"General Equity," etc

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam, you said,

“Good point Steve! All I was seeking to illustrate was that the passage in question, as applied in the book of Hebrews does not change or abrogate the 10 Commandments, but only the ceremonial.”​

My point was not that the passing of the Mosaic Covenant annulled the 10 Commandments, which antedate it, but annulled the ceremonial and judicial laws in their status as legally enforced upon the NT House of God.

There is a change of covenants, the first – the Mosaic – fulfilled and superceded (subsumed one might say) in the covenant Christ is now mediating. The Lord says that because the Israelites did not continue in the first covenant (Heb 8:9; Jer 31:32), the new covenant shall not be according the first one, that is, shall differ from it.

When you say,

“I think Heb 8 is not talking about a change in the covenant of grace itself, but in the administration of that covenant in the times of the gospel vs. the time of the law. The differences? No ceremonies due to their fulfillment by Christ, and the same Laws of the covenant written on the hearts of the covenant members.”​

Are you identifying the Mosaic covenant as “the covenant of grace”? On what basis would you do that?

In the actual covenant of grace (which one could distinctly trace from Abraham to its full expression in Christ), the new one Jeremiah is talking of in his 31st chapter, the laws written “in their inward parts....[and] in their hearts” (v. 33) are not the judicial codes but the moral law in its pristine simplicity, and the commandments of Christ and His apostles – the Royal Law of Christ – although the old judicial applications of the 10 may inform our understanding of the 10. They are not carried over – the judicial laws – as far as penalties are concerned. Neither as regards being enforced upon our consciences, save as “the general equity thereof may require”. This equity is, per Isbell’s explication of the Confession [The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: Part II],

“The Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation.”

And he proceeds to discuss the proofs which show this general equity is not the judicial law per se, but the moral law (distinct from the JL), and its righteousness in certain of the judicial laws. It never means the carrying over of the judicial laws en mass along with their penalties. This view of them is a novelty.

So what law is it that is written on the new covenant people’s hearts? To be continued.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Steve,
I think you mean Adam everywhere you said Chris.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In Matthew 5:17 – 20, Jesus said,

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Due to time and space considerations I will not do a detailed exegesis of this highly controverted and difficult passage.

Some questions and observations arise. First, we must compare Scripture with Scripture. The assertion that the entire Mosaic Law is carried over, and must be obeyed and taught, appears to stand against other passages which say the Mosaic Law (and not just the ceremonial [CL]) is discontinued, and we are not obliged to teach or obey it in its original judicial forms. Please note, when I say the Mosaic Law is discontinued I do not refer to the Decalogue (or Moral Law), which antedates the Mosaic covenant, and endures eternally.

So there is an exegetical tension between Matt 5:17 – 20, and Hebrews 8:7 – 13, as well the passages in Galatians 2, 3 and 4 which talk of our being dead to the law and no longer under it; Romans 6 and 7 also speak of our being dead to the law in Christ, and alive to God.

We are not just talking of being free from the law as regards our justification (one was never justified by the law), but as under the authority of the Mosaic regulations, ceremonial as well as judicial (save where general equity brings JLs into the category of the commands of the Decalogue).

I will not accept a spin which completely equates the judicial codes with the moral law of the Decalogue. To assume that as a given when it has not been proved is but begging the question.

In 1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23 also, Paul talks of his being free from the Mosaic Code, although free to take it upon himself when seeking to gain those under it; yet he is free to be without it. He nonetheless says he is under the law to Christ, though this obviously is not the Mosaic laws (JLs included), as he can disregard those. What law is he under to Christ?

The exegesis I hold to hinges primarily on what Jesus means when He says He did not come to destroy (or abolish), but to fulfill the law and the prophets (v. 17). The sacrificial / priestly laws are fulfilled in His being the reality which the shadow types of the OT worship prefigured. The judicial / civil laws find their perfect realization and expression in the heart and conduct of the Lawgiver Himself; His righteousness includes and transcends the judicials; to obey His new covenant laws / commands is to keep all the old laws as He kept them and now expresses their meaning in His spiritual kingdom.

If we keep Christ’s and His apostles commands we are keeping all the law of God, albeit in its New covenant formulation, per the eternal Lawgiver Himself. Not the least of these laws do we teach against or despise, when we walk in the grace and truth of the Lawgiver.

If anyone wants to see some standard commentaries with this view, I would suggest D.A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary,and also his The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5 – 7, Vern Poythress’, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses; R.T. France’s, Matthew, in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series, etc.

It is plain that a form of Judaizing has infiltrated the church, and seeks to bring again the bondage of ancient Judaism upon not only the NT spiritual nation, but the nations of the world as well. The Scriptures are well-armed against such assaults.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Looking through Calvin’s Institutes I found some thoughts of his on Mosaic judicial law, and its use in other contemporary nations. I prefer the Battles’ translation, but used the CCEL text to reproduce here, for time’s sake. He certainly does not promote a theonomic agenda.

He, for one, cannot be used to support such a thing. His statements here are explicit and unequivocal, however unclear other statements of his elsewhere may seem to be.

-------------

Physical benefits and physical punishments as types.

3. Hence the reason why the saints under the Old Testament set a higher value on this mortal life and its blessings than would now be meet. For, though they well knew, that in their race they were not to halt at it as the goal, yet, perceiving that the Lord, in accommodation to their feebleness, had there imprinted the lineaments of his favour, it gave them greater delight than it could have done if considered only in itself. For, as the Lord, in testifying his good will
towards believers by means of present blessings, then exhibited spiritual felicity under types and emblems, so, on the other hand, by temporal punishments he gave proofs of his judgment against the reprobate. Hence, by earthly objects, the favour of the Lord was displayed, as well as his punishment inflicted. The unskilful, not considering this analogy and correspondence (if I may so speak) between rewards and punishments, wonder that there is so much variance in God, that those who, in old time, were suddenly visited for their faults with severe and dreadful punishments, he now punishes much more rarely and less severely, as if he had laid aside his former anger, and, for this reason, they can scarcely help imagining, like the Manichees, that the God of the Old Testament was different from that of the New. But we shall easily disencumber ourselves of such doubts if we attend to that mode of divine administration to which I have adverted—that God was pleased to indicate and typify both the gift of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, as well as the dreadful nature of spiritual death by bodily punishments, at that time when he delivered his covenant to the Israelites as under a kind of veil.

