If you get sued, you have business in the courts. If you get charged with a crime, you have business with the courts. If you are a district attorney you have business in the courts for the people and the state. If you're a judge, you have business in the courts. If you're called to be on a jury, you have business in the courts.
"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. Jesus said that. The perfect human, the perfect judge. He considered it none of his business that this man might have been cheated by his brother. He left the question in the hands of fallible, sinful men and addressed the more important issue - the problem of covetousness that may have been in this man's heart. The man judged only outwardly regarding his brother's alleged wrongdoing. He was blind to the sin in his own heart - the more important problem. We find it so easy to see the errors in others, but we need someone objective to judge our claims, even if they are a fallible human.
Yet today, we have people with little knowledge of cases, about which they hear in the media, making vast pronouncements about a defendant's guilt or innocence. You'll see these cases covered on the TV news, read about them on facebook, and hear about them at the water cooler at work. People can have the strongest opinions on a case even though they've read one comment or heard a two minute (perhaps as long as 30 minutes) news story. You can even have street wars, riots over such cases. Yet, the jury is ignored or vilified, even though they may have spent days, even weeks, agonizing over their decision, a decision based on much more information than the public can get from the media.
There's no judge on these news stories telling people that a particular fact is valid or not. There's a serious question as to whether the other side even gets one sentence in as a counter to what you're hearing from the news. The newsroom lawyers for each side (if they even present both sides) aren't held in check by a judge the lawyers in the courtroom In other words, without a judge, there's no guard upon what can be said.
These people on the news and commenting on facebook have no business making a decision about a person's guilt or innocence. The only legitimate, authoritative, trustworthy source of information on the case is the jury. They are there to see what the lawyers present as evidence and what they attempt to present. They hear the judge's instructions about the law, they see the witnesses - their mannerisms, their tone, their hesitation, the lilt of tone when they aren't sure, the strength and confidence when they're positive about something. Words on a page can't give as much meaning as a sentence you see and hear from a person's mouth.
"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." Proverbs 18:17. This is cross examination, this is hearing both sides out. Only a judge can't keep extraneous and irrelevant, prejudicial information from the jury. Only the jury, who sees a witness testifying under oath, can determine how trustworthy that witness is.
Facebook justice, our modern equivalent of mob justice, is not reliable. However, it seems to titillate some type of justice gossip in our hearts. We apparently want to believe the worst because if favors our view of the state, of our particular favorite group, or our hated disfavored group. We like to think we have the inside scoop on somebody who "got the shaft" or was "done wrong by the system."
Yet, to judge based on incomplete information, when it is not your duty to judge, is sin. Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1. He didn't mean we shouldn't have judges, but he was rebuking this sinful tendency in us to think we know better. It's our pride talking. It's the love of claiming to have it over on our neighbor or on those we want to be fallible - the folks in charge. And they are fallible. But they have been given the responsibility of judging, directly by the voters or another civil authority and indirectly by delegation from God Himself. See Psalm 82.
However, unless we are there in the courtroom like the jury, we can never be right, even if our judgment ends up being the same as that of the jury. Because if those two judgments are the same - ours and the jury's - then we agreed by accident. They jury got it right because they were there and have more information than anyone else.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Jesus' Not So Subtle But Gentle Rebuke of Pontius Pilate
The conversation between Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate that is recorded in John 18 has been used since time immemorial to justify a radical separation between God's law and the state. The thinking is that Jesus' words about his kingdom being not of this world means his kingdom is totally irrelevant to rulership and the state on earth. This idea is a mistake. Here is the passage, which records what occurred after Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and when He was first introduced to Pilate:
"Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
John 18:29-38. This is the first of several interrogations of Jesus by Pilate. It seems to end well, but that will change. My concern with the passage at this point is the relation between the state and the law of God, Jesus Christ being the representative of God's law and Pilate the representative of the state.
First, and the easiest misinterpretation to refute is the idea that because Jesus' said His kingdom is not of this world, then it isn't in this world. What an absurd argument! It would be akin to saying that because the President of the United States lives in Washington, D.C., he has no authority over Alabama. Jesus Christ's kingdom is the entire universe. "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me." Matthew 28:18. His seat at the right hand of God the Father is the most powerful position anyone can have. After giving His life for mankind, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11.
