|
Applying Old Testament Case Laws Today |
||
| Someone asked: “Since all of us agree that some Old Testament laws still apply today, is the disagreement merely over which laws should apply and which ones should not?” Below is my response. | ||
|
I think that there are several
issues. First and foremost is
whether or not Christians should attempt to get the modern state to adopt
the penalties prescribed under the civil code of Israel.
Questioning the legitimacy of this doesn’t mean that a person
rejects those laws as if they had nothing to teach us.
On the contrary, the whole of Scripture is the Word of God, the
only infallible rule of faith and life.
The case laws of Exodus through Deuteronomy are part of that Word
of God, and, therefore, they, too are “profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”
If a person ignores these laws, then he is not “adequate,” nor
is he “equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17.)
Furthermore, these case laws are one standard for civil authorities
to consider in making laws, because they illustrate how God’s principles
of justice were impartially fleshed out in the everyday lives of an
agrarian people living in the ancient Near East.
While they were not given as the absolute requirement for every
modern state to put into effect with literal and exacting force, they do
give us underlying principles about how to deal with people and crime in
an even-handed and fair way. But
more than that, they point us to Christ and what he has done for us. A second issue has to do with the
task of the Church under the New Testament.
As Christians have sought to answer the questions about what form a
“Christian” state should take, varieties of answers have been set
forth. Why is that?
Why do Christians who agree on so much else often differ widely
about politics? The reason is
fairly obvious to anyone who is willing to read the Bible without an ax to
grind: the New Testament does not give Christians a political
agenda. Indeed, the Church
can exist under a variety of civil governments and does not necessarily
fare better under one than another. For
example, when it comes to civil government and how believers ought to try
to shape such a government should they be given the opportunity, I much
prefer a constitutionally limited, representative democracy, what Calvin
called an aristocracy, but what we tend to call a republic:
“I will not deny that aristocracy, or a system compounded of
aristocracy and democracy, far excels all others . . .” [John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), Book IV, Chapter XX,
Section 8, p. 1493.] However, in the providence of God,
the “best” form of government for a particular body of believers may
be a harsh and ruthless tyranny for a season.
So while I may suppose that the Church would do well under a
constitutionally limited monarchy or under a constitutionally limited,
representative democracy, I must not forget that the Christian Church grew
incredibly under the tyrannical Julio-Claudians and Flavians in the first
century, and the Chinese Church exploded with growth under the demonic
reign of Mao Zedong. Life
wasn’t easy during these times of persecution, and I surely wouldn’t
want to live under such myself, but the blood of the martyrs has always
been the seed of the saints. Believers are given the specific
commission of Christ: “Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey
everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19, 20.)
That is not a commission to set up rival civil governments to those
that already existed, but it is a commission that not only brings
individuals to repentance and faith, but also sows the seeds for massive
cultural change in the course of time.
As more and more people bowed their knees to Christ, more and more
people became salt and light in their spheres of influence.
It was in this way, for example, that slavery ended in the Roman
Empire. It wasn’t because
of a Christian version of Spartacus’ revolt; (73-71 B.C.) it was as
Christian slaves served Christ by making the most of their human servitude
to advance the kingdom of our Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:20-24; 1 Peter
2:18-21; Philemon.) That influence, like leaven mixed in
dough, gradually impacted the whole culture. (Matthew 13:33.)
But it didn’t impact the culture because it focused on cultural
change; it impacted the culture because it focused on reaching individuals
with the gospel, individuals, who in turn profoundly influenced the world
around them. And we must not
forget that we often exercise that sphere of influence in unexpected ways,
and sometimes our influence is simply how we respond to the insults and
abuses of others. When Peter
and the other apostles refused to obey the civil authorities of the Jewish
Senate, they humbly stated: “We
must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29.)
When the Senate responded by having them flogged, the apostles
didn’t resist, but cheerfully submitted, “rejoicing because they had
been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.” (Acts 5:41.) We must remember, after all, that
the New Testament is a document for the Church, not the State.
Indeed, the Church is the faithful remnant of the Old Testament
state of Israel, as a nation in exile from its true home, and “Our
citizenship is in heaven.” (Philippians 3:20; 1 Peter 1:1; 2:9, 10;
Hebrews 12:22-24.) That is
why our political role models come particularly in Daniel, Shadrach,
Meshach and Abednego. We are
not called to confront the state, but to submit to it and, (Romans
13:1-7.) when compelled by God, humbly to petition it.
Even when we must disobey certain of its decrees because to obey
them would force us to deny Christ and to sin, we must do so respectfully
and still submit to its God-given authority in all other areas.
Daniel served the nation that bestially destroyed his own; when it
came to specific violations of the Law of God, he, along with Hananiah,
Mishael and Azariah, respectfully declined to obey.
They didn’t lift their middle fingers and flip-off the tyrants
under whom they served. They
were respectful, and they continued their obedience to these tyrants even
after they came through their various trials.
The important thing is that they refused to go against conscience;
they did what was right, and they trusted God for the results.