From Calvin’s Institutes II:xi:3 at CCEL Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The Battles’ translation renders the last portion as, “But we shall readily dispose of these misgivings if we turn our attention to this dispensation of God which I have noted. He willed that, for the time during which he gave his covenant to the people of Israel in a veiled form, the grace of future and eternal happiness be signified and figured under earthly benefits, the gravity of spiritual death under physical punishments.” (pp. 452-3)

-----------

Institutes IV:xx:14 – 16. Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

14. In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law. As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men. This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false. We must attend to the well known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

15. The moral law, then (to begin with it), being contained under two heads, the one of which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him and mutually love one another. The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures (Gal. 3:24; 4:4). The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly. And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so, also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual. But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.

16. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws—viz. the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other (August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17). The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to “do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brother” (Deut. 19:19). In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others hanging, in others crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amidst this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God—viz. murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I hope my somewhat inflammatory language in previous posts has not made folks wary of participating in these threads. Twice moderators have suggested I tone my words down. And I am trying.

When it comes to other issues, such as which are the most reliable Biblical texts, or the charismatic stuff, etc., I do not come on so strongly, important as they are. But this – the theonomic agenda – had staggering implications culturally, pastorally, and doctrinally.

For instance, evangelism. I herald the Gospel as God’s offer of reconciliation to a rebellious and alienated world, pleading with the lost to receive His gracious mercies in Christ. And warning of a day of universal judgment to come, when justice will accost those who have not received forgiveness of sins and eternal life. In the Spirit of Christ I both intercede for the lost, and urge them to be reconciled to God while the floodgates of mercy are still flung wide.

The preaching of the cross, of what our Savior did bearing our sins for love of us, is the power of God unto salvation. The rumbling thunder of outraged Justice waiting to be unpent so as to finally be rid of all sin and rebellion, and the glorified Son of God receiving all those who flee from death and wrath to His glorious haven – these are pure and clean doctrines, and if there is any offense taken, it is taken by the wicked who hate God, hate both His love and His holiness.

But the preaching of the theonomic Christian Reconstruction “gospel” is not at all the same. When the homosexual, adulterer, fornicator, sabbath-breaker, are accosted by this gospel, what is being said (or concealed) is this: “Christ died for sinners, that forgiveness may be granted all who turn to Him for mercy, but if you do not repent, you must be executed posthaste by order of the law of Christ.” And if the theonomic state has not yet been realized (as is now the case), in the heart of those who preach this “gospel” the thought is, “we may not be able to execute you now, but you deserve to be stoned to death for your wicked unbelief and rebellion – and when we are in charge you and your kind will get yours.”

This is not the Spirit of Christ.

We should not be so naïve as to think our adversaries are unaware of the books and writings of Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, Gentry, Chilton, et al, and their views of “the kingdom of Christ” and the punishments meted out to those who resist its laws. Myself, I study the thinking and strategies of my opponents. When bidding on eBay I study the previous bidding strategies of those I am bidding against, so as to outmaneuver them when the auction is about to end, and the clock hits zero. The homosexual activists are no dummies; they are aware of the stakes: death to them and their communities at our hands if “the Christians” get their theocratic way. Little wonder they are playing hardball, seeking to outlaw our Book, our God, and us – our children and grandchildren as well – because we will kill them all if we are allowed to exist and propagate our faith – so they think.

Now, if there are any homosexual activists lurking and considering these things, know there are Christians who abhor the agenda of the theonomists, and seek the expelling of them from what is considered “orthodox Christianity”, for whatever that may be worth. Christ did not tell us to conquer the world with a physical kingdom (however “spiritual” that worldly kingdom might seem), but to call people out of the world systems and into His spiritual community, which does not seek to physically take over the world.

What I see the theonomic agenda as accomplishing is not the “Jewish dream” of world domination and the ushering in a godly golden age of peace through force and coercion, but rather a terrible backlash that shall break against the church of God with hundred-fold fury over the “normal” hostility of the world. What they see, if they consider the theonomic agenda, is our plan to murder them all. And when we invoke the name and law of Moses to justify this they will rightly adjudge us as nuts!

Paul the apostle clearly says – as I have shown above – we have died to the law of Moses in the body of Christ, and are now alive unto God by Him. Sanctification is growing in Christ-likeness in our inward disposition.

In Christ we ourselves observe all the commandments of the Old Testament by virtue of being in union with the Lawgiver who personifies the essence of the righteousness those old laws indicated and pointed to.

The bizarreness of foisting the old Mosaic judicial statutes on the church, and the nations! Plus the clean laws, and other miscellany.

Why is there no outcry, no uproar, against this teaching which is so blatantly another gospel?

There is no Scripture to show we must “Christianize” the institutions and governments of the world, “Christianize” the arts and the culture! What on earth does “Christianize” mean anyway? It falls short of true conversion, so it must mean compliant with Mosaic law under threat of punishment. The doctrine of the depravity of man will not countenance such a cozy arm-in-arm relationship between the church and the world. In the unregenerate man his depraved nature is at enmity against God.

Where in the eschatological passages does Scripture envision this so-called “Christianizing” of the world?

The church is triumphant even in the midst of suffering and persecution, even as our Lord was on the cross. The church is successful in its mission when it evangelizes the nations, engages in works of mercy, calls the lost to repent and seek forgiveness in Christ. The church is glorious, even while suffering and militant here in the world.

Sanctification is inward holiness after the image of Christ. Not observing manifold Mosaic regulations.

 

[Christusregnat]

Steve,

First, let me say that your language has not been an offense to me; I've just been busy

To answer your question:

Adam, would you please explain what you mean when you use the term, "the marrow of the moral law"? Thanks.

What I intend by the "marrow of the moral law" is the basic underlying principal. What sin is God seeking to eradicate? What's the basic issue?

My point was not that the passing of the Mosaic Covenant annulled the 10 Commandments, which antedate it, but annulled the ceremonial and judicial laws in their status as legally enforced upon the NT House of God.

The passage mentions nothing about the judicial law. Also, you have yet to recognize the simple assertion that TCRs recognize different spheres of government, each governed by different methods. When you say "the NT House of God", I can only assume you mean the church. If you're saying that the church doesn't execute blasphemers, I agree. It does something worse: it consigns them to hell, except they repent.

There is a change of covenants, the first – the Mosaic – fulfilled and superceded (subsumed one might say) in the covenant Christ is now mediating. The Lord says that because the Israelites did not continue in the first covenant (Heb 8:9; Jer 31:32), the new covenant shall not be according the first one, that is, shall differ from it.

When you say,

“I think Heb 8 is not talking about a change in the covenant of grace itself, but in the administration of that covenant in the times of the gospel vs. the time of the law. The differences? No ceremonies due to their fulfillment by Christ, and the same Laws of the covenant written on the hearts of the covenant members.”​

Are you identifying the Mosaic covenant as “the covenant of grace”? On what basis would you do that?

