanging God, it applies to all nations now.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Covenant Aspects to Leviticus & Deuteronomy Cont'd
Ray Sutton in "That You May Prosper" claims the following: "So, That You May Prosper has two parts: covenant and dominion. My primary purpose in the 'covenant' section is to define the covenant. The Book of Deuteronomy is a model, a place where all of its parts can clearly be seen. Deuteronomy IS to the covenant what Romans is to systematic theology. But how do we know Deuteronomy is a covenant? Moses says, "He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments [Words]" (Deut. 4:13).
Deuteronomy is the second giving of the Ten Commandments, a "new" covenant so to speak. Moses says of the book as a whole, "Keep the words of this covenant to do them, that you may prosper in all that you do" (Deut. 29:9). Deuteronomy is definitely a covenant document." Sutton, pp. 14-5. Deuteronomy 28:1 states just the beginning of the list of blessing God gives for the obedient. "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: . . . " Dt. 28:1. Most of the chapter is devoted to what happens to those who are unfaithful. It's not pretty.
Deuteronomy's sanctions, the fourth point of the covenant, are positive and negative. Additionally, this is the second telling of the law to the children of the generation that left Egypt. Although that generation failed, God gave the children of the covenant the chance to enter the promises. So, sanctions and promises continue into the next generations. "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [graven images or physical parts of the universe], nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exd 20:5-6. Will a society be punished pursuant to these promises? Will it survive if it disobeys God?
Deuteronomy is the second giving of the Ten Commandments, a "new" covenant so to speak. Moses says of the book as a whole, "Keep the words of this covenant to do them, that you may prosper in all that you do" (Deut. 29:9). Deuteronomy is definitely a covenant document." Sutton, pp. 14-5. Deuteronomy 28:1 states just the beginning of the list of blessing God gives for the obedient. "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: . . . " Dt. 28:1. Most of the chapter is devoted to what happens to those who are unfaithful. It's not pretty.
Deuteronomy's sanctions, the fourth point of the covenant, are positive and negative. Additionally, this is the second telling of the law to the children of the generation that left Egypt. Although that generation failed, God gave the children of the covenant the chance to enter the promises. So, sanctions and promises continue into the next generations. "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [graven images or physical parts of the universe], nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Exd 20:5-6. Will a society be punished pursuant to these promises? Will it survive if it disobeys God?
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Covenant aspects to Leviticus 18:1-5 & Deuteronomy 1:13-18
Leviticus 18:1-5 describes two aspects to the covenant - the covenantal authority who commands singular loyalty to Himself and to the one law issued by that authority. God, the authority, demands singular obedience to Himself, which is the essence of covenant loyalty to a higher authority. He is the ultimate authority, beyond whom there is no appeal. Therefore, because He is One, His law is also one and not to be mixed and mingled with another's law. It is not to be taken from nor added to. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2.
So when Christians talk about a personal relationship with this God, they are talking about the same God who gave the law to the Israelites and defined their personal loyalty to Him by their obedience to that law. Yet, that law is not what saved the Israelites out of Egypt; the sovereign grace of that God saved them and gave them their own land. "Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deuteronomy 9:5. He did not choose them because of how powerful or righteous they were. "But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day." Deuteronomy 8:18. See also Deuteronomy 7:7. It was grace alone based on promises to the Patriarchs that saved them and brought them into the promised land.
So why would Christians, who claim a "personal relationship" with this God, be against His law? For themselves or their nation? Do they despise His covenant? Do they despise aspects, or even all, of His law? Do they despise Him? What about natural law? Why would Christians be disloyal to God, their covenant authority and savior, to follow something deciphered from nature by men and, I might add, torturously altered by men? What about other systems of jurisprudence? Again, the same question: If they are legal systems established by men, why would Christians be in favor of defecting from their covenant God.