Like any judge or ruler, His jurisdiction as the Son of God in heaven and as the Son of Man over earth does not depend on his location. He exercises total power and authority over all things from His position in the heavenlies. He also has not lost his position as Son of Man, for His resurrection body is a glorified body of a man. In other words, He reigns now, and there is no limit to His reign in heaven or on earth. Likewise His Kingdom is unlimited precisely because it is "not of this world." No, his authority is based on something much more sure - the decree of God the Father that He rules over all things, and "of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end." Isaiah 9:7. To argue that Jesus' statement that His Kingdom is not of this world means He has no authority over the civil government is to place that sphere of the earth off limits from His power. It is a statement of rebellion against His authority, not a statement as to the other-worldly nature of His power.
Second is the subtlety of Jesus' comments. I had missed it until recently because I honestly sometimes don't understand at what Jesus is getting. Sometimes He seems to be talking about something other than what He was questioned about. Ever notice how Jesus would answer a question with a question or with a statement that seems to not address what the questioner was getting at? Those should be clues to read his comments more carefully and not just take them as idle, off-point proclamations. I finally looked at His words and asked the question why Jesus said what He said. Let's break it down.
Consider the first question and Jesus' answer/question in response. "Art thou the King of the Jews?" The simple answer would have been "Yes." However, "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" Why did Jesus ask this question? He seems to be probing Pilate - to get Pilate to understand himself, perhaps.
Pilate's answer is telling: "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" He seems offended to have his thinking probed by this defendant standing before him. He also doesn't seem to care about who Jesus is, even though he had just asked him who Jesus was: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus' words succeed in bringing Pilate back to his judicial role - determining what Jesus had done and whether it was criminal or not.
Pilate's initial question was improper for judging a defendant. Jesus' status as "King of the Jews" was irrelevant to Pilate's decision regarding His guilt or innocence. Jesus challenged Pilate at that point with his question because Pilate was acting outside his authority. He righted himself quickly, however, and returned to the judicial role he held as Procurator in the circumstance of the Jewish leadership bringing him someone accused of a capital crime. Jesus did not put up with people who acted outside of or beyond their authority when asking him questions. Just see his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees as related in the gospels.
After correcting Pilate, who then asked Jesus an appropriate question, Jesus veered away from answering directly. Jesus was not avoiding the question. He was answering it more completely than Pilate's question demanded. And he went to the next question and answered it - the question of intent, a critical aspect of criminal law. A person who doesn't have the intent to commit a crime has not committed the crime. If I go hunting and shoot at a buck in the woods and miss but the bullet hits a man and kills him and I never knew he was there, then I am not guilty of murder, even though I've killed a man.
In answer to Pilate's question as to what Jesus had done, He said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." This is a multitude of answers and shortened his trial before Pilate drastically. If Jesus started telling Pilate all that He had done, all of His deeds being good and none criminal, He would have been there for days. Jesus was being as forthright with Pilate as possible, even going beyond answering the immediate question. He proved his innocence in that one answer. Let's look at it more carefully though.
As explained above, Jesus' kingdom being sourced from another place and not of this world does not reduce His authority in this world, it expands it. Pilate didn't understand, as he shows later in the conversation. But Jesus was teaching compassionately even when he spoke with his enemies, even when rebuking them. Jesus explains that His Kingdom is so powerful that His followers don't need to fight to defend Him. His Kingdom doesn't depend on physical weapons for it to be successful in history and eternity. It is not based on the physical requirements of a kingdom of this earth, which involve force and coercion.
Thus, in His answer, he not only told Pilate that He and His followers were not threatening physical violence or revolutionary overthrow but that He was motivated completely by peaceful means of advancing any Kingdom He might have dominion over. In fact, His intent as a King, which He did not deny that He was and later admitted to being, had nothing to do with undermining or overthrowing Pilate or Caesar. His answer indicated innocence in past action and in present intent. No crimes committed or contemplated, Pilate.