It's rather simple: God Himself identifies the Mosaic Covenant as a gracious covenant. Here are some examples:

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward... 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. 12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance... 17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. 18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Psalm 44:1 We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. 2 How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. 3 For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them.

If you can't distinctly trace the covenant of grace from Abraham to Moses, to Samuel, to David, to Josiah, to Hezekiah, to Christ, then I'm not sure what I can do to help you see it. God's unconditional covenant is wrapped up on language about the Mosaic Covenant: the land, the descent into Egypt, the deliverance with great plunder. This was God's work: His covenant of grace. Also, within the covenant of Moses, there is atonement held forth for the people, communion with God, a Law to light their pathway as individuals, as a church, and as a nation. None of this was because they deserved it; it was because God chose to be gracious to them, and to keep His covenant promise to Abraham. Also, Moses was a preacher of the gospel, and forsook the riches of Egypt for the reproaches of Christ. Christ was the rock that followed them, and was typified by the WonderBread from heaven. He was captain of the LORD's host that wiped out their enemies and planted them in the land. What more do you need?

They are not carried over – the judicial laws – as far as penalties are concerned. Neither as regards being enforced upon our consciences, save as “the general equity thereof may require”.

Who said this?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Apparently, the only way not to make this command "of none effect" by our vain tradition is to recognize its full exposition: judicial exposition and penalty included. Again, Christ did not come to dismantle the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill.

This equity is, per Isbell’s explication of the Confession [The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: Part II],

“The Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation.”

Amen! For instance, as Christ sites, the enduring obligation of the civil power to execute those that curse their father or their mother. And, as Paul stated, their bear not the sword in vain, but are avengers to execute wrath on those that violate the general equity of the JLs, such as those that blaspheme, break the sabbath, teach a false god, commit adultery, murder, smite their father or their mother, commit manstealing, etc.

And he proceeds to discuss the proofs which show this general equity is not the judicial law per se, but the moral law (distinct from the JL), and its righteousness in certain of the judicial laws. It never means the carrying over of the judicial laws en mass along with their penalties. This view of them is a novelty.

Good point! Nobody's arguing for an en mass carry over, that I'm aware of. Even Calvin, who argued for the ancient form of government, and for the execution of blasphemers, adulterers, sodomites, etc. didn't believe this. The only people who argued for en mass carry over were some of the Anabaptists, and they did so with revolutionary force, not with the reforming power of God's Spirit. This is a red herring; I'm not arguing for en mass; I'm arguing for the general equity to be enforced.

So what law is it that is written on the new covenant people’s hearts? To be continued.

The Law was not made for a righteous man, but "for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God".

My answer? Both.

 

[Christusregnat]

Some questions and observations arise. First, we must compare Scripture with Scripture. The assertion that the entire Mosaic Law is carried over, and must be obeyed and taught, appears to stand against other passages which say the Mosaic Law (and not just the ceremonial [CL]) is discontinued, and we are not obliged to teach or obey it in its original judicial forms. Please note, when I say the Mosaic Law is discontinued I do not refer to the Decalogue (or Moral Law), which antedates the Mosaic covenant, and endures eternally.

Again, I'm not arguing for an en mass carryover of the judicials; I'm arguing for the marrow of these laws to carry over.

So there is an exegetical tension between Matt 5:17 – 20, and Hebrews 8:7 – 13, as well the passages in Galatians 2, 3 and 4 which talk of our being dead to the law and no longer under it; Romans 6 and 7 also speak of our being dead to the law in Christ, and alive to God.

I will let better expositors explain what it means to be "dead to the law". Depending on the context (as for instance, in Romans 6), not being under law refers to no longer being subject to God's wrath, because under the curse of the Covenant of Works. Also, Paul explains in Col 2 that we are not under ceremonies. These issues don't bear on our discussion.

We are not just talking of being free from the law as regards our justification (one was never justified by the law), but as under the authority of the Mosaic regulations, ceremonial as well as judicial (save where general equity brings JLs into the category of the commands of the Decalogue).

You are asserting that we're not talking about justification, which is fine. The question is, what is the context of Romans 6? Well, Romans 1 - 5, which deal with man: condemned and justified by the grace of God alone. It is mere assertion to say that Paul shifts gears in Romans 6 to discuss the civil law. Rather, he argues for that in Romans 13.

I will not accept a spin which completely equates the judicial codes with the moral law of the Decalogue. To assume that as a given when it has not been proved is but begging the question.

Amen! I won't accept it either

In 1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23 also, Paul talks of his being free from the Mosaic Code, although free to take it upon himself when seeking to gain those under it; yet he is free to be without it. He nonetheless says he is under the law to Christ, though this obviously is not the Mosaic laws (JLs included), as he can disregard those. What law is he under to Christ?

"as he can disregard those"; who says? What about 1 Timothy 1 where, rather than disregarding the JL, he cites it as part of the perfect rule of righteousness, and as something which accords with sound doctrine, and the glorious gospel of the blessed God?

The exegesis I hold to hinges primarily on what Jesus means when He says He did not come to destroy (or abolish), but to fulfill the law and the prophets (v. 17). The sacrificial / priestly laws are fulfilled in His being the reality which the shadow types of the OT worship prefigured. The judicial / civil laws find their perfect realization and expression in the heart and conduct of the Lawgiver Himself; His righteousness includes and transcends the judicials; to obey His new covenant laws / commands is to keep all the old laws as He kept them and now expresses their meaning in His spiritual kingdom.

Jesus demanded that those that curse their father and mother should be executed? What do you say?

If we keep Christ’s and His apostles commands we are keeping all the law of God, albeit in its New covenant formulation, per the eternal Lawgiver Himself. Not the least of these laws do we teach against or despise, when we walk in the grace and truth of the Lawgiver.

The Bible which the Apostles and Jesus used was the OT. It is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God can be fully equipped for every good work. This includes the laws about stoning a rebellious son to death, and about executing blasphemers.

It is plain that a form of Judaizing has infiltrated the church, and seeks to bring again the bondage of ancient Judaism upon not only the NT spiritual nation, but the nations of the world as well. The Scriptures are well-armed against such assaults.

It is plain that a form of anti-nomianism has infiltrated the church, under the guise of "new covenant theology", and has nothing to do with historic Christian faith, and Reformed orthodoxy. It seems to defy 2 Timothy 3:16, and makes the commandments of God of no effect by its vain man-made traditions.

How's that for rhetorical flair?

Godspeed,

Adam

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As I have had of necessity to further meditate on these issues of the Law, our Confessions, and the Kingdom of Christ, and studying these things in threads here at PB, as well the published points of view of both camps, I find I am out of my depth....

and so will be taking a break from this thread till the Lord grants me better understanding of these things.

 

[timmopussycat]

Jesus demanded that those that curse their father and mother should be executed? What do you say?