Deuteronomy 1:13-18 refers to a historical event originally related in Exodus 18, when Moses chose men to act in his stead, to stand for him as delegated authorities. Moses taught the law to the people, and the people brought their controversies to the chosen delegates. Exodus 18:20-22. Then, if the issue was too difficult, it was brought to Moses who acted as a sort of appellate court. Exodus 18:25-7. Therefore, not only do we have the Leviticus passage explaining who is the sovereign who saved and that He has a singular law for the people to obey, but in the Exodus passage we have the setting up of a hierarchal, tiered system of delegated authority which includes an appeal system.
According to Gary North, the passages would describe points One, Three, and Two of the covenant's structure. See Ray R. Sutton's "That You May Prosper," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas) which North published in 1992. There are two more points to a covenant - four, sanctions and five, continuity or generational benefits. Other portions of the bible explain those aspects of the covenant, which come down to the fact that God blesses those who faithfully follow His good law but punishes those who faithlessly and disloyally violate covenant by disobeying His law.
So when Christians talk about a personal relationship with this God, they are talking about the same God who gave the law to the Israelites and defined their personal loyalty to Him by their obedience to that law. Yet, that law is not what saved the Israelites out of Egypt; the sovereign grace of that God saved them and gave them their own land. "Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Deuteronomy 9:5. He did not choose them because of how powerful or righteous they were. "But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day." Deuteronomy 8:18. See also Deuteronomy 7:7. It was grace alone based on promises to the Patriarchs that saved them and brought them into the promised land.
So why would Christians, who claim a "personal relationship" with this God, be against His law? For themselves or their nation? Do they despise His covenant? Do they despise aspects, or even all, of His law? Do they despise Him? What about natural law? Why would Christians be disloyal to God, their covenant authority and savior, to follow something deciphered from nature by men and, I might add, torturously altered by men? What about other systems of jurisprudence? Again, the same question: If they are legal systems established by men, why would Christians be in favor of defecting from their covenant God.
Deuteronomy 1:13-18 refers to a historical event originally related in Exodus 18, when Moses chose men to act in his stead, to stand for him as delegated authorities. Moses taught the law to the people, and the people brought their controversies to the chosen delegates. Exodus 18:20-22. Then, if the issue was too difficult, it was brought to Moses who acted as a sort of appellate court. Exodus 18:25-7. Therefore, not only do we have the Leviticus passage explaining who is the sovereign who saved and that He has a singular law for the people to obey, but in the Exodus passage we have the setting up of a hierarchal, tiered system of delegated authority which includes an appeal system.
According to Gary North, the passages would describe points One, Three, and Two of the covenant's structure. See Ray R. Sutton's "That You May Prosper," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas) which North published in 1992. There are two more points to a covenant - four, sanctions and five, continuity or generational benefits. Other portions of the bible explain those aspects of the covenant, which come down to the fact that God blesses those who faithfully follow His good law but punishes those who faithlessly and disloyally violate covenant by disobeying His law.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Who shall issue the law?
"Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken [is] good [for us] to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear [the causes] between your brethren, and judge righteously between [every] man and his brother, and the stranger [that is] with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; [but] ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment [is] God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring [it] unto me, and I will hear it. And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do." Deuteronomy 1:13-18.
This is a conversation Moses had with the Israelites. It's a retelling of what happened many years before after he had told God that the people, their number and their problems, were too much for one man to take care of. For several reasons, the modern idea of the independent judiciary makes little sense in a secular humanistic culture. Neither do Moses' words about fearing God in order to issue just judgments. Moses' words are rejected by modern man, and an independent judiciary falls apart if there is no authoritative law to which the judiciary must submit.
But in a humanistic culture, a law above and authoritative upon man is a contradiction to the terms of the civil covenant because the god (man) cannot be commanded. The god must command. The idea of a prophet from God (Moses) teaching rulers the law they are to enforce is the ideal, but modern man does not even consider that possibility. It cannot enter his mind because it contradicts the very basis for his society, at least, his view of what society should be. Today, only men may be gods and decide good and evil for themselves - just as the serpent/dragon told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The result is always death in such a culture.