Jesus has again controlled the interrogation by Pilate completely. Initially, he rightfully corrects Pilate by questioning Pilate's motivation in asking Jesus if He's a king. First, the judicial role must be followed by the Judge, in this case Pilate. Jesus does this in one sentence. First things first. But now that part of the trial is over, and Jesus has exonerated Himself, He lets Pilate ask his question again. It's logical because Jesus has mentioned His Kingdom in His answer.
Pilate: "Art thou a king then?" Perhaps Pilate thought Jesus had slipped up in His answer by speaking of His Kingdom. Pilate may have thought: "Aha, He does claim to be a king." Of course, a pagan leader would have a hard time sharing leadership with anyone, no matter how peaceful and non-threatening that person may be in his leadership as a king. Jesus still won't have any part of this attempt to pin Him down as claiming some authority that Pilate might perceive as improper. He first puts it back on Pilate: "Thou sayest that I am a king." Jesus knows Pilate wants an admission that he can use against Him, but for the truth's sake, Jesus cannot be bound by Pilate's definitions. In other words, I won't let your understanding of what a king is label me and my authority.
He could have stopped there, but He went further. And this is where the not so subtle but gentle rebuke occurs. "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." This is the statement that recently caused me to question how I'd looked at this passage in the past. Why did Jesus start talking about truth?
You might posit that Jesus is simply taking advantage of the opportunity to tout His credentials as the Son of God and the proclaimer of absolute truth for the world, but at this moment as He's on trial before Pilate, that seems out of place and somewhat other worldly. We have to look at the words of scripture in their context. Here's Jesus controlling the conversation with Pilate and explaining what real, authentic rulership is all about. He's telling Pilate, the ruler and judge "from hence," who has the power of life and death as a human judge, what is really important. One ruler talking to another.
So, what was He getting at? Pilate's answer gives it all away. He asks, "What is truth?" This is a stunning answer. It tells us so much about Pilate. Here's a judge of highest authority over an entire nation, the nation of Judea within the Roman Empire, and all he can say to Jesus is "What is truth?" If he doesn't know what truth is, then he's completely unfit to judge. He can't tell whether someone else is telling the truth, he can't decide what is right and what is wrong, and he can't impose a proper sentence on a defendant.
What guides Pilate as a ruler then? Fear of a higher authority. That's it. He's afraid of Caesar, his boss. And that's apparently all he cares about. Even after he decides that he should let Jesus go free, the Jewish leadership has one ace up their sleeve, when they say, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." John 19:12b. That was all it took. At that point, Pilate quit trying to release Jesus. He condemned an innocent man, knowing that he was committing an unjust act. He did it out of fear of Caesar and out of spite for the Jewish people, shown when he put a sign at the top of Jesus cross saying "The King of the Jews."
Anyone who could do that is unfit to rule. He proved that he didn't understand justice, the central quality of a ruler and a judge. His concerns were: First, himself and his own safety from the wrath of Caesar, and second, the power of the Roman Empire and its authority, which meant no other kings allowed, not even God, the source of truth and justice. Jesus' words, on the other hand, demonstrated His qualification for rule, for not only did He speak the truth, that's why He came into the world. Truth is the foundation of His Kingdom. And He doesn't have to impose His Kingdom on anyone; all He has to do is speak, and those who hear are also of the truth.
Judges have jurisdiction, a word derived from the Latin words for "law" and "speech." They speak the law. Jesus's power is of that sort but more powerful because He also bears witness of "the truth," not just facts or law. Jesus was politely telling Pilate - by asking Pilate questions and drawing out the answers that were in his heart - that Pilate was not fit for the position of judge in which he served. He was also telling him the key to being a judge and that He, Jesus, was the perfect Judge, deriving His very being and meaning for existence on earth from "the truth."
Therefore, to assert that Jesus was abdicating any and all authority in the sphere of civil governing on earth shows a woefully ignorant perception of what was happening in their conversation.
"Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
John 18:29-38. This is the first of several interrogations of Jesus by Pilate. It seems to end well, but that will change. My concern with the passage at this point is the relation between the state and the law of God, Jesus Christ being the representative of God's law and Pilate the representative of the state.