When Christ is speaking to Pharisees and observant Jews (and not directly to disciples), as in the case mentioned, he is expounding the still-operative Old Covenant and showing its demands on his hearers then living under it. When Christ mentions or applies an Old Covenant stipulation to people living under that covenant, it does not follow, by necessary consequence, that the same stipulation will remain valid in the new covenant, for we know that some stipulations do not transfer from Old to New.

To determine whether any of his Old Covenant applications to such people apply beyond the Old Covenant context, the question we must first answer is: does that particular stipulation carry over into the New Covenant? Historically, most of the Reformed have believed that even though the entire system of laws is no longer applicable as a system, certain individual stipulations remain valid. The valid stipulations are those where the general equity therof is such that they remain required today (WCF 19:4).

Demonstrations in the case before us left as exercises for the student.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

*bump*

Just wanted to keep this thread active, as I've not finished with it. Studying to answer.

Steve

 

[timmopussycat]

Steve,

Also, here's Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:17ff., demonstrating that when Rushdoony called Calvin antinomian in civil affairs, I believe he was wrong:

If you read on a little further to Calvin's comments on v. 19 you will discover that Calvin in this passage takes the Law and the Prophets to mean "the Moral law" or decalogue. Which is why Rush correctly recognized that Calvin differed from his own position and called him antinomian.

Timothy,

I'm sorry if my original post was not clear, but I said:

Note, first of all, Calvin recognizes two basic categories of law in this passage: moral and ceremonial. Under the moral law, Calvin understands to be "ancient and accustomed government". Can you guess what this is?

Also, the only objection that Calvin sees as having any force about "every jot and tittle of the law" remaining are ceremonial laws. In other words, by implication, Calvin understands Christ to have two types of law in mind: moral and ceremonial, and the moral remains, along with the ancient covenant, the "accustomed form of government" etc.

The judicial laws are conspicuously absent.

Your point serves to make my point even stronger: Calvin assumed the theocracy to be part of the Moral law; the same as Gillespie and the Westminster Assembly, and Bahnsen. Whether this was Rush's position has been proven by the quotation I made previously where he shows the overlap, albeit some measure of difference between moral and civil.

The idea that Calvin and Gillespie and the WA assumed that ALL the judicial laws remained valid (unleess amended by the lawgiver) because the moral law remains valid, (as assumed by Bahnsen and others) is simply not tenable. Calvin, Gillespie and the WA can be demonstrated to argue from a different premise. If Calvin and Gillespie had believed Bahnsen's premise, certain outcomes would have been rejected as illegitimate. Calvin would never have allowed states to alter Mosaic stipulations without divine sanction as he did in Institutes bk 4 ch 20 pp. 15 and Gillespie would not have allowed the magistrate an unbibical forbearance from issuing a Mosaic penalty for a Mosaic crime as he did in Wholesome Severity.

 

[timmopussycat]

Timothy,

As Sinclair Ferguson long ago noted the Divines here cite Matt. 5:17 as proof for the proposition that the civil laws have expired and v. 38,9 for how they understood general equity to work.

That's an ingenious, albeit less than credible, assertion. If the divines believed this, then what was the purpose of citing Deut 13 and Leviticus 24, which teach that the civil magistrate is to execute blasphemers and evangelists for false gods? Were they assuming that the civil law had expired when they taught that the magistrate should look to the judicial laws to find his duty? I think not.

The Divines do not cite Deut. 13 and Lev. 24 under 19:4. They do cite these Scriptures and many other civil laws but I belive such citations rest upon the unstated presence that those Scriptures remain valid in new Covenant states because "the general equity therof" still "require".

Indeed, which is why it's so important in illustrating that the judicial law, and its curses, is not a covenant of works, and why it is part of the moral law which forever binds all men, justified or otherwise. Again, the judicials are an exposition of the moral.

I don't think anyone will dispute the idea that the judicials are an exposition of the moral law. But that's not what is at issue in the debate. The judicials are expositions and applications of the moral law within a particular context. The question is do they remain equitable when the covenantal context in which they were given is now no more and why do they do so?

If Bahnsen made only the point that the Mosaic judicials were only judicial applications of the moral law decalogue, there would have been no debate. It was when Bahnsen also attempted to establish a second premise: that all the judicials must remain valid in the present covenantal era except where amended by the lawgiver, that the controversy began.

Actually, I dispute 1. the logic of what you've said here, and 2. The historical accuracy of this assertion.

It has been known for centuries that the judicials were applications based on the equity of the moral law. You need to read Anthony Burgess "Vindiciae Legis". Burgess was one of the drafters of Ch. 19. It is a matter of historical accuracy that what distinguished Bahnsen from predecessors such as Murray, Gillespie, Rutherford and Calvin is that Bahnsen argued that all the judicials must remain valid exept where the Lawgiver amends them.

As to 1. if the judicials are an expression of the moral law, then all of them must of necessity apply, if they are moral in nature.

Premise One: The Moral Law forever binds all men everywhere

Premise Two: The Judicial Law is composed of civil applications of the Moral Law

Conclusion: The Judicial Law's civil applications of the Moral Law bind all men everywhere.

This is Bahnsen's reasoning. The only exception would be if God told you that something didn't apply from the judicials, in which case one would naturally conclude that there was nothing "moral" about such a law, and that it was merely circumstantial, or peculiar to the Jewish people. Bahnsen says as much in his book "By This Standard".

Bahnsen's premise 2 is not precise enough and a 3rd premise is missing. To get a logical conclusion premise 2 must read:

The Judicial law is composed of civil applications of the Moral Law

and premise 3 must read:

The change in covenantal circumstances makes no change to the validity of Mosaic civil applications of the Mosaic law.

Now premise 3 cannot be proven true and there is a counter example in Deut itself which proves the contrary. In Deut. 23:20, the Israelites were prohibited from lending money at interest to fellow Israelites. But the same verse makes it certain that civil law prohibition of lending money did not apply when an Israelite was asked to lend money to a Gentile. That God permitted interest when lending to Gentiles proves that lending at interest does not violate the moral law. Forbidding Israel to lend at interest among Israelites demonstrates that the moral and civil laws are not identical.

As to 2. Meredith Klein was Bahnsen's arch rival on this issue, and I don't think that he would grant the judicials to be civil applications of the Moral Law, I think he would consider them "intrusionist". Please correct me if I am mistaken. But, I believe the basic problem was that Bahnsen was re-asserting an ethic that made use of the Mosaic judicial laws rather than leaving them ambiguous.

I don't know Kline's work in this area but he is clearly not representative of the Confessional view if he considers all the judicial laws intrusionist and their general equity irrelevant. Since Kline clearly misread the WCF, calling it a Theonomic (in Bahnsen's sense of the term) document when it is not one, I don't automatically trust Kline to be right on anything without checking his point against Scripture.

