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.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
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)