First, and the easiest misinterpretation to refute is the idea that because Jesus' said His kingdom is not of this world, then it isn't in this world. What an absurd argument! It would be akin to saying that because the President of the United States lives in Washington, D.C., he has no authority over Alabama. Jesus Christ's kingdom is the entire universe. "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me." Matthew 28:18. His seat at the right hand of God the Father is the most powerful position anyone can have. After giving His life for mankind, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11.
Like any judge or ruler, His jurisdiction as the Son of God in heaven and as the Son of Man over earth does not depend on his location. He exercises total power and authority over all things from His position in the heavenlies. He also has not lost his position as Son of Man, for His resurrection body is a glorified body of a man. In other words, He reigns now, and there is no limit to His reign in heaven or on earth. Likewise His Kingdom is unlimited precisely because it is "not of this world." No, his authority is based on something much more sure - the decree of God the Father that He rules over all things, and "of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end." Isaiah 9:7. To argue that Jesus' statement that His Kingdom is not of this world means He has no authority over the civil government is to place that sphere of the earth off limits from His power. It is a statement of rebellion against His authority, not a statement as to the other-worldly nature of His power.
Second is the subtlety of Jesus' comments. I had missed it until recently because I honestly sometimes don't understand at what Jesus is getting. Sometimes He seems to be talking about something other than what He was questioned about. Ever notice how Jesus would answer a question with a question or with a statement that seems to not address what the questioner was getting at? Those should be clues to read his comments more carefully and not just take them as idle, off-point proclamations. I finally looked at His words and asked the question why Jesus said what He said. Let's break it down.
Consider the first question and Jesus' answer/question in response. "Art thou the King of the Jews?" The simple answer would have been "Yes." However, "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" Why did Jesus ask this question? He seems to be probing Pilate - to get Pilate to understand himself, perhaps.
Pilate's answer is telling: "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" He seems offended to have his thinking probed by this defendant standing before him. He also doesn't seem to care about who Jesus is, even though he had just asked him who Jesus was: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus' words succeed in bringing Pilate back to his judicial role - determining what Jesus had done and whether it was criminal or not.
Pilate's initial question was improper for judging a defendant. Jesus' status as "King of the Jews" was irrelevant to Pilate's decision regarding His guilt or innocence. Jesus challenged Pilate at that point with his question because Pilate was acting outside his authority. He righted himself quickly, however, and returned to the judicial role he held as Procurator in the circumstance of the Jewish leadership bringing him someone accused of a capital crime. Jesus did not put up with people who acted outside of or beyond their authority when asking him questions. Just see his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees as related in the gospels.
After correcting Pilate, who then asked Jesus an appropriate question, Jesus veered away from answering directly. Jesus was not avoiding the question. He was answering it more completely than Pilate's question demanded. And he went to the next question and answered it - the question of intent, a critical aspect of criminal law. A person who doesn't have the intent to commit a crime has not committed the crime. If I go hunting and shoot at a buck in the woods and miss but the bullet hits a man and kills him and I never knew he was there, then I am not guilty of murder, even though I've killed a man.
In answer to Pilate's question as to what Jesus had done, He said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." This is a multitude of answers and shortened his trial before Pilate drastically. If Jesus started telling Pilate all that He had done, all of His deeds being good and none criminal, He would have been there for days. Jesus was being as forthright with Pilate as possible, even going beyond answering the immediate question. He proved his innocence in that one answer. Let's look at it more carefully though.
As explained above, Jesus' kingdom being sourced from another place and not of this world does not reduce His authority in this world, it expands it. Pilate didn't understand, as he shows later in the conversation. But Jesus was teaching compassionately even when he spoke with his enemies, even when rebuking them. Jesus explains that His Kingdom is so powerful that His followers don't need to fight to defend Him. His Kingdom doesn't depend on physical weapons for it to be successful in history and eternity. It is not based on the physical requirements of a kingdom of this earth, which involve force and coercion.