Foulner's book which you mention is weakened by the fact that the author does not discuss (for whatever reason) points on which Calvin, Gillespie and Reformed worthies come to conclusions that Bahnsen's second premise forbids.

I've talked to Martin about his book. First, if you think that he is the author of the book, I'm not sure if you're referring to the same book, or that you've read it. Foulner, as you will note from the cover, and the title page, compiled and annotated, but wasn't the author. He gives a 5-page intro, but the lion's share is taken up with other authors, followed by a postscript, and a two page conclusion.

I have indeed read Foulner's book and I too have talked to Martin about it, on this board as it happend. I pointed out that Martin did not include key quotations from Reformed worthies that demonstrate that they cannot possibly be utilizing Bahnsen's hermeneutic.

The purpose of this booklet, according to the compiler, was to help his friend Colin Gunn (a good buddy of mine) who was being ousted from holding office as "unconfessional" from one of the Scottish Presbyterian churches. Martin's modest claim was to demonstrate that the Scottish Presbyterians were unaware of what the divines actually believed, and that being a capitalist, or believing in capital punishment for adulterers or idolaters is not anti-confessional, or unreformed. In his preface, which I'm sure you've read, Martin says "It is the sole purpose of this work to show that the teachings of this movement [ajb - theonomy] are not new, but were widely held among Reformed theologians, particularly the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly." Thus, his purpose was not comparative between Gillespie, Calvin, et al.

I don't know the Gunn case and I don't know what present Scottish Presbyterian's believe or don't believe. But I do know that although the WA and Bahnsen often come to similar conclusions about whether or not a Mosaic judicial still applies today, the WAD's come to their conclusions by a different means than Bahnsen does. And that creates the debate and the problem.

 

[Pergamum]

Awesome thread...thanks you guys!

 

[timmopussycat]

Perhaps I misunderstood the original intent of the reference to Isbell's article, but I thought that we were arguing about the confessional teaching on this issue. If we are, then your argument above must be considered later. Suffice it to say, I believe that you are attacking the confessional position, since the WCF cites Leviticus 26 (and as you rightly observe, Deut 28 by implication) in proof of the moral law's perpetual validity. If you want to argue this scripturally, we can do so; but let's be clear about what we're discussing.

That the Divines cited provisions in Lev. 26 and Deut 28 as valid does not mean that that they included those provisions within the meaning they assigned to the term '"moral law". The Divines specifically defined the term "moral law" to mean the decalogue (WCF 19:1-3a) and they specifically made the point that it was the moral law/decalogue that remains valid today (WCF 19.5)

I can full agree with this if we say that the individuals who don't obey the moral law and the judicial applications will suffer all the curses of God in this life that God is pleased to meet out to them, and the plagues of God for all eternity in hell. Nations don't go to hell; individuals do.

As for your comment that the moral law is not elucidated by the Judicial law, let me ask you this: Have you ever preached against incest? How did you define incest? Where in Scripture do you find its meaning? Have you ever preached against sodomy? What about bestiality? If so, where in Scripture did you go? Or did you only preach against adultery? If the moral law is the only thing you find as perpetual, then this is all you can preach about, since this is the only thing mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

Although I am not a preacher by calling, I could easily preach against any non heterosexually monogamous form of sexual expression from the Edenic command, Christ's teaching and Paul's point that in this matter one's body belongs to the heterosexual spouse not oneself. Working from these principles I easily justify the continuing validity of the OT prohibitions of sexual misconduct as remaining valid today by general equity as per WCF 19:4.

This is very poor exegesis; please reread the passage, and see if you can see the following explicit parallels:

We could say that v.9 could be the Moral Law (ML vs. JL from here on), except that the Greek has "smiters of fathers and mothers" in v.9. The ESV rightly renders it "for those who strike their fathers and mothers". Tell me, where did Paul get this "law" from, which he says is according to sound doctrine, and according to the glorious gospel of Christ?


Pray tell, which passage of Scripture did Paul get this from? Exodus 20? No, the same chapter that the divines cite in the WCF as teaching the JL: Exodus 21.

The Greek words here should be literally translated as one who murders his mother and one who murders his father. One need go no further than the decalogue to prohibit such actions twice over.

Then Paul says that sound doctrine and the gospel of Christ (and the law) are contrary to "men who practice homosexuality, enslavers". Again, where are such laws recorded:

Homosexuality, as pointed out above, is shown sinful by general equity validity of OT civil prohibition demonstrated to be valid today by the pre and post Sinai teaching on sexual fidelity.

 

[KMK]

*bump*

Just wanted to keep this thread active, as I've not finished with it. Studying to answer.

Steve

Thank you for doing so, Mr. Rafalsky. I had missed it the first time around.

 

[Christusregnat]

The idea that Calvin and Gillespie and the WA assumed that ALL the judicial laws remained valid (unleess amended by the lawgiver) because the moral law remains valid, (as assumed by Bahnsen and others) is simply not tenable. Calvin, Gillespie and the WA can be demonstrated to argue from a different premise. If Calvin and Gillespie had believed Bahnsen's premise, certain outcomes would have been rejected as illegitimate. Calvin would never have allowed states to alter Mosaic stipulations without divine sanction as he did in Institutes bk 4 ch 20 pp. 15 and Gillespie would not have allowed the magistrate an unbibical forbearance from issuing a Mosaic penalty for a Mosaic crime as he did in Wholesome Severity.

Please provide a citation from Gillespie, if you would; I don't recall the particular passage you're referring to. I do know that he asserts that the Christian magistrate ought to hold to the Judicial Law just as the Jewish magistrate did. He cites this as a parallel instance of the Christian people being bound by the moral law in the same way as the Jews. The only exceptions he makes are those which don't have a moral end; for this he cites Piscator's distinction of Judicials no longer applying, such as Levirate marriage, Jubilee, etc. It appears that Gillespie's reasoning, as well as Fischer's, includes a presumption of continuity, even as you yourself did here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f124/pr...clusive-psalmody-39215/index2.html#post487897

"Covenant theology mandates continuity unless abrogated" is what you stated.

If Calvin did not follow this argument consistently, I believe that Gillespie was more consistent with this principal, and I would say Bahnsen was seeking to be consistent with this same principal. Were any of them perfect? No. But I think they all operated on the same basic assumption of continuity.