This is a conversation Moses had with the Israelites. It's a retelling of what happened many years before after he had told God that the people, their number and their problems, were too much for one man to take care of. For several reasons, the modern idea of the independent judiciary makes little sense in a secular humanistic culture. Neither do Moses' words about fearing God in order to issue just judgments. Moses' words are rejected by modern man, and an independent judiciary falls apart if there is no authoritative law to which the judiciary must submit.
But in a humanistic culture, a law above and authoritative upon man is a contradiction to the terms of the civil covenant because the god (man) cannot be commanded. The god must command. The idea of a prophet from God (Moses) teaching rulers the law they are to enforce is the ideal, but modern man does not even consider that possibility. It cannot enter his mind because it contradicts the very basis for his society, at least, his view of what society should be. Today, only men may be gods and decide good and evil for themselves - just as the serpent/dragon told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The result is always death in such a culture.
Knowing the law
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.' " Leviticus 18:1-5.
This is a key passage for any legal system. Notice that neither the legal system from whence they had come nor the legal system of the land to which they were going were acceptable. Notice that it is not negotiable. The bottom line for acceptance of this law is the statement "I am the Lord." That is all that is necessary for acceptance. Neither the conservative nor the liberal view of a legal system is appropriate. Why is that? Aren't there truths in both systems of thought? Don't we need to compromise to get to what's right and acceptable? How do we know what to compromise? What parts of the liberal view and what parts of the conservative work together? Which are totally incompatible? Are they both right? Partly right? Both wrong? How do we know? What this passage says is that no human system of thought as to the appropriate legal system is acceptable. The only thing the Israelites needed to concern themselves with was the application of what God told them. Why? Because God is the author, source, fount of truth.
I am convinced that the problem of our day is not too little information but too much information. Without God's standard, there's no way to judge a legal system as to what is correct and true and what is not. More information will not help us understand what is right and true. Only an authoritative statement of the law can tell us anything. Any other method of deciphering the truth of a good legal system is simply a replay of the Garden of E,, where Adam and Eve decided to "know" good and evil instead of listen to God's authoritative law-word. The very first step of men to figure out a good and proper legal system is itself an act of illegality. It is an act of rebellion against the God who says, "Ye shall do my judgments." Thus, modern man begins "in the hole" so to speak.
In seeking a legal system of his own creation, he is attempting be "like God, knowing good and evil." He calls this freedom, and so the people following Adam and Eve lived - right up until the flood of Noah, when the earth was filled with violence and the imagination of men's hearts was only evil continually. Thus, the very purpose of a legal system - to provide protection for the law abiding and punishment for the law breakers - fails from the outset for several reasons. Clearly, to fight against the very God who created man puts man in a very difficult situation. Second, how does man know who are the righteous - to be protected - and the wicked - to be punished?
Third, even in the process of experimenting with law, how does man know if a law creates a benefit or a deficit, is good for mankind or destructive? Can there be a test process, where the law is not used, so that like the scientific experimenter, legislating man knows that a law's creation results in good? Perhaps the past, before the law's creation, can be used. But that can't work because there are too many laws needed for a society to operate. If my society prospers, how can I tell if it's the law against stealing that worked versus the law against killing? How do I know that marriage is a good thing versus free love? Even if there were only one law that a society might need in order to operate, say "love thy neighbor," how does the legislator know how to define love? As we gain more knowledge, the questions grow exponentially.
Let's take the test case of stealing. Is stealing loving to my neighbor? What if my neighbor has too much wealth, making him stingy and selfish and unhappy? Perhaps taking something from him is a good thing. Surely such thinking exists in the minds of Progressives who seek to redistribute wealth by force, that is, by the force of the civil government. Lastly, who enforces the law? What person - the strongest, the smartest? Who decides? What keeps the enforcer from becoming a tyrant? What law limits his actions? Or whose law limits the tyrant? Why not a multitude of laws, one for each family or group or individual? What prevents chaos from being the standard? Thus, we have too many choices.
