The confessional consequences of denying the civil application of the first table of the law

[Contra_Mundum]

Compare this to American law. Endless laws, oftentimes unclear, ambiguous, intrusive, expensive, partial, sometimes excessive, and penalties attached to most of them. There's no end to the felonies you can commit. Haven't even touched state laws.

Back in 1982,Criminal law itself was 23,000 pages, expanded 51 sections, and included 3,000 crimes. That's not including civil law.

Fast forward 38 years later, and ask if it is better.

In Israel, you knew what you would get for what, and why. No difficulty in knowing your duty.

This is a naive read of Israelite society and law. As soon as the Law-Covenant was promulgated, we find the books of Moses showing that Law applied, elaborated, and the setting of precedent. The idea that the people of God were simply governed by a set of 613 rules and regulations for over a thousand years is just... wrong.

The Law-Covenant is analogous to the Constitution. Upon that foundation rested a whole body of law, some of which developed into the Pharisee's religious tradition; but along with their pedantry went the inevitable growth of a national legal corpus. It is incomprehensible---especially once the monarchy was instituted, but surely even before that--that the system of judges functioned for 400yrs as each one of them "winged it" on his/her own.

Once there was a central institution of justice under the king, the demand for consistency of law over his whole realm, and over many generations (in Judah under a succession of relatively peaceful transfer of administrations covering 500yrs) would have forced the scribes to codify countless laws. Hopefully, there was also some effort at reduction and streamlining, crafting of legal perfections, even as the number of laws inevitably mounted up.

I appreciate Bayou Huguenot pointing out several times here on the PB that water-rights legislation had to have been a well-known body of law for Israel, just as it had to be in practically any ANE society. And the Law-Covenant does not once address this indispensable matter. It is not possible to conceive of Israelite society functioning without such rules, unless we think they did nothing but feud over ownership and access for a thousand years.

So, the proliferation of laws is an issue for ANY state to deal with. There should be periodic reviews of the laws of any land, and the rectifying of the code for the sake of justice. And not having fixed that in the USA for too long, and the metastasizing of administrative laws and penalties along with the criminal-law bloat--these are great problems which really do face the citizens today.

But they aren't solved by some mythical reversion to a "biblical law" standard. If the USA were pared back to the Constitution all alone, possibly society would cease to function. Thankfully, the States also have bodies of law that already function over several parts of the citizenry, so a breakdown is not so likely on that supposition.

Law is a function of power and authority. Who makes the rules? A corrupt people produces corrupt legislators, judges, and executives. Those corrupt people seek greater extensions of their power (and exemptions for their own interests) by imposing increasing constraints upon the liberties of people who were once free to do or not do, as they had the lawful opportunity. And no opportunities were "owed" to anyone.

But that opening closes, once opportunity is something the state--or more accurately its managers in the name of the whole People--doles out, to friends and to bribes, etc. And that is a problem that ancient Israel had, and that every nation has. Because of sin, not specifically because of a particular Constitution or lack thereof.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Well with all due respect, and no what you mean (I think it's silly too) when someone's viewpoint if it becomes reality it will affect someone's lively hood it is silly to punt the problem to someone else. But that's just me. But it seems that that is the best I'll get so I'll drop it.

By silly James I don’t mean to imply silliness to you or your quest here, poor choice of a word. But what I was trying to get at is, consider that someone of the stature and station of Turretin engaged in the kind of practical thinking you’re after, but only so far as to put forth broad principles (which have been posted by both @PuritanCovenanter and @Reformed Covenanter). I don’t guess those two smart guys or anyone else speaking up on the PB for establishments feel much qualified to go beyond Turretin on that.

Answering your queries with specifics only seems to inflame and disturb, and ramp up the incredulous questions, and understandably so. We are just not there and don’t know what “being there” would look and feel like. I don’t think a true Reformation that included an establishment (incl upholding of the first table) would be just a repetition of the past? that’s not how God has seemed to work in history.