If someone comes to the conclusion that blasphemers or heretics, or idolaters, or adulterers or revilers, or sodomites or smiters of fathers or mothers, or cursers of fathers or mothers, etc. need not be executed with capital sentence by Christian Magistrates, then such a person is not confessional, and is not in accordance with the mandate of covenant theology, which you beautifully stated in the quotation above.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

If someone comes to the conclusion that blasphemers or heretics, or idolaters, or adulterers or revilers, or sodomites or smiters of fathers or mothers, or cursers of fathers or mothers, etc. need not be executed with capital sentence by Christian Magistrates, then such a person is not confessional, and is not in accordance with the mandate of covenant theology, which you beautifully stated in the quotation above.

This is where classic establishmentarianism differs from modern theonomy. Rutherford, Gillespie, et al. argued from the capital punishment belonging to these crimes that it is therefore right to punish heretics (from particular case law to general moral principle); they did not insist that the heretic MUST be put to death (case law to case law). Therein lies the hermeneutic of fundamental discontinuity in contrast with modern theonomy's hermeneutic of fundamental continuity.

 

[Christusregnat]

If someone comes to the conclusion that blasphemers or heretics, or idolaters, or adulterers or revilers, or sodomites or smiters of fathers or mothers, or cursers of fathers or mothers, etc. need not be executed with capital sentence by Christian Magistrates, then such a person is not confessional, and is not in accordance with the mandate of covenant theology, which you beautifully stated in the quotation above.

This is where classic establishmentarianism differs from modern theonomy. Rutherford, Gillespie, et al. argued from the capital punishment belonging to these crimes that it is therefore right to punish heretics (from particular case law to general moral principle); they did not insist that the heretic MUST be put to death (case law to case law). Therein lies the hermeneutic of fundamental discontinuity in contrast with modern theonomy's hermeneutic of fundamental continuity.

Here is Gillespie's opinion:

II. The Arguments whereby this third or middle opinion is confirmed (that we may not build upon human authority) are these.

1. First, the law (Deut. 13:6-9), concerning the stoning and killing of him, who shall secretly entice people, saying, "Let us go after other gods." If it is said, that this law did bind the Jews only, and is not moral or perpetual, I answer, Jacobus Acontius,#11 though he is of another opinion concerning this question than I am, yet he candidly and freely confesses that he sees nothing in that law which does not belong to the New Testament, as well as the Old; for, he says, the reason and ground of the law, the use and end of it, is moral and perpetual (v. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness, as this is among you. But yet, says Acontius, this law does not concern heretics, who believe and teach errors concerning the true God or his worship; but only apostates who fall away to other gods. In this#12 I shall not much contend with him; only thus far, if apostates are to be stoned and killed according to that law, then surely seducing heretics are also to receive their measure and proportion of punishment. The moral equity of the law requires this much at least, that if we compare heresy and apostasy together, look how much less the evil of sin is in heresy, so much and no more is to be remitted of the evil of punishment, especially the danger of contagion and seduction, being as much or rather more in heresy than in apostasy; yea, that which is called heresy being oftentimes a real following after other gods. But the Law (Deut. 13), for punishing with death, as well whole cities as particular persons, for falling away to other gods, is not the only law for punishing even capitally gross sins against the first table. See Ex. 22:20, He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Ex. 31:14, Every one that defileth the sabbath, shall be put to death. Lev. 24:16, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. Deut. 17:2-5, If there be found among you within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other gods and worshipped them . . . . Thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shall stone them with stones till they die.

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, by George Gillespie

Gillespie goes on to confirm that the mulcts and other punishments leading up to capital execution are likewise directly derived from Scripture. There is no softening of the law, merely an explanation of what it actually says; Gillespie argues that the Judicials didn't have a MUST attached to the execution of heretics. This is thoroughly theonomic.

Here is his comment on the method of punishment:

(1.) If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the Magistrate to appoint what punishments he pleases. But this is not arbitrary to him, for he is the minister of God, (Rom. 13:4) and the judgment is the Lord's (Deut. 1:7; 2 Chron. 19:6). And if the Magistrate is keeper of both tables, he must keep them in such manner as God has delivered them to him.

Gillespie goes on to show that non-capital punishments are Mosaic in origin, and are therefore the correct interpretation of the Mosaic judicials.

I have to say that I think Gillespie is more theonomic that you may want to give him credit for.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

The context of the statement quoted from "Wholesome Severity" is as follows:

And lest it be thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that the magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress heretics and sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and professed concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their public confessions of faith.

The emboldened words illustrate the point I made previously -- that he argues from their judicial laws to a moral right of the magistrate, or from law to principle; he does not argue from their case laws to modern case laws, or from law to law.

 

[timmopussycat]

The idea that Calvin and Gillespie and the WA assumed that ALL the judicial laws remained valid (unleess amended by the lawgiver) because the moral law remains valid, (as assumed by Bahnsen and others) is simply not tenable. Calvin, Gillespie and the WA can be demonstrated to argue from a different premise. If Calvin and Gillespie had believed Bahnsen's premise, certain outcomes would have been rejected as illegitimate. Calvin would never have allowed states to alter Mosaic stipulations without divine sanction as he did in Institutes bk 4 ch 20 pp. 15 and Gillespie would not have allowed the magistrate an unbibical forbearance from issuing a Mosaic penalty for a Mosaic crime as he did in Wholesome Severity.

Please provide a citation from Gillespie, if you would; I don't recall the particular passage you're referring to.

I don't have a hard copy of WS so I found the point online which doesn't have page numbers (Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, by George Gillespie)

Gillespie, in the midst of arguing for state enforcement of Mosaic penalties for religious heretics, writes that certain kinds of toleration are acceptable, among which the

…fifth and last is that kind of toleration whereby the Magistrate when it is in the power of his hand to punish and extirpate, yet having to do with such of whom there is good hope either of reducing them by convincing their judgments, or of uniting them to the Church by a safe accommodation of differences, he grants them a supersedeas [forbearance]; or though there be no such ground of hope concerning them, yet while he might crush them with the foot of power, in Christian piety and moderation, he forbears so far as may not be destructive to the peace and right government of the Church, using his coercive power with such a mixture of mercy as creates no mischief to the rest of the Church.
I speak not only of bearing with those who are weak in faith (Rom. 15:1), but of sparing even those who have perverted the faith, so far as the word of God and rules of Christian moderation would have severity tempered with mercy: that is (as has been said) so far as is not destructive to the Church’s peace, nor shakes the foundations of the established form of church government, and no further.

[I do know that he asserts that the Christian magistrate ought to hold to the Judicial Law just as the Jewish magistrate did. He cites this as a parallel instance of the Christian people being bound by the moral law in the same way as the Jews. The only exceptions he makes are those which don't have a moral end; for this he cites Piscator's distinction of Judicials no longer applying, such as Levirate marriage, Jubilee, etc.