There is no method of scientific testing that can determine a good law from a bad law, as if society could be treated like a test tube. And then there's the question as to who decides which law and who enforces the law? Laws multiply with the people who claim to have a better way. There is no way to determine the correct and true law absent an authoritative pronouncement from one who knows law intimately, who issued the original law, who understands man and the creation. There is no way to have an adequate legal system without the God of the bible. The law of society should be unique, authoritative, and issued by God.
This is a key passage for any legal system. Notice that neither the legal system from whence they had come nor the legal system of the land to which they were going were acceptable. Notice that it is not negotiable. The bottom line for acceptance of this law is the statement "I am the Lord." That is all that is necessary for acceptance. Neither the conservative nor the liberal view of a legal system is appropriate. Why is that? Aren't there truths in both systems of thought? Don't we need to compromise to get to what's right and acceptable? How do we know what to compromise? What parts of the liberal view and what parts of the conservative work together? Which are totally incompatible? Are they both right? Partly right? Both wrong? How do we know? What this passage says is that no human system of thought as to the appropriate legal system is acceptable. The only thing the Israelites needed to concern themselves with was the application of what God told them. Why? Because God is the author, source, fount of truth.
I am convinced that the problem of our day is not too little information but too much information. Without God's standard, there's no way to judge a legal system as to what is correct and true and what is not. More information will not help us understand what is right and true. Only an authoritative statement of the law can tell us anything. Any other method of deciphering the truth of a good legal system is simply a replay of the Garden of E,, where Adam and Eve decided to "know" good and evil instead of listen to God's authoritative law-word. The very first step of men to figure out a good and proper legal system is itself an act of illegality. It is an act of rebellion against the God who says, "Ye shall do my judgments." Thus, modern man begins "in the hole" so to speak.
In seeking a legal system of his own creation, he is attempting be "like God, knowing good and evil." He calls this freedom, and so the people following Adam and Eve lived - right up until the flood of Noah, when the earth was filled with violence and the imagination of men's hearts was only evil continually. Thus, the very purpose of a legal system - to provide protection for the law abiding and punishment for the law breakers - fails from the outset for several reasons. Clearly, to fight against the very God who created man puts man in a very difficult situation. Second, how does man know who are the righteous - to be protected - and the wicked - to be punished?
Third, even in the process of experimenting with law, how does man know if a law creates a benefit or a deficit, is good for mankind or destructive? Can there be a test process, where the law is not used, so that like the scientific experimenter, legislating man knows that a law's creation results in good? Perhaps the past, before the law's creation, can be used. But that can't work because there are too many laws needed for a society to operate. If my society prospers, how can I tell if it's the law against stealing that worked versus the law against killing? How do I know that marriage is a good thing versus free love? Even if there were only one law that a society might need in order to operate, say "love thy neighbor," how does the legislator know how to define love? As we gain more knowledge, the questions grow exponentially.
Let's take the test case of stealing. Is stealing loving to my neighbor? What if my neighbor has too much wealth, making him stingy and selfish and unhappy? Perhaps taking something from him is a good thing. Surely such thinking exists in the minds of Progressives who seek to redistribute wealth by force, that is, by the force of the civil government. Lastly, who enforces the law? What person - the strongest, the smartest? Who decides? What keeps the enforcer from becoming a tyrant? What law limits his actions? Or whose law limits the tyrant? Why not a multitude of laws, one for each family or group or individual? What prevents chaos from being the standard? Thus, we have too many choices.
There is no method of scientific testing that can determine a good law from a bad law, as if society could be treated like a test tube. And then there's the question as to who decides which law and who enforces the law? Laws multiply with the people who claim to have a better way. There is no way to determine the correct and true law absent an authoritative pronouncement from one who knows law intimately, who issued the original law, who understands man and the creation. There is no way to have an adequate legal system without the God of the bible. The law of society should be unique, authoritative, and issued by God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)