Again, thank the Lord that we have preserved in books and publications so much of prior Reformation history (thanks @NaphtaliPress for your part played!). If and when Reforming and establishment times come again, there will be (I pray) this wealth of godly material for godly men to pour over and pray over and learn from.

 

[Solparvus]

This is a naive read of Israelite society and law. As soon as the Law-Covenant was promulgated, we find the books of Moses showing that Law applied, elaborated, and the setting of precedent. The idea that the people of God were simply governed by a set of 613 rules and regulations for over a thousand years is just... wrong.

The Law-Covenant is analogous to the Constitution. Upon that foundation rested a whole body of law, some of which developed into the Pharisee's religious tradition; but along with their pedantry went the inevitable growth of a national legal corpus. It is incomprehensible---especially once the monarchy was instituted, but surely even before that--that the system of judges functioned for 400yrs as each one of them "winged it" on his/her own.

Once there was a central institution of justice under the king, the demand for consistency of law over his whole realm, and over many generations (in Judah under a succession of relatively peaceful transfer of administrations covering 500yrs) would have forced the scribes to codify countless laws. Hopefully, there was also some effort at reduction and streamlining, crafting of legal perfections, even as the number of laws inevitably mounted up.

I appreciate Bayou Huguenot pointing out several times here on the PB that water-rights legislation had to have been a well-known body of law for Israel, just as it had to be in practically any ANE society. And the Law-Covenant does not once address this indispensable matter. It is not possible to conceive of Israelite society functioning without such rules, unless we think they did nothing but feud over ownership and access for a thousand years.

So, the proliferation of laws is an issue for ANY state to deal with. There should be periodic reviews of the laws of any land, and the rectifying of the code for the sake of justice. And not having fixed that in the USA for too long, and the metastasizing of administrative laws and penalties along with the criminal-law bloat--these are great problems which really do face the citizens today.

But they aren't solved by some mythical reversion to a "biblical law" standard. If the USA were pared back to the Constitution all alone, possibly society would cease to function. Thankfully, the States also have bodies of law that already function over several parts of the citizenry, so a breakdown is not so likely on that supposition.

Law is a function of power and authority. Who makes the rules? A corrupt people produces corrupt legislators, judges, and executives. Those corrupt people seek greater extensions of their power (and exemptions for their own interests) by imposing increasing constraints upon the liberties of people who were once free to do or not do, as they had the lawful opportunity. And no opportunities were "owed" to anyone.

But that opening closes, once opportunity is something the state--or more accurately its managers in the name of the whole People--doles out, to friends and to bribes, etc. And that is a problem that ancient Israel had, and that every nation has. Because of sin, not specifically because of a particular Constitution or lack thereof.

Thank you. I've got little time, but let me at least give me affirmation to your assessment of my words.

I'm also writing as a front row seat witness to the exasperating complications of our tax code. More later if possible. But thank you for your help with perspective.

 

[jwright82]

By silly James I don’t mean to imply silliness to you or your quest here, poor choice of a word. But what I was trying to get at is, consider that someone of the stature and station of Turretin engaged in the kind of practical thinking you’re after, but only so far as to put forth broad principles (which have been posted by both @PuritanCovenanter and @Reformed Covenanter). I don’t guess those two smart guys or anyone else speaking up on the PB for establishments feel much qualified to go beyond Turretin on that.

Answering your queries with specifics only seems to inflame and disturb, and ramp up the incredulous questions, and understandably so. We are just not there and don’t know what “being there” would look and feel like. I don’t think a true Reformation that included an establishment (incl upholding of the first table) would be just a repetition of the past? that’s not how God has seemed to work in history.

Again, thank the Lord that we have preserved in books and publications so much of prior Reformation history (thanks @NaphtaliPress for your part played!). If and when Reforming and establishment times come again, there will be (I pray) this wealth of godly material for godly men to pour over and pray over and learn from.

I'm not inflamed about anything. I personally would not hold a point of view that was full of problems and my only solution was "someone else will figure it out".