Yet if you read the above excerpt that I cited, Gillespie feels free to allow the magistrate a liberty not present in the Mosaic judicial law in a case that does have a moral end. Since the principle that drives Bahnsen's Theonomy allows for no such exceptions, the fact that Gillespie could propose such an alteration is proof that he was not anticipating Bahnsen and using the latter's principle to guide his reasoning.

[It appears that Gillespie's reasoning, as well as Fischer's, includes a presumption of continuity, even as you yourself did here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f124/pr...clusive-psalmody-39215/index2.html#post487897

"Covenant theology mandates continuity unless abrogated" is what you stated.

The point at issue is not whether CT mandates continuity: the point is whether the Mosaic judicials are abrogated. The WCF is clear; they are abrogated as an applicable system of laws but some of them may still be valid if the general equity mandates their application today despite the changed covenantal circumstances.

If Calvin did not follow this argument consistently, I believe that Gillespie was more consistent with this principal, and I would say Bahnsen was seeking to be consistent with this same principal. Were any of them perfect? No. But I think they all operated on the same basic assumption of continuity.

They all operated on the assumption that some Mosaic laws remained valid. The difference between Bahnsen on one hand and Calvin and the WD's on the other is in the differing means by which they determined which laws remained valid.

If someone comes to the conclusion that blasphemers or heretics, or idolaters, or adulterers or revilers, or sodomites or smiters of fathers or mothers, or cursers of fathers or mothers, etc. need not be executed with capital sentence by Christian Magistrates, then such a person is not confessional, and is not in accordance with the mandate of covenant theology, which you beautifully stated in the quotation above.

As you have seen in the excerpt I cited above, Gillespie came to precisely that conclusion. If you study the writings of Covenant Theologians such as Witsius and Brown of Haddington you will discover that each one of these men rejected the idea that all the Mosaic judicials are included in the continuities of covenant theology. Witsius writes:

".… The law of the decalogue was given [Israel]; which as to its substance is one and the same with the law of nature, and binds men as such …. As a peculiar people who had a polity or government suitable to their genius and disposition in the land of Canaan. A republic not so much according to those forms which philosophers have delineated, but which was, in a peculiar manner, a theocracy…God himself holding the reins of government therein, Judges 8:23. Under that view God prescribed them political laws."

(Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, vol. 2. p. 162}.

And Brown writes:

"The judicial law directed the civil managements of the Israelites under God, as their principal governor, with respect to their encampments, marches, wars, inheritances, marriages, punishments, rulers etc. … and is reducible to the correspondent precepts of the moral [law] and never bound any but the Jews, in their national establishment, further than moral equity requires."

"

(John Brown, A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion, Edinburgh, 1796, p. 431.)

 

[Christusregnat]

The context of the statement quoted from "Wholesome Severity" is as follows:

And lest it be thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that the magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress heretics and sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and professed concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their public confessions of faith.

The emboldened words illustrate the point I made previously -- that he argues from their judicial laws to a moral right of the magistrate, or from law to principle; he does not argue from their case laws to modern case laws, or from law to law.

I believe that we may be talking past each other, and I'm sure I am to blame.

Here is what Gillespie confidently asserts:

To conclude therefore this point, though other judicial or forensical laws concerning the punishments of sins against the moral law may, yea, must be allowed of in Christian Republics and Kingdoms; provided always, they are not contrary or contradictory to God's own judicial laws; yet I fear not to hold with Junius, De Politiæ Mosis, that he who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

Gillespie, as well as Junius, may safely be asserted to be "theonomists". I do not confine "theonomy" to the body of writings written by Greg Bahnsen.

The point Gillespie is making is that this opinion that the Judicial law's use in the extirpation of heresy is not a private opinion, but one witnessed to in our public confessions. Further, as you are undoubtedly aware, he uses the judicial law's teaching as a justification for 1. the duty of the magistrate to punish heretics, 2. the degrees of punishment prescribed within the judicials being applicable to the christian magistrate (both demanding certain punishments and forbidding excessive punishment).

In summary, I would say that theonomy may be defined as follows:

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

I fear not to hold this; do you?

Cheers,

 

[R. Scott Clark]

One very important word in WCF 19 gets overlooked in this debate:

"expired."

 

[Christusregnat]

One very important word in WCF 19 gets overlooked in this debate:

"expired."

Dr. Clark,

Thanks for chiming in!

Here is Gillespie's view of expiration and general equity:

It will be asked, "But how does it appear that these or any other judicial laws of Moses do at all appertain to us, as rules to guide us in like cases?" I shall wish him who scruples this, to read Piscator's appendix to his observations upon the 21-23 chapters of Exodus, where he excellently disputes this question, whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answers by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations: but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic. But then he explains this distinction, that by things mutable, and proper to the Jews, he understands the emancipation of an Hebrew servant or handmaid in the seventh year, a man's marrying his brother's wife and raising up seed to his brother, the forgiving of debts at the Jubilee, marrying with one of the same tribe, and if there be any other like to these; also ceremonial trespasses, as touching a dead body, etc. But things immutable, and common to all nations, are the laws concerning moral trespass, sins against the moral law, as murder, adultery, theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, striking of parents. Now that the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe these judicial laws of Moses, which appoint the punishments of sins against the moral law, he proves by these reasons etc.

Very important term, indeed. Also, in Gillespie's day this was a common distinction, and not liable to the misconstruction put upon the confession by anti-theonomists.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

In summary, I would say that theonomy may be defined as follows:

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

I fear not to hold this; do you?

I hold to the "point" of what he says. The point he makes after the portion you have quoted, is, "And so much for the first argument from the Law of God." What was the first argument? That magistrates may punish heretics. He has already qualified in what sense he holds Piscator's view: "where he excellently disputes this question, whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answers by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations: but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic." This is just another way of saying that the general equity applies, but not the judicial law as such.

 

[Christusregnat]

In summary, I would say that theonomy may be defined as follows:

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

I fear not to hold this; do you?

I hold to the "point" of what he says. The point he makes after the portion you have quoted, is, "And so much for the first argument from the Law of God." What was the first argument? That magistrates may punish heretics. He has already qualified in what sense he holds Piscator's view: "where he excellently disputes this question, whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answers by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations: but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic." This is just another way of saying that the general equity applies, but not the judicial law as such.

Amen! This is what theonomists believe, and this is what the confession teaches. The portion you quoted serves to make the point that I have previously made: obstinate heretics, idolaters, adulterers, strikers of parents, sodomites, sabbath-breakers, and any other moral trespass is punishable by death, just as the judicials mandate.

If by "not the judicial law as such" you mean, not as mutably delivered to the Jewish magistrate, I don't think I know any theonomists that will disagree.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

If by "not the judicial law as such" you mean, not as mutably delivered to the Jewish magistrate, I don't think I know any theonomists that will disagree.