Thus, in His answer, he not only told Pilate that He and His followers were not threatening physical violence or revolutionary overthrow but that He was motivated completely by peaceful means of advancing any Kingdom He might have dominion over. In fact, His intent as a King, which He did not deny that He was and later admitted to being, had nothing to do with undermining or overthrowing Pilate or Caesar. His answer indicated innocence in past action and in present intent. No crimes committed or contemplated, Pilate.
Jesus has again controlled the interrogation by Pilate completely. Initially, he rightfully corrects Pilate by questioning Pilate's motivation in asking Jesus if He's a king. First, the judicial role must be followed by the Judge, in this case Pilate. Jesus does this in one sentence. First things first. But now that part of the trial is over, and Jesus has exonerated Himself, He lets Pilate ask his question again. It's logical because Jesus has mentioned His Kingdom in His answer.
Pilate: "Art thou a king then?" Perhaps Pilate thought Jesus had slipped up in His answer by speaking of His Kingdom. Pilate may have thought: "Aha, He does claim to be a king." Of course, a pagan leader would have a hard time sharing leadership with anyone, no matter how peaceful and non-threatening that person may be in his leadership as a king. Jesus still won't have any part of this attempt to pin Him down as claiming some authority that Pilate might perceive as improper. He first puts it back on Pilate: "Thou sayest that I am a king." Jesus knows Pilate wants an admission that he can use against Him, but for the truth's sake, Jesus cannot be bound by Pilate's definitions. In other words, I won't let your understanding of what a king is label me and my authority.
He could have stopped there, but He went further. And this is where the not so subtle but gentle rebuke occurs. "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." This is the statement that recently caused me to question how I'd looked at this passage in the past. Why did Jesus start talking about truth?
You might posit that Jesus is simply taking advantage of the opportunity to tout His credentials as the Son of God and the proclaimer of absolute truth for the world, but at this moment as He's on trial before Pilate, that seems out of place and somewhat other worldly. We have to look at the words of scripture in their context. Here's Jesus controlling the conversation with Pilate and explaining what real, authentic rulership is all about. He's telling Pilate, the ruler and judge "from hence," who has the power of life and death as a human judge, what is really important. One ruler talking to another.
So, what was He getting at? Pilate's answer gives it all away. He asks, "What is truth?" This is a stunning answer. It tells us so much about Pilate. Here's a judge of highest authority over an entire nation, the nation of Judea within the Roman Empire, and all he can say to Jesus is "What is truth?" If he doesn't know what truth is, then he's completely unfit to judge. He can't tell whether someone else is telling the truth, he can't decide what is right and what is wrong, and he can't impose a proper sentence on a defendant.
What guides Pilate as a ruler then? Fear of a higher authority. That's it. He's afraid of Caesar, his boss. And that's apparently all he cares about. Even after he decides that he should let Jesus go free, the Jewish leadership has one ace up their sleeve, when they say, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." John 19:12b. That was all it took. At that point, Pilate quit trying to release Jesus. He condemned an innocent man, knowing that he was committing an unjust act. He did it out of fear of Caesar and out of spite for the Jewish people, shown when he put a sign at the top of Jesus cross saying "The King of the Jews."
Anyone who could do that is unfit to rule. He proved that he didn't understand justice, the central quality of a ruler and a judge. His concerns were: First, himself and his own safety from the wrath of Caesar, and second, the power of the Roman Empire and its authority, which meant no other kings allowed, not even God, the source of truth and justice. Jesus' words, on the other hand, demonstrated His qualification for rule, for not only did He speak the truth, that's why He came into the world. Truth is the foundation of His Kingdom. And He doesn't have to impose His Kingdom on anyone; all He has to do is speak, and those who hear are also of the truth.
Judges have jurisdiction, a word derived from the Latin words for "law" and "speech." They speak the law. Jesus's power is of that sort but more powerful because He also bears witness of "the truth," not just facts or law. Jesus was politely telling Pilate - by asking Pilate questions and drawing out the answers that were in his heart - that Pilate was not fit for the position of judge in which he served. He was also telling him the key to being a judge and that He, Jesus, was the perfect Judge, deriving His very being and meaning for existence on earth from "the truth."