“They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were
not disappointed.” (Psalm 22:5.) That doesn’t mean that the New
Testament doesn’t say an awful lot about politics; it does, but it
focuses on the duty of believers as individuals to advance Christ’s
kingdom in their respective spheres of influence, whether in work or at
home. Suppose that I am
called to be a medical doctor: I
am to do that Christianly. That
doesn’t mean that I’m bound to follow the case laws of the Old
Testament in exacting detail when it comes to the practice of medicine.
To be sure, those case laws educate me with regard to underlying
principles. For example, as I
study the general equity that is at the foundation God’s law,
particularly as it is found in Leviticus 13 and 14, I learn: 1.
There are such things as contagious diseases, and they often
manifest themselves with specific symptoms. (Leviticus 13:2 ff.) 2.
One must always err on the side of caution, so a person manifesting
a particular symptom needs to be carefully observed to see if it is the
beginning of a disease. During
this time of observation, it is prudent to quarantine these people from
the rest of society. (Leviticus 13:2 ff.) 3.
Once someone has been diagnosed with a contagious disease, he must
live in isolation. (Leviticus 13:4 ff., 45, 46.) 4.
Infectious people are to be treated the same regardless of the
position they once held; no one is ever to be denied health care.
(Leviticus 13:38; 22:4; Numbers 5:1-4.) 5.
Physical health takes precedence over economic health.
(Leviticus 13:47 ff.) But while I may learn all kinds of
ethical principles to guide me, as a modern physician I must not follow
these case laws in exacting detail the way that God prescribed under the
Old Testament. Does that mean
that I now practice medicine with brazen, human autonomy?
Not at all. I am
guided by natural revelation, both in terms of the moral law of God
written on my heart and informed by Scripture, as well as by reading
God’s book of nature inductively, pragmatically and empirically
discovering the tools that God has already provided to treat diseases.
But I’m no longer bound and limited to a strict following of the
case laws—in sealing the cure, I no longer take two birds, killing one
and dipping the other bird in his blood; (Leviticus 14:2-7.)
I’m free to prescribe an antibiotic or stick a syringe of
penicillin in a sick person’s rear end. What form should the underlying
philosophy of law of the modern state model in order to avoid human
autonomy as the foundation of its jurisprudence?
This raises yet a third issue, natural law.
I submit that a modern state may still fundamentally be just even
if it does not enforce the penalties of the case laws that God gave to Old
Testament Israel. Why is
that? That is so because man is never left without a knowledge of
the law of God. God stamped
his law on the heart of humankind, when he created them in his own image.
To be human is to bear the image of God, and that means that to be
human is to have an intuitive, instinctive, a priori sense of right and
wrong. Every man and woman on
our planet knows the true God, knows right from wrong and knows that God
is angry at human sin. “The wrath of God is being
revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who
suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God
is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the
creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and
divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20.) “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not
have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for
themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences
also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending
them.” (Romans 2:14, 15.) Because these things are known to
all people everywhere, when we evangelize pagans, we are not starting from
scratch, but building on the truth they already possess.
When we tell them about sin, they know what we’re talking about;
they feel guilty when they commit adultery, not because they have read it
in the Bible, but because they have been created in the image of God and
have the fragments of that image pricking their consciences similarly to
the unsaved adult who was raised in a Christian home.
When we teach them that there is one, true God, we’re telling
them what they already know, know, not as a logical abstraction, but as an
intuitive awareness: all people everywhere know the true God, even though they do
not know him savingly or without distortions.
Preaching to lost pagans is not unlike a psychoanalyst probing into
the repressed memories of his clients:
the truth brings what is in the darkness into the light. This natural law, known to all
peoples, is the foundation of the laws of every state, but because of
human sinfulness, no state is perfect, nor does any state perfectly
reflect God’s moral law. The
Ten Commandments codify this same moral law within the ethos of second
millennium Israel; the case laws that flesh out this moral law in the
problems of every day life, do so under the infallible inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, but they do so also in ways that are unique to people living
on the other side of the Cross, the Rubicon of redemptive history.
That is why a modern state can be just and still not strictly
impose all the sanctions of those Old Testament laws.
Again, to quote Calvin: “Surely every nation is left free
to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself.” “It is a fact that the law of God
which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural
law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds
of men. Consequently,
the entire scheme of this equity of which we are
now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone
must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. “Whatever laws shall be framed to
that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason
why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the
Jewish law, or among themselves.” “For the statement of some, that
the law of God given through Moses is dishonored
when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain.
For others are not
preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison,
but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that
law is abrogated which was never enacted for us. For the Lord through the
hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and
to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into
his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver
especially to it; and—as became a wise lawgiver—he had special
concern for it in making its laws.” [John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), Book IV,
Chapter XX, Sections 14-16, pp. 1502-1505.] That is why I sometimes call myself a lower-case theonomist, because I do believe that God’s law should undergird the laws of every nation. But along with Calvin and the theologians who met at Westminster Abbey in the seventeenth century, I reject the idea that a fundamental task of the Christian Church is to try to get the modern state to enforce the sanctions that God gave to the ancient state of Israel. “To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX, iv.) Following 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, the Church should set about to win homosexuals and adulterers to Christ, not to try to get the state to execute them. |