The problem is that you are presenting the usual theonomist line -- law as law is binding on all nations; but then when challenged they retreat to their safe shelter -- law as principle is binding on all nations. The position is theonomy, God's law as over against man's law. But clearly Wholesome Severity allows a great deal of scope to man to make laws to govern the nations. As such, it is not strictly theonomist, in the way that word is used in the intramural debate.

 

[Christusregnat]

If by "not the judicial law as such" you mean, not as mutably delivered to the Jewish magistrate, I don't think I know any theonomists that will disagree.

The problem is that you are presenting the usual theonomist line -- law as law is binding on all nations; but then when challenged they retreat to their safe shelter -- law as principle is binding on all nations. The position is theonomy, God's law as over against man's law. But clearly Wholesome Severity allows a great deal of scope to man to make laws to govern the nations. As such, it is not strictly theonomist, in the way that word is used in the intramural debate.

Gillespie believed that idolaters, smiters of parents, those that seduce to false gods, blasphemers, adulterers, and any others should be executed:

1. Because the Judicials say so

2. Becaues the New Testament nowhere overturns these laws

If you would like to call that law = principal, I think you may be engaging in word games. Making good and necessary consequences from the law does not mean that the law has been turned into a principal vs. a law. Moreover, the Judicials are given as case-law examples, and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of ever single sin to be punished with death.

If you say that theonomy requires a wooden biblicism that doesn't allow for changing circumstances to apply unchanging laws, then you are merely engaged in evasion.

Also, as an aside, I believe a plain reading of Gillespie will make indisputable that he argues from Scripture alone to prove that the magistrate must enforce the penal sanctions in the Mosaic Judicials. He isn't looking to another source of law, as may be seen here:

(1.) If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the Magistrate to appoint what punishments he pleases. But this is not arbitrary to him, for he is the minister of God, (Rom. 13:4) and the judgment is the Lord's (Deut. 1:7; 2 Chron. 19:6). And if the Magistrate is keeper of both tables, he must keep them in such manner as God has delivered them to him....Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), and what shall the Christian Magistrate learn more from those judicial laws, but the will of God to be his rule in like cases? The ceremonial law was written for our learning, that we might know the fulfilling of all those types, but the judicial law was not typical....(6.) Do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31; Matt. 5:16). How shall Christian Magistrates glorify God more than by observing God's own laws, as most just, and such as they cannot make better?...(7.) Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Now when the Christian Magistrate punishes sins against the moral law, if he does this in faith and in assurance of pleasing God, he must have his assurance from the Word of God, for faith can build upon no other foundation; it is the Word which must assure the conscience: God has commanded such a thing, therefore it is my duty to do it; God has not forbidden such a thing; therefore I am free to do it. But the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses. This therefore must be the surest prop and stay to the conscience of the Christian Magistrate.

These are not my reasons (if it be not a word or two added by way of explaining and strengthening), but the substance of Piscator's reasons. Unto which I add, 1. Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament for abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to show some Scripture for it.

Cheers,

 

[MW]

I take it the rhetoric is just that, a forceful way of making the main point of his argument, that the magistrate is bound to punish heretics. There is no basis for deducing a law for law, penology for penology approach, when he has made it clear that it is the moral right he is arguing for, and that the commonwealth is free to make laws not contradicting God's law. In other words,, he does not demand a "regulative principle" of civil magistracy. In the 111 Propositions he specifically limits the power of the magistrate to the external man (Prop 45), and in Aaron's Rod he clearly states (p. 2), "some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, &c., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate," but for his part Gillespie says "I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with;" hence he specifically distinguishes his position from a theonomic position, while at the same time showing some sympathy with the attempt to see more that is normative in the Mosaic law than what is usually allowed.

 

[MW]

Also, as an aside, I believe a plain reading of Gillespie will make indisputable that he argues from Scripture alone to prove that the magistrate must enforce the penal sanctions in the Mosaic Judicials.

In the 111 Propositions, he specifically states "the political or civil power is grounded upon the law of nature itself, and for that cause it is common to infidels with Christians" (Prop. 44).

 

[Christusregnat]

I take it the rhetoric is just that, a forceful way of making the main point of his argument, that the magistrate is bound to punish heretics. There is no basis for deducing a law for law, penology for penology approach, when he has made it clear that it is the moral right he is arguing for, and that the commonwealth is free to make laws not contradicting God's law. In other words,, he does not demand a "regulative principle" of civil magistracy. In the 111 Propositions he specifically limits the power of the magistrate to the external man (Prop 45), and in Aaron's Rod he clearly states (p. 2), "some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, &c., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate," but for his part Gillespie says "I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with;" hence he specifically distinguishes his position from a theonomic position, while at the same time showing some sympathy with the attempt to see more that is normative in the Mosaic law than what is usually allowed.

I don't take Gillespie to be setting up a "regulative principal". What he does do, at least, is set up the basic covenant-theology structure as applied to the Judicials: stands unless abolished. Whether he does this in the 111 Propositions is a matter for my further research, and I thank you for directing me to that work.

If Gillespie was not theonomic, it is unclear from Wholesome Severity. If he was not, however, I think it was a matter of lacking in consistency, rather than a fundamental disagreement in principal.

The Gillespie of Wholesome Severity argues for Judicial punishments being applicable today. We may quibble over words, but the basic point of WS is that whoever was punishable by death under the Judicials is punishable by death now, and whoever was not punishable by death under the Judicials is not punishable by death now. Do you hold to this? I don't think it rhetoric; it is a basic proposition.

Cheers,

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 05:08:37 EST-----

Also, as an aside, I believe a plain reading of Gillespie will make indisputable that he argues from Scripture alone to prove that the magistrate must enforce the penal sanctions in the Mosaic Judicials.

In the 111 Propositions, he specifically states "the political or civil power is grounded upon the law of nature itself, and for that cause it is common to infidels with Christians" (Prop. 44).

What is the definition of the law of nature Gillespie uses? If he defines this as John Locke, then our discussion may get interesting. If he defines it as the Marquis de Sade later would, then I think he would be an atheist. If he held with many Reformed theologians that the law of nature is the same as the law God revealed in the 10 Commandments, then he is a theonomist. Man's laws are to be judicial exegesis of the 10 commandments, bound by God's restrains on the excessive severity of man, and pushed forth to the severity demanded by God for those who are unwilling to punish as God has said.

Again, a magistrate making good and necessary deductions from the judicials is not anti-theonomic. It is what the Judicials themselves demand. Therefore, if Gillespie defines law of nature as 10 commandments, he is a theonomist.

Cheers,

Adam