Therefore, to assert that Jesus was abdicating any and all authority in the sphere of civil governing on earth shows a woefully ignorant perception of what was happening in their conversation.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Solving the Tyrannical Court Problem
We know a court, every court, is not a representative body and should not be. See post titled "Judges and Democratic Representation." How do we keep a court from going beyond its authority? What does the bible say? Remember that I'm not looking to simply save the American Constitutional system; the goal is a biblical system. Here are three ways to to solve the problem.
First, we must reexamine the concept of judicial review, which allows the U.S. Supreme Court to rule any law unconstitutional but allows no other part of the civil government to superintend the Supreme Court. A judge reviews a case, a dispute. In the bible, the law of God was not subject to review, only the case or controversy. In American law, we know that human law does not necessarily equate to biblical law; therefore, it should be reviewed. For what? For conformity to biblical law. The only judicial review that a judge should engage in is whether it conforms to the bible.
What about the U.S. Constitution? It is not substantive law. How can a law violate the U.S. Constitution if it conforms to the bible? First, we have not established that the Constitution conforms to the Bible. Second, we have determined that the Constitution's religious test clause in Article VI is Unitarian and Humanist, not Biblical. See post titled "Oaths 3."
Unlike the laws of the colonies and early states, which required belief in the bible and the Trinitarian God, the U.S. Constitution forbid the requiring of any belief at all, except in the Constitution. It was that decision to not restrict rule to believers in Christ and the bible, apparently based on a naive belief that Christians and non-Christians could work together to have a just and prosperous society, that led to what we have now. The righteous cannot let the wicked rule over them; they cannot be trusted with the bible, the very source and spring of the Truth, so how can they be trusted with rule and enforcement of law?
Second, we cannot put our faith in the judicial system, even a biblical one. Law doesn't save man. Jesus told a parable about an unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8. This judge wasn't so evil that he was trying to change God's law; he simply didn't enforce God's law properly. That caused a widow to pester him to the point that he relented and granted her justice. The point of the parable was not that we are to pester judges but that we are to pray to God, the just Judge who is more likely to grant us justice, and persist in our belief in Him.
There is no perfect justice system created by man. And life doesn't revolve around the state and its rules. Modern man has developed the foolish notion, the irrational notion, that somehow the state's political structure and exercise of the force of law will bring "the good life" to him. Life is not meant to revolve around the state. It is the productive part of society, the people exercising their freedom to develop, build, and serve the rest of society which is primary. The state merely protects that aspect of society.
Third, there must be a check on the judicial system. But how do you create a check on the judge without having an improper influence upon the judge? Impeachment is a fundamental part of the American constitutional system, even being a part of the constitutions of the States. Yet, the problem with such impeachment processes is that they only deal with unethical or illegal personal conduct; impeachment does not deal with philosophical defection from the fundamentals of the constitution. And if a religious test clause as to belief in the bible and the Trinity were to be a fundamental part of a constitution, then defection from that foundation would provide a substantial basis for determining whether an opinion defected from that basis. In other words, a biblical test clause would provide the substrate for a more potent impeachment threat.
Or course, a more potent impeachment threat would require some limit upon the legislature to keep it from overwhelming, even undermining, the judicial branch. This limit would have to be stated in the constitution. A limited foundational theological test would provide a way to test the faithfulness of the judiciary to the constitution. Has the judge remained faithful to his oath? In a biblical republic, that oath included a commitment to the bible and the Trinity. The oath-faithfulness question would govern the prosecutorial charge by the legislature. That oath would be based upon the bible and the Trinity. Right now, the oath is based on faithfulness to the constitution, which is not as clear a substrate of thought from which to derive an analysis of the judge's philosophy, as expressed in the judge's opinions.
How far would we have to go? Would the judge have to believe in infant baptism or a certain understanding of communion? Of course not, for as to such issues, the Church is the governing authority. Separation of Church and State would apply to prevent the application of the minutia of church doctrine to what the judge must believe and to which he must adhere. What about a socialist judge? Would his oath prevent him from ruling in a socialist fashion? Of course. Socialism is theft, a violation of the eighth commandment. What would be another example? For example, a judge ruling abortion to be legal would be subject to impeachment for violating his oath of faithfulness to a fundamental law of the bible - the sixth commandment.
