The second covenantal aspect, that is, the authority for judging, could be summed up by the term "jurisdiction," which is defined in one way as follows:
"Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies."
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction, accessed January 15, 2015.
A judge may only rule and make decisions over that which the judge has jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judge cannot even hear the case or any contentions of the party. The judge can't solve the contestants' problem. They must go somewhere else for relief. The civil courts are not to answer every prayer, just prayers for relief over which they have jurisdiction. Law, particularly human civil law, is not the answer for every problem. God's world is bigger and more diverse than that. Only God can answer every problem, and He has delegated limited authority to civil courts to provide redress for a limited spectrum of problems.
One way we know that jurisdiction and law are limited is the fact that God's law is limited. In what ways? First, it cannot save. The endless writing of laws to deal with every wrong and every complaint that people come up with is futile. It is, however, how certain politicians get and keep their jobs. It's how David's son, Absalom, began his rebellion.
"And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!" II Samuel 15:2-4.
Maybe the man had a complaint over which the courts didn't have jurisdiction. But Absalom would expand the court's jurisdiction. Absalom, unlike his father, would see that "justice" was done. Absalom, as if he were God, would solve everyone's problems. That's the politician, always promising what he or she cannot give.
The third covenantal aspect, law, is obviously central to a civil court. If there's no law addressing a grievance, then the court would not be able to apply a standard to the dispute. However, no law can adequately address every single instance in life; therefore, western law, particularly England and its successors (former colonies) adopted common law. Cases would determine the law in some cases, as well as to what cases the "law" applied. It allowed flexibility to a civil court to determine if a wrong occurred and the best way to provide restitution to the victim.
Here is the importance of limited law and careful analysis based on those limits. The populist, the power-seeking tyrant uses existing law to expand his or her power. The bible says to not add to or take away from it. That applies to biblical law. The common law method of applying law to individual cases means that the judge applies the law according to the general equities of that law. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
Chapter XIX, Paragraph IV. "To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Confession of Faith, written 1646, accessed at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Jan. 16, 2015. The judge who expands instead of applying in a disciplined fashion is not being a judge; that person is making law, as if the judge were a legislator or God Himself.
The "liberal judge" has no limits except what he or she can pass off as intellectually acceptable - to his or her liberal colleagues. Those colleagues accept the law-making actions of the judge because they also do not believe in limits, except gradualism. Liberals who believe in immediate change are revolutionaries. They work together. If revolutionaries can get away with their actions, the gradualists applaud and excuse them. If the revolutionaries are prosecuted or conquered militarily, the gradualists make movies and books to make them look like heroes. The surviving revolutionaries accuse the gradualists of moving too slow, but at the same time, the revolutionaries are happy with the paving job accomplished by the gradualists, preparing the way for the revolutionaries. Thus they work hand-in-hand.
The individual application of legal principles/equities to a case is very different. Perhaps an example would help readers understand. If a driver of a car strikes another vehicle after running a red light, then the driver running the red light owes the victim the costs of their lost vehicle and any medical costs. The driver also owes the civil government a fine for running a red light. However, the liberal judge may go further and state:
"Insurance companies are too wealthy. Therefore, even though the defendant has no insurance, I order the victim's insurance company to pay for their customer's damage and the damage to the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's job depends on his ability to travel. Therefore, insurance companies that set 'limits' to the coverage are harming society."
Sanctions and continuity go together. If you're sanctioned positively, then your future is more blessed, more secure, but never absolutely. How does a judge decide a sanction? Although the civil/criminal distinction that western law establishes is somewhat artificial, it is a convenient way to distinguish some types of cases from others.
In a criminal case, the judge is normally constrained by statutes determining what sanction to apply. There is some discretion however. The most important biblical standards for justice are victim's rights and restitution. Because of the risk of incarceration, criminal law is applied very strictly against the State. Therefore, even though biblical law does not mention incarceration, except for quarantine, at least, western law allows requires strict proof by the state to obtain a conviction.
Here is where continuity/inheritance and sovereignty meet, else wickedness reigns. Sinful man attempts to use the law to obtain his inheritance. He uses it to punish his enemies and to take others' wealth. Thus, he thinks that he can obtain positive sanctions for himself and negative sanctions for his enemy and thereby preserve his posterity. The righteous man submits to God's law, applied by God's delegated authority, and he trusts God to grant his posterity continuity or not. Thus, Christ submitted to the delegated authority of Pilate's Court (John 19:11), which denied the Righteous One any inheritance and imposed the most severe sanction of death. Yet Christ knew that God, being sovereign, could vindicate Him even in death, and He did by raising Christ from the dead.
Thus, faith triumphs over man's law because it trusts in God's righteous judgment. Righteousness before God triumphs over the unrighteous judgment of man because the Sovereign God is unlimited in HIs authority and power. His jurisdiction, unlike a human court, is unlimited. To oppose the concept of limited jurisdiction of man's courts is to oppose the unlimited jurisdiction of God's, opposes God's law, sanctions negatively the righteous, and attempts to steal the inheritance only God can grant.
No comments:
Post a Comment