So we can say that any ruling that clearly violated or allowed violation of the ten commandments would be something that could subject a judge to impeachment.
First, we must reexamine the concept of judicial review, which allows the U.S. Supreme Court to rule any law unconstitutional but allows no other part of the civil government to superintend the Supreme Court. A judge reviews a case, a dispute. In the bible, the law of God was not subject to review, only the case or controversy. In American law, we know that human law does not necessarily equate to biblical law; therefore, it should be reviewed. For what? For conformity to biblical law. The only judicial review that a judge should engage in is whether it conforms to the bible.
What about the U.S. Constitution? It is not substantive law. How can a law violate the U.S. Constitution if it conforms to the bible? First, we have not established that the Constitution conforms to the Bible. Second, we have determined that the Constitution's religious test clause in Article VI is Unitarian and Humanist, not Biblical. See post titled "Oaths 3."
Unlike the laws of the colonies and early states, which required belief in the bible and the Trinitarian God, the U.S. Constitution forbid the requiring of any belief at all, except in the Constitution. It was that decision to not restrict rule to believers in Christ and the bible, apparently based on a naive belief that Christians and non-Christians could work together to have a just and prosperous society, that led to what we have now. The righteous cannot let the wicked rule over them; they cannot be trusted with the bible, the very source and spring of the Truth, so how can they be trusted with rule and enforcement of law?
Second, we cannot put our faith in the judicial system, even a biblical one. Law doesn't save man. Jesus told a parable about an unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8. This judge wasn't so evil that he was trying to change God's law; he simply didn't enforce God's law properly. That caused a widow to pester him to the point that he relented and granted her justice. The point of the parable was not that we are to pester judges but that we are to pray to God, the just Judge who is more likely to grant us justice, and persist in our belief in Him.
There is no perfect justice system created by man. And life doesn't revolve around the state and its rules. Modern man has developed the foolish notion, the irrational notion, that somehow the state's political structure and exercise of the force of law will bring "the good life" to him. Life is not meant to revolve around the state. It is the productive part of society, the people exercising their freedom to develop, build, and serve the rest of society which is primary. The state merely protects that aspect of society.
Third, there must be a check on the judicial system. But how do you create a check on the judge without having an improper influence upon the judge? Impeachment is a fundamental part of the American constitutional system, even being a part of the constitutions of the States. Yet, the problem with such impeachment processes is that they only deal with unethical or illegal personal conduct; impeachment does not deal with philosophical defection from the fundamentals of the constitution. And if a religious test clause as to belief in the bible and the Trinity were to be a fundamental part of a constitution, then defection from that foundation would provide a substantial basis for determining whether an opinion defected from that basis. In other words, a biblical test clause would provide the substrate for a more potent impeachment threat.
Or course, a more potent impeachment threat would require some limit upon the legislature to keep it from overwhelming, even undermining, the judicial branch. This limit would have to be stated in the constitution. A limited foundational theological test would provide a way to test the faithfulness of the judiciary to the constitution. Has the judge remained faithful to his oath? In a biblical republic, that oath included a commitment to the bible and the Trinity. The oath-faithfulness question would govern the prosecutorial charge by the legislature. That oath would be based upon the bible and the Trinity. Right now, the oath is based on faithfulness to the constitution, which is not as clear a substrate of thought from which to derive an analysis of the judge's philosophy, as expressed in the judge's opinions.
How far would we have to go? Would the judge have to believe in infant baptism or a certain understanding of communion? Of course not, for as to such issues, the Church is the governing authority. Separation of Church and State would apply to prevent the application of the minutia of church doctrine to what the judge must believe and to which he must adhere. What about a socialist judge? Would his oath prevent him from ruling in a socialist fashion? Of course. Socialism is theft, a violation of the eighth commandment. What would be another example? For example, a judge ruling abortion to be legal would be subject to impeachment for violating his oath of faithfulness to a fundamental law of the bible - the sixth commandment.
So we can say that any ruling that clearly violated or allowed violation of the ten commandments would be something that could subject a judge to impeachment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)